Radon Thoughts

Hp 2420 Windows 7 64 bit driver issue

2011-11-30T14:58:00.000-08:00

Ok, so tried to install the driver for a networked HP 2420 installed on a Windows Server 2003 (PLC6) onto a Windows 7 64bit. The system said something to the effect that no driver could be found and "windows cannot find suitable driver". So what you do is this.

Download the "HP Universal Print Driver for Windows PCL6" and install it on the system. Install it as a universal device, not as specific printer. Then in the printers folder, double click the printer icon. In there you should be able to specify which printer to use and even install it as an icon in the Printers/Faxes folder for use in other applications.

Email me if you have issues with this printer specifically.

More on Christian Liberty

2011-09-09T13:36:00.000-07:00

I was just reviewing Romans 14 with my Bible study group, it was evident that the point Paul is making is that while we as Christians have the liberty to eat/drink whatever we want, we should curb that liberty for the sake of the weaker brother. The weaker brother, in Rom 14, is a Jew who thinks eating pork, or foods sacrificed to idols is improper because of the Jewish law.

Therefore, as stronger believers, it was imperative for the Gentiles not to look down on their fellow believers for their choice to honor God by not partaking. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians, Paul encourages believers not to worry about foods sacrificed to idols, but, if a fellow believer is troubled by it, to abstain in their presence. So the basic theme of Paul's writing in these instances is that the one stronger in the faith in regards to liberty, should voluntarily, and out of love, abstain in those instances.

Paul, however, has a completely different message regarding those who TEACH abstinence of foods and beverages God has made holy. Paul does not tell Christians to lovingly put up with or curb freedoms for those who mishandle the Word so as to teach holiness comes through abstinence, rather he calls such the "teachings of demons" and says those who follow them are "depart[ing] from the faith". In Col 2 Paul exhorts: "Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism..." and says "These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh."

Paul's point cannot be clearer. In regards to fellow believers who are troubled by the holiness of specific foods, drinks, and activities not expressly forbidden by Scripture, those who are stronger in the faith are to lovingly forego their own liberty. Paul's writing, however, went to the entire church, weak as well as strong. They all read what he wrong and must recognize that indeed God made these things for us to enjoy, and that the weaker position is not one intended for believers to remain in, but to grow in strength in the faith.

But in regards to teachers who use their stature and pulpits as a means by which to teach and enforce abstinence from foods God intended as a blessing to believers, Paul did not preach patience and compassion, but scorn and separation. For those who teach that the discussion of, use of, celebration of foods and beverages God gave us as a blessing to enjoy are somehow detrimental to the faith or the witness of Christians, for those who teach ahistorically that the wine in scripture was "watered down" or less potent of that today, for those who teach that the expression and celebration of our liberty from the bondage of man made rules and regulations is somehow evil in itself, Paul doesn't tell us to lovingly endure, or even put up with it for a moment.

Paul in fact tells Timothy to not mince words: "If you point these things out to the brothers and sisters, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus...

New "Evolutionary" Find

2011-09-08T16:40:00.000-07:00

Scientists have recently hailed the discovery of some fossil hominids in Africa, dubbed, "Australopithecus sediba".

The species is known from at least four partial skeletons discovered in the Malapa Fossil Site at the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site in South Africa, one a juvenile male (MH1, the holotype), an adult female (MH2), at least one other adult and an 18-month-old infant. - Wikipedia

Keep in mind that a 'holotype' is "a single physical example (or illustration) of an organism, known to have been used when the species (or lower-ranked taxon) was formally described." Thus the most complete and clear example is a "juvenile male". Here's what the critter looked like:

The cranium of Malapa hominid 1 (MH1) from South Africa,
named "Karabo". The combined fossil remains of this juvenile
male is designated as the holotype for Australopithecus sediba.

There is much debate within the scientific community as to the placement of this creature within the supposed time-line of hominid evolution, but the thought is that this is a predecessor to modern homo sapiens.

Notice, the angle and setting of the skull above, this skull was from a crushed specimen and glued back together and photographed at that most humble angle. This skull is also of a juvenile, which is important regarding the morphology of the creature as it ages.

Now consider what is thought to be one of sebida's closest known relatives:

Australopithecus afarensis recreation

Australopithecus afarensis of the famed "Lucy" afarensis' is one of the most famous of these kinds of creatures. No complete skulls of afarensis have been found, the above photo is a recreation, however partials have been unearthed.

Australopithecus afarensis

Note the wide and high brow ridge, the wide cheeks and the hint of a worn-down saggital crest (the tall, thin bony portion on the top of the skull) that is missing completely from the recreation.

It's evident from these fossils that afarensis would be quite similar in appearance to modern apes, chimps specifically.

Now compare the above fossils with the following images:

Pongo pygmaeus - juvenile male

Pongo pygmaeus - juvenile female

These two skulls are plastic copies of juvenile creatures as well. Much more familiar are the shapes and morphology of these creatures, nearly human in appearance, in fact. Notice also just how different these two skulls are from one another.

Now consider the similarities with the above skulls to that of Homo sapiens:

These are ancient Homo sapiens skulls, but they certainly show much more similarity with the photos immediately above as compared to the others at the top, and yet, the photos immediately above these are of Pongo pygmaeus, the Orangutan. In it's adult form, the Orangutan's skull structure looks incredibly different and much more similar to the best Australopithecus afarensis example:

Pongo pygmaeus - Male Orangutan

My point is this: When looking at images of hominid ancestors, take into consideration the age of the individual when considering what it looked like. Do not accept multiple-specimen recreations verbatim as describing the species as a whole. Given science's difficulty exactly defining species, the rush to declare "new human ancestors" seems intended only to serve furthering evolutionary theories, rather than provide good science.

Keep these things in mind when reading the rabid comments of atheists touting this new find as evidence against Biblical creation.

Rev. Paul McCain and Louis Berkhof

2011-09-03T00:24:00.000-07:00

On his November, 2010 blog post titled "Where Calvinism Goes So Deadly Wrong with the Law of God", Lutheran Paul McCain claims to quote from Louis Berkof's Systematic Theology, saying:

“Calvinists view the Law as necessary in securing justification. To secure is to establish, to make sure one’s status. The Law-keeping of sanctification is the basis on which the justified person receives benefits from the relationship he or she has with God. Calvinists say that “holiness, or conformity to the divine law, is the indispensable condition for securing favor, attaining peace of conscience, and enjoying fellowship with God” (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Eerdmans, 1941, p. 472).

I can find no evidence of this quote. It's not in my copy of Berkhov, it's not anywhere on the Internet, and others (in the comment box) also question the quote. Unfortunately it's been picked up by the official LCMS q/a site and a few other sites quoting the LCMS site.

The quote above is completely incompatible with Berhof's own confession of faith as with Reformed theology in general. It is, of course, completely in line with McCain's constant claims about Reformed theology, that we think we're justified by the law and so forth.

McCain is well known for his anti-Calvinist rhetoric. I've sparred with him in the past, as has Dr. White and others. He's well known for quoting things without checking sources and generally shooting his mouth off.

I believe this quote to be spurious. And I encourage McCain to provide direct physical evidence of this quote from original sources or publicly retract it, and see to it that the LCMS site also takes it down.

What do Calvinists actually believe about the Law of God and it's role in our lives?

Heidelberg Catechism

115. Q. Why, then, will God have the ten commandments preached so strictly, since in this life no one can keep them?

A. First, that all our life long we may learn more and more to know our sinful nature, and so become the more earnest in seeking remission of sins and righteousness in Christ; second, that we may constantly endeavor, and pray to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, to be renewed more and more after the image of God, till after this life we arrive at the goal of perfection.

Why Confessions matter...

2011-08-29T10:37:00.000-07:00

@JohnPiper God humbles Charismatics by making their children Calvinists; and Calvinists by making their children speak in tongues.

"In biblical times, wine was necessary for health reasons.... The result was a greatly diluted wine that had virtually no potential for making anyone drunk. This tendency to emblazon oneself with symbols of carnal indulgence as if they were valid badges of spiritual identity is one of the more troubling aspects of the YRR movement's trademark restlessness." - John MacArthur

"On occasion I see things...it's the supernatural. It's a whole other realm. It's like 'The Matrix', you can take the blue pill, you can take the red pill. You go into this whole other world, and that's the way it works....I've seen women raped, I've seen children molested..." - Mark Driscoll

Belgic Confession
Article 7
We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe, unto salvation, is sufficiently taught therein. For, since the whole manner of worship, which God requires of us, is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul saith. For, since it is forbidden, to add unto or take away anything from the word of God, it doth thereby evidently appear, that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects. Neither do we consider of equal value any writing of men, however holy these men may have been, with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, for the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore, we reject with all our hearts, whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible rule, which the apostles have taught us, saying, Try the spirits whether they are of God. Likewise, if there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house.

What did the folks in the Old Testament do to false prophets? Oh, yeah... they stoned them.

Bank of America - Loan Modification - Process Hell

2011-08-15T19:47:00.000-07:00

Disclaimer: We incurred other debts while buying the home, however, we're on track to have those paid off within a couple years.

We were current on our mortgages until Bank of America told us they couldn't discuss a modification until we were behind. I do not believe in making covenants, promises, or contracts with people and then reneging on them... however my loan was made with Countrywide Financial, no one discussed Bank of America's purchase of my mortgage. No one discussed anything about our mortgage during any of this time, unless we demanded to know it. Feel free to email me to debate the ethics of this situation, however, I believe this loan was made in bad faith, by corrupt individuals intent on collectively scamming the American public. Bank of America, in fact, was bailed out by the American taxpayer for billions of dollars... this is what the American taxpayer can expect in return:

In 2007 my wife and I bought what was going to be our dream home. A modest little 2 bed, 2 bath house in the Central Valley of California, not far from her aging parents.
At the time we bought the home the market had dropped a bit, and I felt it was the right time to buy.

We paid roughly $440,000 for the home, everything included, in May, 2007.

It didn't take long for our investment to vanish. By early 2009 our home was estimated at $140,000. Our neighborhood had turned over twice, with all our neighbors having been replaced by new neighbors. We believed that we were doing the "right thing" by continuing to pay mortgage, but felt we should investigate loan modification options.

When we first called Bank of America (who bought the loan from the defunct Countrywide), they told us that we were current on our loan and that they could not even start the loan modification process until we were behind on the loan. That's right, as good folks, doing what was right, scraping by to pay the mortgage... they couldn't help us or even talk to us about it.

We stopped paying our first mortgage (we have a smaller, second mortgage), and began the loan mod process with Bank of America. Our first round with them was difficult, sending them documents several times because "they didn't get it".

Our neighbors suggested we hire a company they knew of to help, they claimed this company saved them a lot of money. I was against it, but my wife begged, so we paid a company $2500 to work with Bank of America to help through the process of the loan mod. This company promised to "get the loan modified or your money back". Well, a year later, that company and the law firm they were working with have vanished. They did do a lot of footwork, so I'm not totally unhappy about it, but we're out $2500.

Meanwhile, Bank of America robo-called us, daily, asking for money. The first few times I called back I was connected with a teen-ager who asked me to pay my mortgage. He asked "how much can you pay today", and I replied, "Well if I become current on my loan, the loan modification process stops, right?" About that time, they'd look up our details (why in the heck they didn't have them already available, who knows?) and tell us that we were under review and let us go, only to call us again, sometimes twice a day, the following day.

The American Dream - or not... our home, 2007

In the middle of 2010 we were denied our first loan modification as we were not "making enough money." My wife and I received substantial raises that year and our loan went back under review. We were then denied a modification, they told us, because we "made too much money."

We went again under review, providing them the same paperwork, over and over and over either because they needed updates or because they lost it. (You'd think a company that makes billions of dollars would be more careful with customer's paper work, but alas.)

Finally, in August of 2011 we were told that we'd exhausted our loan modification possibilities. President Obama's "making home affordable" plan wasn't able to make home affordable, and Bank of America seemed intent on losing money on a short sale or foreclosure.

At no time during this process did anyone from Bank of American explain, discuss, negotiate, or even mention what was going on apart from vague references to the modification. We often received request for documentation after it's supposed due date, and, as I stated, had to re-fax items they claimed to have lost.

We're considering our options, hoping to hear from Bank of America as to how to get the short sale process going, so we can move on with the next chapter of our life. We were told in a letter from Bank of America that even coming current now with the loan will not save the home!

Consider this last tidbit... if not for the Home Foreclosure and Debt Consolidation Act of 2008 we would have to pay taxes on the loss the lender took on the short sale or foreclosure auction of the home. That means in all likelihood we'd have to pay income taxes on the forgiven debt, of about $300,000. In fact, if the house is not foreclosed or sold by 12/31/2012, we will have to pay taxes on the forgiven debt... think about that.


The Happy Homeowners - 2007

UPDATE 8/16/2011

I spoke with Bank of America today, after tweeting my displeasure, they contacted me directly.

Here's what's up. Since my wife and I together make enough money to scrape by and pay our mortgage as it stands, Bank of America won't modify the loan.

That is, even though our home lost 69% of it's value in 2 years, Bank of America's goal with loan modification is to make MONTHLY PAYMENTS affordable for the home owner, NOT to deal with the fact that the home's value is gone.

I understand this viewpoint, if it were the other way around (say, it GAINED 60% of it's value), no one would be complaining. That said, the fact that my neighbors bought the SAME EXACT HOUSE for 1/3 the cost, less than 2 years after we bought ours, is no concern of theirs.

We still have to talk to their short sale department to see if a short sale with eliminate both first and second mortgages...

UPDATE 8/17/2011

I spoke with Denise Hayes in Bank of America's Short Sale department and she explained the process to me:

Get a real estate agent
List property
Get offer for property
Agent sends offer to Bank of America
Loan approval process for buyers
Walk away...

Denise did not mention if we had to qualify or anything of that matter. She said there was no reason would not qualify (this remains to be seen.) She said the basis of the sale was on the offers, not on our qualifications.

Short Sale concerns:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124104990739271023.html
http://homebuying.about.com/od/4closureshortsales/qt/021208_BuyShort.htm
http://homebuying.about.com/od/shortsale/f/Will-The-Bank-Approve-My-Short-Sale.htm

UPDATE 1/25/2012

A few weeks (in December) after our agent placed the sign on our lawn, a sign appeared on our door stating the house was going under "trustee's sale" (read: auction). They STAPLED this to our door. I contacted our agent who didn't seem concerned, she told us to give her the papers. I tweeted again to @BofA_Help, they got right back to me and explained that even though we were approved for the short sale process, BofA still moves forward with their foreclosure process.(!!!) Even though THEY told us to short sale, they may still foreclose and auction the house. They said, however, that this was normal and that our agent needed to request an extension so that the auction would be postponed.

Since then, we've had two buyers attempt to purchase our home in short sale. The first fell through when Bank of America denied the sale. The second fell through just last week when the buyers were unable to get financing (what a difference from 2008.)

We were nearly ready to pack and move when we found out that last bit of information. So we're back to showing the house and hoping someone gets financing and BofA approves the sale.

Keep in mind, our home went from $440,000 (our purchase price) to $140,000 (the current appraised value of the home.) We make enough money to own the home at $140,000 easily, but BofA is not interested in helping us keep the home. With that in mind feast your eyes upon this image:

These are a few of the 200+ homes in our immediate area in some part of the foreclosure process. The green dots are foreclosures where the people are still in the homes, the blue are homes in the auction process (including ours) and the red dots are bank-owned homes.

If this is surprising you should see the map of 2000+ homes in Stockton, California in foreclosure.

Remember, Bank of America (and other banks) used taxpayer money to buy our home mortgage and others from the defunct Countrywide for pennies on the dollar...

My suggestions for newly minted Calvinists...

2011-07-25T11:58:00.000-07:00

There was a time, over a decade ago, when someone introduced me to the Doctrines of Grace. For a few years after that moment, the amazing truth of God's exhaustive sovereignty was all I sought to talk about. When the church I was attending made it clear that Calvinism was unwelcome, I left and found a church where the pastor was Calvinistic, soon he was out and the Purpose Driven movement took root, I fought what I saw was (and truly is) an affront to God's Word and sovereignty and eventually was pushed to the periphery of the church. My wife and I sought a new church and found one that was confessional, and true to the Word of God.

Given these experiences, I have a few suggestions for those folks who find themselves newly exposed to the concepts of Calvinism, the Reformed understanding of the faith and the Doctrines of Grace in general.

One caveat... most of these points refer to where you are NOW. The intention is to get you solid food, grow you in the faith, and prepare you for your purpose in the economy of God.

Realize there is more to Reformed theology then just TULIP. - Reformed theology covers the gamut of theological concepts from soteriology (the understanding of how salvation occurs) to eschatology (the end times.) Don't be so focused on TULIP that you miss the foundations for it.
Beware the desire for crusade - You may feel compelled to reform your Arminian or Purpose-Driven megachurch. RESIST THE URGE. While your intention may be good, your methods and understanding of God's plan and purpose is probably muddled. I recommend discussing Calvinism with your elders/pastors and if they're opposed to it lovingly and calmly notify them that you intend to seek membership elsewhere. Put a damper on your desire to fight or argue until you are firmly established and being fed the Gospel weekly.
Do find a solid, confessional Reformed church. -Try here, here , here or here. Your initial desire once you leave your old church will be to find a Reformed or Calvinistic church that fits your chosen worship style etc. I recommend getting out of your comfort zone, visit a confessionally Reformed church. Notice the traditions therein and feel free to ask an elder or pastor after the service why they do church the way they do. You may find the hymns stuffy, the service rigid, the prayers long... but there are probably good, Biblical reasons why the church does what it does. Since you're on this quest to conform to a more Biblical position, perhaps there are other areas of theology that you might need to likewise conform.
Read, Read, Read - There is a vast treasury of Reformed knowledge and tradition freely available. Do not be afraid to explore concepts outside of your current position. If you're a Baptist, read paedobaptist literature to understand their position, it will help you defend your own. Likewise, if you're a Dispensationalist, read as to why Covenantal Amillennialists believe what they believe.
LOVE - You may find yourself debating everyone. Temper this urge. Remember that you are to explain the truth IN LOVE. It is hard to show love when you're yelling at someone. Be aware that what you now believe is completely foreign to most folks, and it will require supernatural intervention for them to accept it. Use the "Columbo method" in discussion, ask questions about passages of Scripture, be slow to interject. Learn to listen.
Avoid debates on minor issues. - It's fine to discuss, it's fine to debate, but avoid meaningless debates. Don't debate atheists on minutia, give them the Gospel and move on. Recognize that no matter how good your arguments are, how sound your logic, how eloquent your message... unless the Spirit of God opens their heart, they will not, and cannot understand or believe what you're saying. The only means by which they can come to understanding is through the clear proclamation of the Gospel, and that should be your primary intent. There are times and places for public debate and even those well gifted for it, right after you change positions is not that time.

I'm sure there are more, and others will add some. Think about this and let me know what you think.

Ergun Caner's past catches up with him again.

2011-06-22T17:39:00.001-07:00

You can't forgive what wasn't repented of, Brent.

Plumbing Repair in Sacramento

2011-06-01T15:36:00.000-07:00

I just went live with a great plumbing site for some plumbers in Sacramento who offer HVAC service and more. Ace plumbing also has trenchless pipeline service and more, check them out.

Moving text in an LI while leaving background image alone.

2011-05-29T15:32:00.000-07:00

I recently needed to move the text in an li to the left and down, while leaving the background image alone.

Here's the css:

nav ul li {
width:136px;
height:81px;
color:#FFF;
float:left;
font-size:.9em;
}
nav ul li blockquote {
width:50px;
margin-left:78px;
margin-top:25px;
}
.homeButton {
background:url(/images/home_up.gif) no-repeat;
}
.homeButton a:hover, .homeButton:hover {
background:url(/images/home_down.gif) no-repeat;
}

And here's the HTML:

< ul >
< li class="homeButton" >
Home< / blockquote > < / li > ...
I'm moving single line text down 30px; while double-line text only 25px;

Notice that I'm using < blockquote >to move the text around... now need to add the links. Wish me luck. ;)

Acts 2 - The blessing of the promise of Abraham... the Holy Spirit

2011-05-23T23:31:00.000-07:00

I have discussed the nature of the promise of the Spirit in Acts 2 with some folks in the #prosapologian chat room. One person in particular made the claim that the promise that Peter mentions in Acts 2 "isn't the Abrahamic promise in any way, nor is the children referring to Abraham's children". The problem here is that the Bible clearly teaches the opposite.

14But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. 15For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:
17 "'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
18even on my male servants and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.
19And I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke;
20 the sun shall be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood,
before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day.
21And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.'

There are some important things about this passage to notice.

Firstly Peter is addressing "men of Judea" and all who dwell in Jerusalem, later he addresses "men of Israel". Peter's sermon is specifically directed toward the Jews and Jewish converts in the audience. Peter, at this point, doesn't have Gentiles in view or recognize that the promise of salvation extends to them outside of Judaism. While it is true that Peter is quoting Joel, the context is strictly within the boundaries of Israel, thus the quote is covenantal in scope. Notice what the quote says:

your sons and your daughters shall prophesy...
your young men shall see visions...
your old men shall dream dreams...
even on my male servants and female servants...

The actual passage in Joel says "your male servants...", the context here is federal household relationship within the covenant of Abraham. There is simply no way that Peter, a devout Jew would be dichotomizing the covenant, or even foreseeing a divergence therein.

Paul, in expressing dismay at the people of Galatia who are seeking circumcision to be included with in the covenant of Abraham, states something astounding:

Gal 3:14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

It seems that Paul sees the promise of the Spirit and the blessing of Abraham as one and the same. This makes perfect sense given Paul's theme of a contrast between the offspring of the flesh and those of the Spirit. (Rom 8, 9, 10, Gal 3-5, et al) Thus Paul does not see the New Covenant as a completely new covenant, never before seen, not having anything to do with the promise of the Spirit, but rather a fulfillment and continuum of the covenant of promise made with Abraham.

This is why Paul states that Gentile believers are in fact Abraham's true offspring and thus inheritors of the promises of that covenant. He doesn't say that they're part of a different covenant, but the one same covenant made with Abraham. The New Covenant therefore cannot be completely new, in the sense that Reformed Baptists mean it, but rather a new administration of that one covenant of grace made with Abraham, with new rites, signs and seals.

Breaking News! Harold Camping hired at Arlington Baptist College!

2011-05-23T18:24:00.001-07:00

ht: RoyBoy

A Foundation for Morality?

2011-05-18T14:42:00.000-07:00

James White exposes the logical inconsistencies in the homosexual agenda and liberal world view.

Want a Degree in Professional Lying? - Head to Arlington Baptist College.

2011-05-17T14:56:00.000-07:00

ERGUN CANER CALLED AS PROVOST AND VICE PRESIDENT OF ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AT ARLINGTON BAPTIST COLLEGE

Looking for a school that puts as much emphasis on integrity as atheists put on consistency? Head to Arlington Baptist College where their new Provost and Vice President of Academic affairs will train you in resume-padding, story-(untruth)-telling and repenting-without-repenting!

Perhaps they'll have him teach classes in Arabic or even Turkish...

UPDATE - A commenter noted that I've not really provided much background info on this, and I agree. So here's some helpful links.

Who is Ergun Caner?

Ergun Caner Materials

Ergun Caner Removed as Dean of Liberty University

UPDATE
Lest folks misunderstand the intent of my post... I don't mean Ergun any ill will. Coming out with and living with the truth can be a difficult process. I know that this has cost him his previous job and perhaps other opportunities. Arlington is not a big school, a far cry from Liberty, it is surely not as financially lucrative a position as his prior ones.

That said, he's still in a position of leadership at a Christian school. Can his prior record of untruth be reconciled with the duties and stature required of a shepherd over so many young Christians? This brings up a much larger issue. Is there a real Biblical case for reinstating someone to such a position (teacher, leader, pastor) after this kind of deep deception is uncovered?

Greater Evangelicalism and Charismaticism is quick to forgive-and-forget. The names of Mike Warnke, Ted Haggard and others serve as evidence to this fact. Yet the Bible doesn't seem to provide this kind of reinstatement, especially given the nature of the crimes/sins. This is why Scripture warns those who seek to be leaders... and why those who are considering entering seminary should strongly consider any other path first.

"How many more people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around?"

2011-05-05T16:32:00.000-07:00

"Ask yourself, if it's true that sex orientation is innate, is God-given, then what does it mean to the moral force of your argument? To put it in the vernacular, what I would ask is, 'How many more people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around? How many gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether the living of their lives the way they wish as long as they don't harm others is Godly, holy, happy, glorious. thing.'"

How many more necrophiles?
How many more pedophiles?
How many more inter-species lovers?
How many more serial killers?

Heidleblog is AFK.

2011-04-28T17:06:00.000-07:00

Seems R. Scott Clark closed down the Heidelblog. While I disagreed with RSC on several things, his blog was always a source of good articles and ideas. It will be missed.

He descended into hell...

2011-04-26T15:55:00.000-07:00

Here's a great resource on the Reformed view of Christ's descent into hell, a part of the orthodox Apostle's Creed that is often misunderstood. Daniel R. Hyde has written a great article called "In Defense of the Descent".

Green Home Design

2011-04-06T23:58:00.000-07:00

My father designs custom green/eco-friendly homes so I'm posting this to increase traffic to his website and get a bit of search promotion. A green home can home be built around a solar package, or alternative energy package rather than adding it on later.

With over 40 years of design and construction experience, Jonathan Burke can design a unique home you're proud to call your own.

R. Scott Clark on the New Psalter Hymnals for the URC

2011-04-05T17:58:00.000-07:00

R. Scott Clark mentions some interesting issues regarding the upcoming new Psalter Hymnals for use in the URC congregations. Apparently there is the suggestion that the new Psalters will use gender-neutral language in place of strict literal Biblical language. Keeping in mind that RSC is for a capella, psalms and inspired hymns only, a position I'm in no way convinced of, the issue of editing the psalms for gender neutrality is a serious one. We're not singing Fanny Crosby, we're singing the Word of God. Our psalms should conform to the most literal yet metrical language they can.

Again, this may just be a question of the RPW gone wild, for if God says "all men" in a verse specifically addressing nations, we know that he includes women in that. If the Scriptural text is ambiguous as to the gender, we should be also, but if Scripture specifically addresses "men", we should honor God's Word and do likewise. Part of this is a question of how one translates the languages of Scripture.

I've not done the research, and while I'm concerned that there may be a sense of KJV-Only fundamentalism in the argument, some of the cited examples are troubling.

One of the principle guidelines of the committee states: “When Scripture is set to music, the words must remain faithful to the inspired text.”1 This principle has been violated in a song from the Psalm section of the PH now put into the hymn section of the HP. This song is #150 in the PH: “Let children hear the mighty deeds Which God performed of old, Which in our younger years we saw And which our fathers told.” It is based on Psalm 78. Psalm 78:3 is God’s word; it is translated “our fathers have told us” in the NIV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV. The original Hebrew noun is “ab”, masculine gender. However, HP# 223 defies this very clear reference to the masculine so that “fathers” becomes “parents.” This violation of God’s Word is also evident in HP# 69. - "URCNA Hymnbook Proposal: Gender-neutral Language?", by Sheila Ypma, The Outlook, March 2011

The basic gist here is that the text of Psalm 78 reads:

¹ Give ear, O my people, to my teaching;
   incline your ears to the words of my mouth!
² I will open my mouth in a parable;
   I will utter dark sayings from of old,
³things that we have heard and known,
   that our fathers have told us.
⁴We will not hide them from their children,
   but tell to the coming generation
the glorious deeds of the LORD, and his might,
   and the wonders that he has done. (ESV)

The point of the text is not a generic "our parents" but specifically points to our fathers generally meaning the patriarchs of Israel, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, etc. While the concept does include the father of individual believers, since it was the men who were responsible for the education of children, the Psalm goes on to specifically mention Jacob commanding the fathers to tell the children to set their hope in God. In this case fathers is gender exclusive while children is not. The text of the Psalter should follow this pattern.

That said, we use the blue hymnal currently in our church and it's clearly old and many are falling apart. The language of the Confessions in them is different than that used by Westminster on their website and in their recent app. I tried to answer a HC question this past Lord's Day evening and was out of step with the others who were using the blue psalter, this is a different issue though.

Our church could just order new ones but we've been told the new and improved one is coming. We've seen copies of the new Sovereign Grace (Stuart Townend) tunes in our bulletin, I'm not sure if those will be in the new Psalter hymnal or not, and while they're good... they're not great when played on a pipe organ.

So let me offer an easy solution to this. The URCNA should move ahead with the new psalters and get rid of the CRC ones but before doing that they should conform the psalters as much as possible to the ESV or NKJV in use in a majority of URC churches. The Psalms will be familiar to the singers and conform likewise to the text.

Then , let's agree on one version of the confessions and put them in there, publishing that version online and elsewhere.

Finally, let's do away completely with the light-blue songbooks... ;-)

Peter Lumpkins and Paul Owen walk in to a bar... oh, wait...

2011-03-28T17:11:00.000-07:00

Guest blogging at Peter Lumpkins' SBC Tomorrow is none other than Penal Substitution-denying, Federal Vision-promoting, formerly-accredited-university-teaching, Dr. Paul Owen.

So not only can you read Lumpkins promoting Mormon Apologist and Professor at a non-accredited university Gary Novak, the words of mariolatrous Dave Armstrong the Roman Catholic apologist, but now you can also read Paul Owen, blogging at SBC Tomorrow. Proof that hatred of the truth makes strange bedfellows indeed.

Yes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" guides Lumpkins' blogging. I doubt Lumpkins understands what Penal Substitution is much less what is involved in the Federal Vision so as to be discerning about who he allows to blog at his website.. but then again, he allows DrPenn and Craig the foul-mouth Delassio free reign in the comments.

With that I am ... not even going there.

R. Scott Clark Misunderstands... I think...

2011-03-24T12:36:00.000-07:00

R. Scott Clark has responded, sorta-of, to my previous post. I again am thankful for the chance to interact with him and what's being said.

Let me correct a few things right off the bat. I'm not anonymous, I'm Micah Burke, a member of Zion United Reformed Church, and a paedobaptist (though formerly a "Reformed" Baptist) and my Facebook profile link is included on the side of the page notes. Professor Clark didn't see that, and I can understand the misunderstanding, especially given the fact I have gone as Lockheed elsewhere.

I am not well read on the issue of two-kingdoms but from my understanding there must be an inconsistency between claiming that the Reformed Confessions call for a two-kingdoms view and acknowledging that many of the Reformers had theocratic views.

The 16th and 17th-century Reformed theologians held several views that most of us would not want to hold today (e.g., theocracy, perpetual virginity of the BVM, geocentrism). We’re not bound to the mistakes of the past but to the degree the tradition helps us to understand what we confess, we should learn from them.- R. Scott Clark, Heidelblog

That said, I think Professor Clark is missing the forest for the trees in this post. My point is that Clark is inconsistent on what is definitional of Reformed. Clark seems to acknowledge this...

He’s unhappy that I want to exclude theocrats and Baptists from “Reformed” and he argues, in effect, that I’m being selective.

But then goes on to posit:

I revised neither the Westminster Confession nor the Belgic Confession. The American Presbyterian church revised the WCF and the Dutch and American Reformed churches revised the Belgic on theocracy. Those were ecclesiastical acts not the expression of mere private opinion.

But the WCF specifically defines creation (for example) as occurring in 6 days. As Dr. Kenneth Gentry notes:

Some Reformed Christians deny that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days. This denial brings them into clear contradiction with the Westminster Standards, which teach that the Lord God created the heavens and the earth "in the space of six days" (WCF 4:1; LC #15, SC #9). - Reformed Theology and Six Day Creation, Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

But in Recovering the Reformed Confession, Clark argues that the WCF's language can be interpreted otherwise, as another blogger notes here.

So here's my point, it really seems like Clark, and Clark alone is the final arbiter of what is "Reformed". Others seek to define it more loosely (Baptists) and some want to define it more strictly (RCUS/6-day creationist types).

That said, it's is difficult to understand how Clark wants to recover that which he is unable to consistently define. If the theology, piety and practice of the Reformed is defined what the Reformers taught and believed, yet what they taught and believed differently than Clark (theocracy for example) then Clark's understanding of what is definitional of "Reformed" must be questioned.

Clark writes in his most recent post:

RRC is not a plea to backward but to be Reformed in our time.

Clark seems to simultaneously argue for both a static meaning to the term Reformed (contra Baptists) and a changing meaning of Reformed (contra 6-day creationists). This if "Reformed" can only be accurately defined by a fellow in the 21st century who admittedly holds to positions he are contra the Reformers, it is difficult to understand why others (Baptists for example) are excluded from defining it for themselves.

Now, granted I'm not interested in post-modern redefinitions, and I certainly believe that "Reformed" has a meaning founded in the historic Protestant Confessions, but it is simply inconsistent to define something as central to Reformed theology, piety and practice that is opposed to the teachings of the Reformers while holding something that was central to a Reformed Confession as otherwise.

Finally, and this has come up in discussions elsewhere recently, Clark writes:

We cannot speak the good news of a suffering Savior with one hand an a (rhetorical) Constantinian sword in the other.

This seems a strange thing to say from this layman's viewpoint. Are we not provided both the Law and the Gospel in Scripture itself? Was the God-ordained theocracy of Israel somehow completely opposed to the Gospel?

I'm not arguing for a theocracy, and I guess this is where the two-kingdoms issues comes into play. I figure there's a lot more reading in my future.

R. Scott Clark vs. T-Fan - 2 Kingdoms and more...

2011-03-23T16:44:00.000-07:00

Prof. R. Scott Clark writes in response to TurretinFan:

I understand that the two-kingdoms distinction is new to a lot of people. That does not mean that the two-kingdoms distinction is new. We are neither kittens nor babies. When we cover our eyes, that doesn’t make the world go away. It means our eyes are covered. Our (collective) ignorance of traditional Reformed distinctions (e.g., Creator/creature, law/gospel, covenant of works/covenant of grace) doesn’t make them novel: it makes us ignorant. What we must do, what I’ve been trying to do, is to overcome (my own) ignorance of our tradition and to put to that tradition to use in our own setting.

As I argued in RRC, one of the real problems here is Reformed Narcissism. It is quite common for folk to reason thus:

I am Reformed
I think x
Therefore x is Reformed

Given my recent reading of RRC, I would believe that his syllogism would equally apply to his own views especially regarding Framework vs. 6-day-creationism, a capella vs instrumental worship and a couple other issues.

That doesn't mean RSC is wrong on these issues, his writing has certainly caused me to think through the issues, but in a book specifically titled Recovering the Reformed Confessions one would expect arguments for recovering and adopting the Reformed Confessions. While I feel there is much in RRC to appreciate, the few times where Clark steps out and identifies his own views seem to distract from the main argument and thrust of the book.

But this is my concern with Professor Clark, he wishes to identify "Reformed' per the confessions, he draws the line at 1646 with the WCF (even though it has had many edits since then even in the version accepted by the OPC) and denies that the 1677 and 1689 London Baptist Confessions are "Reformed".

Thus cannot one likewise take his argument against TFan and apply it to him?

I am Reformed
I think only the WCF and 3 Forms of Unity are Reformed Confessions
Therefore only those confessions are Reformed

Now, I might be simplifying things too much, he might accept Anglicans as Reformed even though they later denied the WCF, but I think this is where the issue needs clarifying.

RSC continues:

The 16th and 17th-century Reformed theologians held several views that most of us would not want to hold today (e.g., theocracy, perpetual virginity of the BVM, geocentrism). We’re not bound to the mistakes of the past but to the degree the tradition helps us to understand what we confess, we should learn from them.

This is quite true... but if those things were codified in a Reformed Confession and yet are now denied by RSC, couldn't it be argued that he isn't Reformed given his own argument?

Finally, Professor Clark writes:

The distinction between the two kingdoms is one of those valuable resources we need to recover but before folk start commenting on these questions they do need to do some basic reading.

He seems to be saying here that Two-Kingdoms is part-and-parcel of Reformed theology that needs recovering (aka part of a confession) and yet just acknowledged that many of the Reformers held to theocratic views.

That said, I certainly agree that more reading is needed on all sides. I think Professor Clark should read more of TurretinFan's work, regardless of his anonymity.

R Scott Clark is coming to Zion URC

2011-03-06T22:51:00.001-08:00

I'm looking forward to meeting him! :)

I Am TurretinFan

2011-02-21T16:38:00.000-08:00

The rabid Ergun Caner supporters at Peter Lumpkins (aka Lumpy)'s blog are attempting to unmask the intrepid TurretinFan... well if the must know. I am TurretinFan.

Who is Peter Lumpkins?

2011-02-20T21:34:00.000-08:00

"Micah Burke, as Peter said, referred to Peter as a liar, law-breaker, and God hater."

I think you, the reader, can determine the spiritual state of Lumpkins and his friends by reading though the comment thread.

Peter Lumpkins' Hypocrisy

2011-02-20T17:06:00.000-08:00

Read this: "Guidelines for Commenting as SBC Tomorrow"

And compare with the current thread of commenters here.

Notice how many of Peter's pals violate his rules without him lifting a bushy eyebrow? This guy is a piece of work.

Custom Eco-Friendly Home Design

2011-02-18T16:03:00.000-08:00

With over 40 years of experience in home design and construction Burke Custom Eco-Friendly Home Design with work with your lot's terrain to design a home that will take advantage of eco-friendly construction and energy sources.

Jonathan Burke has been designing and building homes for four decades, most recently including all-solar designs as well as designs incorporating solar-based radiant-heating as well as solar-based electrical generation.

I've been able to witness these designs and construction projects up-close, as Jonathan is my father!

Questions for Jamin Hubner

2011-02-17T11:32:00.000-08:00

Questions for Jamin Hubner Re: Acts 2

These questions are based on our discussion in #prosapologian, as well as your ongoing posts at aomin.org. If your view point has changed since our discussion, please explain. Thanks!

v14 - 18 "'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy."

v22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—

v38For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

If there is no covenantal language, or connection, in Acts 2, why does Peter address the "Men of Judea" and "Men of Israel" rather than everyone?

Why does Peter even mention children at all in v38, and why the possessive language mentioning sons and daughters if they are not included in the covenant and if Acts 2 is not covenantal language?

Re: Galatians

Galatians 4
²⁴Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. ²⁵Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. ²⁶But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother....

²⁸Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.

What are the two covenants mentioned here? What covenant, according to Paul in Galatians are Christians part of?

Re: Ephesians

Ephesians 2
¹²remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. ¹³But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

What are the "covenants of promise" mentioned in v12, and are Christians part of them now?

Finally, what is the relationship of circumcision to the Abrahamic covenant?

Thanks!
Micah

How Peter Lumpkins' Pals Roll

2011-02-16T16:33:00.000-08:00

A lazy afternoon in #prosapologian and a fellow pops in named "DrJ". (Read the comments at the link...)

* DrJ (fdsd@BAADF736.FCE2B857.BC53927B.IP) has joined #prosapologian

Clearly, this person has read/commented on Peter Lumpkins blog as they mention very specific items:

DrJ: i don't think we should stop there. let's make fun of muslim women, too
DrJ: in fact, let's ridicule all our opponents, and claim the banner of christ in doing so

Now for the record, Dr. White never "ridiculed Mormon women", he only mentioned that the wives of Brigham young were not the most attractive females around. And if you note my previous post, you'll have to agree. The refusal of this individual to acknowledge that basic fact either shows their inability to grasp the truth or their ignorance of what was actually said in that episode of the Dividing Line.

"DrJ" is using an anonymizing system so as to protect their identity. Soon DrJ begins randomly insulting Dr.White and is kick-banned from the channel. This person then returns, with a different hostmask and username.

* IHaveaCrackerJackBoxDoctorate (fdsd@F03DB3FA.FBE148AA.F9719F83.IP) has joined #prosapologian

At this point, it should be noted, this individual is guilty of a Federal crime. The DOJ has determined that attempting to access a protected network, or one a person has been banned from is a felony. If this individual is a Christian, they're openly violating Romans 13. Typical modus operandi of Peter Lumpkins and thus his pals.

Again quickly banned and kicked from the network, the individual again randomizes their hostmask and joins #prosapologian. Now, keep in mind that #prosapologian is part of the Geneva IRC network, administered by Alpha & Omega Ministries, therefore this person who has been disallowed, banned and booted from the network twice now returns, blatantly disobeying Romans 13 and Federal law.

* DrFunk (fdsd@114.31.3.10) has joined #prosapologian

We spend a little time now getting more info on the troll who is visiting, and building the channel's defenses. During this time the person privately messages folks in the channel with more of the copy/paste from Lumpkins' blog. Finally,we put the global bans in place and all is quiet again.

It should be noted that I don't believe this to be the work of Lumpkins himself. Peter doesn't seem to have the technical know-how, nor really care to pull a stunt like this. I think he draws the line at copyright infringement. So my money's on Roy/Ray, as that individual shows the most willingness to act in an unChrist-like manner and take matters in his own hands. Regardless, for someone who has the tenacity to call Dr. White a non-believer, acting in such an unlawful manner is evidence of their own reprobation.

Wow... just... wow...

2011-02-14T15:07:00.000-08:00

Peter Lumpkins continues his campaign against James White in a recent blog post wherein he suggests that Bart Ehrman won the debate Dr. White engaged him in (over 2 years ago now), some one should tell Lumpy that old history is... old. I still chuckle at the fact that Lumpy claimed James was "obsessed" with Ergun Caner, and yet it's Lumpkins who keeps posting about Dr. White.

That said, the real amazing thing is the ignorance show in the comments section of the post. Someone by the name of Roy makes some of the following statements:

"Mr. White believes he's an expert on everything, even when he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. One such example is his "Arabic." He made a video criticizing Caner's Arabic, but White himself has atrocious Arabic and can't even pronounce simple words, such as "Muhammad," correctly."

James White has acknowledged that he is still a student of Arabic and that his pronunciation and understanding of the language is increasing as he studies, he has not, unlike Ergun Caner, claimed to have been raised a Muslim, born in Turkey, lived in Cairo or any other numerous other untruths spoken by Caner. When Dr. White criticized Caner it wasn't pronunciation that was in question... it was whether or not Caner was speaking Arabic, much less any human language!

I think we need to really start being honest about all of this, starting with not referring to James White as "Dr." White. This is a constant source of fodder among his critics, and those who look at him objectively. He IS not a Dr as he DOES NOT have an accredited doctorate.

People have been bringing this up for over a decade, not one of them is willing to deal with the facts. Do any of them question Dr. White's other degrees? Surely if his doctorate was a fraud his BA in Bible with Greek major at Grand Canyon College was a sham and the Masters at Fuller is imaginary... right? Does "Roy" have any qualifications to judge the quality of Dr. White's Th.D?

Surely Dr. White does not ACTUALLY read and speak Hebrew, Koine Greek and now Arabic? I bet Roy thinks James' 20 books written, 100 debates with scholars such as Ehrman, Crossan, Borg, and Spong, years of teaching at Golden Gate Baptist Seminary, MCTS, are likewise imaginary.

I think what it does show is that when Mr. White is outside of his element in terms of the rules for how a debate is conducted, he has a much more difficult time prevailing or even sounding like he knows what he's talking about.

How many debates of Dr. White's has Roy watched? Has he actually seen the entire Ehrman debate, much less have a clue about textual criticism? It's unclear from his posts, as all he does is make inflammatory statements about James White.

part of the reason you guys pulled out of the debate with Caner is because he wanted to stream it live and you couldn't sell it/make money off of it. Is the reason Mr. White does debates to further the cause of Christ, or profit from it and "prostitute" the Gospel?

Roy doesn't seem to understand what actually occurred in the Caner/White debate exchange. Of course, all of this must be remembered in the light of the revelations that Ergun Caner is a simple fraud. It seems clear now that the reason the Caners and Liberty University changed the rules of the debate at the last minute was to prevent it from occurring at all, as it would have exposed the fraud that Caner is. At the time of the Caner debate debacle, there wasn't "live streaming", and even if there were, Dr. White would have been happy to allow it to occur, just as he's live-streamed many of his recent debates. I don't know if Roy knows this, but those who preach the Gospel are to "get their living by the gospel." (1 Cor 9:14). As it is Dr. White lives very modestly, relying on the meager income from A&O Ministries and donations to participate in these debates and preach the Gospel in other countries.

MacArthur allows free access to all of his materials

When was the last time Roy ordered a MacArthur study Bible for FREE?

If James White does not meet the definition of hyper calvinism, I have no idea who would

It's evident that Roy doesn't know what a hyper-calvinist is other than "someone I don't like".

his vicious treatment of those who disagree with him, such as Mormons, is not the Gospel either.

Anyone who knows of Alpha and Omega Ministries' work with the Mormons would never say this, especially in comparison to the KJVO street preachers.

For instance, his recent attacks on Mormon women, making fun of their looks, is not the Gospel

Dr. White's jibe at the wives of Brigham Young has nothing to do with other Mormons. As to the truth of Dr. White's claim, I provide the evidence for you here:

Mr. White DID try to get the degree to get the respect of people from it, because he constantly berates others' education and touts his own questionable education. He even made a video making fun of Caner's Arabic skills

Again, Dr. White's criticism of Caner's Arabic "skills" was on the basis that Caner was passing off pure gibberish as "Arabic". Caner had no skills to speak of.

It is plain from his diatribes that "Roy" is just another of Lumpy's peanut gallery of ignorant folks who defend liars and support legalists. When your most vocal supporters are people like "Roy" and Craig (Foul Mouth) Delassio, you might want to reconsider your position.

UPDATE
For more detail of how Peter Lumpkins and his blog pals show the love of Christ, read the comments in this thread. Might want to have a bucket nearby.

Zion United Reformed Church has a New Website!

2011-02-05T01:28:00.000-08:00

After weeks of work, the new site for Zion United Reformed Church is up and running. Pastor Kevin Efflandt's sermons can be heard online, as well as picked up as a podcast.

An excellent article by... R. Scott Clark

2011-01-31T23:29:00.000-08:00

As a former Charismatic, I found R. Scott Clark's essay about "Sister" Aimee Semple McPherson to be a fascinating study of the founder of the Foursquare movement. Clark examines the life, teachings and scandals surrounding a personality who seems to serve as a model for modern charismatics and some evangelicals.

The essay can be found in the book Always Reformed: Essays in Honor of W. Robert Godfrey which can be purchased at the Westminster Seminary bookstore.

I also enjoyed David VanDrunen's essay on "Calvin, Kyuper, and 'Christian Culture'". A book surely worth reading.

Antinomianism or Legalism?

2011-01-28T13:40:00.000-08:00

In reference to the recent comments by Frank Turk about the White Horse Inn's discussion of Law and Gospel, R. Scott Clark writes:

Antinomianism? I’ll show you antinomianism: defiance of God’s holy will as revealed in the fourth commandment. Reformed Christians confess that God has given ten commandments. What about the fourth commandment? Most of the evangelicals I’ve known, who are wound up about the “Lordship Controversy,” are antinomian (lawless) when it comes to the fourth commandment.

This reminds me of John MacArthur's view of alcohol...: 'REAL Christians will see this exactly as I do, the rest are antinomians!'

Help JustRozie!

2010-11-08T21:14:00.001-08:00

JustRozie's father has died and we need to help her with some expenses related to the funeral. Please donate what you can.

CLICK THE DONATE BUTTON BELOW

May 21, 2011

2010-10-05T16:35:00.000-07:00

Good resources on Family Radio and Harold Camping's false teaching of the rapture.

Keep in mind:

1) Harold Camping is not a Bible scholar, he's a layman who thinks too highly of himself. He doesn't know Greek or Hebrew, he's simply an itinerant fellow who used to be Reformed and is now apostate.
2) No amount of numerology, supposedly Biblical or otherwise can predict the end of the world.
3) Harold Camping denies the Biblical doctrines of total depravity and original sin
4) Harold Camping has adopted Modalism/Oneness; a denial of the Trinity stating that Christ is a mere mode of God, not a different person within the Godhead

No comments from Family Radio followers full of unrelated Biblical passages will be allowed. Save your breath. This isn't your forum.

Psalm 32

2010-09-10T00:35:00.000-07:00

Psalm 32 (ESV)

Blessed Are the Forgiven

A Maskil of David.

¹ Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven,
   whose sin is covered.
²Blessed is the man against whom the LORD counts no iniquity,
   and in whose spirit there is no deceit. ³For when I kept silent, my bones wasted away
   through my groaning all day long.
⁴For day and night your hand was heavy upon me;
   my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer.
                         Selah
⁵I acknowledged my sin to you,
   and I did not cover my iniquity;
I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,"
   and you forgave the iniquity of my sin.
                         Selah
⁶Therefore let everyone who is godly
   offer prayer to you at a time when you may be found;
surely in the rush of great waters,
   they shall not reach him.
⁷You are a hiding place for me;
   you preserve me from trouble;
   you surround me with shouts of deliverance.
                         Selah
⁸I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go;
   I will counsel you with my eye upon you.
⁹ Be not like a horse or a mule, without understanding,
   which must be curbed with bit and bridle,
   or it will not stay near you.
¹⁰ Many are the sorrows of the wicked,
   but steadfast love surrounds the one who trusts in the LORD.
¹¹ Be glad in the LORD, and rejoice, O righteous,
   and shout for joy, all you upright in heart!

U2 - The Unforgettable Fire

2010-08-23T12:28:00.001-07:00

Ice
Your only rivers run cold
These city lights
They shine as silver and gold
Dug from the night
Your eyes as black as coal
Walk on by
Walk on through
Walk 'til you run
And don't look back
For here I am

Carnival
The wheels fly and the colors spin
Through alcohol,
Red wine that punctures the skin
Face to face
In a dry and waterless place

Walk on by
Walk on through
So sad to beseige your love so head on
Stay in this time
Stay tonight in a lie
I'm only asking but I
I think you know
Come on take me away
Come on take me away
Come on take me home
Home again

And if the mountain should crumble
Or disappear into the sea
Not a tear, no not I
Stay in this time
Stay tonight in a lie
Ever after
It's lovin' time
And if you save your love
Save it all tonight

Don't push me too far
Don't push me too far
Tonight
Tonight

Logos 4 Mac

2010-08-20T10:15:00.000-07:00

Logos Bible Software is giving away thousands of dollars of prizes to celebrate the launch of Logos Bible Software 4 Mac on October 1. Prizes include an iMac, a MacBook Pro, an iPad, an iPod Touch, and more than 100 other prizes!

They're also having a special limited-time sale on their Mac and PC base packages and upgrades. Check it out!

Need to make a screen shot in Windows Xp, Windows Vista or Windows 7?

2010-08-02T11:50:00.000-07:00

I find that I often make screen shots, either for grabbing colors, background images, etc. With XP and beyond, it became difficult to make screen shots. The "prnt scrn" button on the keyboard didn't just save an image, it put it in the clipboard and then you needed some other software to edit/manipulate it.

Anyway, I found this great program, it's FREE and it will save the screen shot, or even a piece of the screen (you can manually select it) when you hit print screen or any combination of buttons you want. It's a really slick application called Gadwin PrintScreen. This is slick stuff...

See what I mean?

Peter Lumpkins finally makes his own video... sorta.

2010-08-02T09:49:00.000-07:00

Lumpkins figured out that using logos others designed in his videos was illegal and would get his videos removed every time, so he went to an animation site, uploaded Dr. James White's head into it and made a video warning folks of the dangers of Dr. White and Calvinism. Looks like all but Lumpkins' most devoted followers (Craig and D. Ruth) have abandoned the nutter's musings, and this latest video should serve to drive any one who happens upon the video away from his brand of madness. I'm really glad Peter found his calling... making cartoons using pre-built cartoon generators, cause it's clear he has no talent of his own, perhaps excepting to ability to damn himself and write legalistic screeds denying what God said in Scripture.

At least this may mark a final chapter in the Lumpkins' cycle, having shown without a doubt that his defense of Ergun Caner is completely without basis and that his only response is to counter-attack through lies, stealing and general smarmy pretentiousness. With that... he's a self-important cad.

Peter Lumpkins continues his games.

2010-07-22T12:11:00.000-07:00

Peter Lumpkins strikes yet again. In his latest post he acknowledges that his video was removed from Vimeo for copyright violation, but lays the blame with Dr. White. Of course I was the one who claimed the violation.

Peter then uploaded the video to Youtube. I guess if you're breaking the law you might as well rob a bank too? So again I filed a complaint with Youtube and the video has been removed.

I posted two comments on Mr. Lumpkins' blog noting that it was I, not James White or anyone else connected to Alpha & Omega Ministries who sought to have his videos removed.

Again, for the record, the issue is not the parody video, but the usage of graphics and logos that I created that Mr. Lumpkins does not own the rights to. If he wants to make a parody, he's welcome to make his own logos, cartoons and graphics. He's free by law to use clips of Dr. White even. But when he uses my hard work in his pitiful smear campaign, he'll face the law.

Once more, for the record: Dr. White doesn't care one iota about Peter Lumpkins' silly self-edifying videos or blog, Dr. White had no hand whatsoever in having them removed from Vimeo or Youtube, that was my doing from start to finish. If Mr. Lumpkins wants to re-edit his videos minus the logos etc. he could easily repost them... of course claiming a conspiracy against your videos is much more self-aggrandizing.

Accidentally Deleted a File?

2010-07-16T21:19:00.000-07:00

Accidentally Deleted a File? Can't find it anywhere? Sure you hit Shift-Del to kill something and deleted stuff you didn't mean to?

EASEUS Data Recovery Wizard (the free edition) helped me when I thought I'd lost the new AOMin website I was building!

I highly recommend this product, other products couldn't find the files, this one did using the advanced partition scan.

WHEW!

Lumpkins and the Law

2010-07-15T16:21:00.000-07:00

Peter Lumpkins recently again violated my copyrights and those of Alpha & Omega Ministries. Using their logo in a logo, he attempted to pass off a vimeo video as an AOMin vid. No, not a spoof video, there was no identification that it was anything but a real AOMin video.

Lest there be any confusion, forked-tongued Lumpkins and his ilk have no problem with lying nor padding one's resume. Now it is more-than-clear that they don't consider laws as binding on them much less a moral issue.

If this is the tomorrow of the SBC, expect more immoral revelations. Scripture tells us about guys like Peter, "God's name is cursed among the nations because of you."

Text in a Circle Tutorial for SmukkeArne @ Adobe Forums

2010-05-31T02:13:00.000-07:00

SmukkeArne, a user at the Adobe Illustrator Forums asked for a tutorial on how to make text around a circle like the image at left.

Here are the following steps!

Firstly, create a circle in Illustrator. I usually hold down the Shift key when making circles so that their proportions are constrained.

Next Create your first line of text just to the right of the circle. Choose the font etc, before moving on to the next steps.

Add guides to the center point of the circle, this will provide us with a guide to do our text rotation.

Now grab the Rotate tool from the tool box at left.

Select the line of text by holding down the Control Key and clicking on the text.

Next, holding down the Alt key, click on the center point of the circle. The Rotate dialog box will appear. Select an appropriate amount of rotation angle (I'm using 5%, but for larger circles/smaller type, smaller % will work.)

Remember to use % that will actually work when used around 360%

Click Copy and see a line of text appear above the first, angled 5%.

Use Control-D to duplicate the command, do this all the way around the circle. Your text will then fill the area around the circle. Change your text, delete your circle, and you're done.

The Church and Israel - A Scriptural Perspective

2010-05-18T16:12:00.000-07:00

A week or so a go a newly minted Calvinist entered the #prosapologian chat room and had some "questions" regarding Covenant Theology. (Just a note for those of you with well formed opinions, don't say "I have a few questions" and then open up with a cannon volley.) After some discussion it was clear that our definition of "Israel" was quite different. My friend RazorsKiss and I decided to engage this fellow and chose to move it to an email discussion. They sent the first email (which I won't post here) but since RK was busy, I wrote the first reply. What follows is the text of my reply.

----------------------------------

Tony and Gary,

Thanks for stopping by #prosapologian. I appreciate folks who are willing to wrestle through these difficult issues. Firstly, I note from the way you write that you're fairly new to Calvinism. (Don't confuse Arminians with Armenians, I've attended an Armenian Reformed service!) I'd like to praise God that He was gracious to you and opened your heart and mind to the doctrines of grace. I'd like to suggest however that "Calvinism" doesn't stop at the 5 points, but it encompasses a covenantal understanding of God's dealings with mankind.

Secondly I'd like to suggest that no one takes eschatological writings truly, completely literally. Dispensationalists have, for years, interpreted the various imagery in Revelation and Daniel not literally, but symbolically referring to helicopters, kingdoms, men with UPC codes on their hands and the like. I was part of a Dispensational church for almost twenty years, so I'm aware of their claim to "literal" meanings.

It seems literal interpretations are only made in contrast to specific points of other millennial views. I therefore suggest that, every time you read a passage with a specific Dispensational meaning, ask yourself "is this truly literal" and also, "why would the author of a prophetic, and apocalyptic book write "literally", and also, is it truly possible that no one until the 1800s properly exegeted the text of the Bible?

Thirdly, rather than start with the Old Testament, which was in many ways veiled until the coming of Christ, I believe should start by letting the authors of the New Testament, the God-breathed commentary on the Old Testament, define our terms. That means we should start with the New Testament and read the Apostle's understanding backwards into it, as the author of Hebrews does time and again.

I'll focus on the New Testament witness as to the nature of Israel and the church in this email. Maybe RK intends a different direction.

The authors of New Testament uses the term "Israel" in a few different ways, Paul himself uses it in different ways in the same section. For our purposes, however, I'd like to focus on a distinction Paul makes time and again in his writing between those of the "flesh" and those of the "Spirit". You may have read or heard this concept preached on in regards to Romans 8:5-9, wherein Paul tells us that there are those whose minds are set on the flesh and those on the Spirit. Paul talks about this same group in Galatians 4:23-25, and elsewhere... specifically Romans 9.

You may know Romans 9 well in an apologetic sense, as far as it speaking of predestination. However the first part should not be missed, for in it Paul tells us an important point regarding Israel. I will highlight the important points.

Romans 9:6-8
⁶It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. ⁷Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." ⁸In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

So to summarize Paul's point: Paul wishes the Jews would turn to Christ. But he notes, this is not a failure on God's part, or his plan. He states: for not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. He then explains that Israel is defined by election not human descent. Thus "it is the children of promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring." From here Paul launches into his famous polemic regarding God's election unto salvation and predestination of believers. Point of fact, you cannot have one without the other. That is, everyone who is a child in the likeness of Isaac (elected by grace), are Israel.

Remember the Spirit/flesh distinction here, for Paul is expressing that concept in relation to Isaac and Ishmael, true Israel vs those simply of Abraham's lineage. Paul returns to this point in Galatians wherein we find the following:

Galatians 3:7-8
Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed."

What Paul is saying in his God-breathed commentary on the Old Testament is that true Israel is and always was those who were faithful to God. In Gal 3:8 here it is clear: foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham. Thus Israel has always included Gentiles in the promise made in Gen 12. Again Paul writes:

Galatians 3:26-29
²⁶You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, ²⁷for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Paul directly ties being a son of God to being the "seed of Abraham." Thus the covenant in Gen 12 was never made with non-elect Jews, but was in fact intended for the elect of God. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a natural, earthly fulfillment, but as with so many concepts in Scripture there is the earthly (bread and wine) and the heavenly (body and blood). God uses earthly things to represent the heavenly. So while an imperfect, type and shadow of the temple, Jerusalem and Israel was visible on the Earth, they pointed to the ultimate fulfillment of the temple in heaven, the New Jerusalem and Christ himself (and we in Christ).

Gal 4:24-26
²⁴These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. ²⁵Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. ²⁶But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

Notice Paul's immediate declaration of the figurative nature of the covenants, Mt. Sinai and the like. Notice that in v25 Paul specifically identifies national Israel, the Jews, with Hagar and thus Ishmael. Thus, Paul is identifying the Jewish people with Arabs even. They are no different than Gentiles now in need of gracious salvation through faith in Christ.

Gal 4:28-31
²⁸Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. ²⁹At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. ³⁰But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son." ³¹Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

Paul identifies the Gentile believers in Galatia with Isaac as children of the promise (vs the flesh). At this point you should be reminded of Romans 2:27-29:

²⁷Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. ²⁸For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. ²⁹But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Thus the Israel Paul refers to here then are those in the mold of Isaac, who are children of promise, that is, those who are elect unto salvation. Ultimately Christ is the archetype of Isaac, Christ the impossible child born to a virgin, the God-Man.

To be clear, Israel are those collected people of God in any age, though more specifically, the elect. While it is simultaneously true that the New Covenant is made with Israel and the church, the church is the Israel of the New Covenant. The church hasn't replaced Israel, it is Israel. Jewish people who come to faith do not enter into Judaism again, but into the church, the Israel of God under the New Covenant.

Thus when we look back to the prophecies of the Old Testament relating the New Covenant to the people of Israel, we must recognize, as Christ taught, that He is the center of the story. The Bible therefore is a testimony of God's redemptive purpose in Christ throughout history. It is not primarily a story of Jewish people.

You write that MacArthur states:

"I believe that Israel is the literal seed of Abraham"

This is the hardest thing for me to understand, Paul the Apostle specifically states about the Gentile believers in Galatia: "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

[ Paul makes it clear in Galatians that the "literal seed" of Abraham is Christ, and that we become the "literal seed" though faith in Him. There is no other seed! ]

"I believe that Israel is in the midst of Ezekiel 37... They have bones and sinews and flesh, but no breath in them yet... the Spirit (ruach) has not returned to them....yet."

Remember that the prophetic books often mix concepts mid-stream, as the prophecies are often multi-layered. Also note that the chapter distinctions are man made. Thus, Ezekiel 37 follows the promise of the New Covenant in 36, and is talking not about Jews, but about the people of God. Notice that Ezekiel 37 is a perfect picture of the regeneration that every believer goes through. The Word is preached and the dead are raised unto new life in Christ. Try reading Eze 37 followed with Eph 2:1-9. (That is, take the Apostle's understanding and read it into the Old Testament, never read the Old Testament apart from that.)

"I believe that Israel will receive their Messiah and Jesus Christ will literally sit on the Throne of HIS father David and reign over the House of Jacob forever as the Angel prophesied in Luke 1:32, 33"

We have. Christ is our Messiah, Jesus Christ literally sits on the Throne of His Father, God, and reigns over His house (as He is the archtype of Isaac, Moses, Joshua, Jacob, David, etc.) We reign with Him now, as believers through the New Covenant which is in effect now.

Remember that the book of Hebrews, where much of this is fleshed out, is written to a mixed group of Gentile and Jewish Christians. Therein we find the claims of the New Covenant fulfilled in Christ for us now, not at some later date.

The fact that a nation has taken the name "Israel" today and is made of primarily Jews really has nothing to do with Scripture. Remember, it is the God-breathed commentary on the Old Testament, the New Testament, that must define our understanding of these things

You write:

...that is until it leads to the supersession of Israel and allegorizing scripture simply because it hasn't happened yet or it is difficult to explain in a literal sense.

It is God who states:

Heb 11:8-10
⁸By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. ⁹By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. ¹⁰For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.

and later

Heb 11:13-16
¹³These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. ¹⁴For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. ¹⁵If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. ¹⁶But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

Israel's promise was not of an earthly land, though it was the type and shadow of that to come, but of a heavenly dwelling where they would be ruled by God. Therefore the church does not replace Israel, rather, the church is the fulfillment of Israel's type and shadow.

So here are my points:

Israel must be defined by the New Testament authors who provide us with a God-breathed commentary on the OT. (Gal 4:24)
Abraham had the Gospel preached to him. (Gal 3:7-8)
Abraham's promise was for a people made up of many nations and specifically Gentiles. (Gal 3:8)
Abraham believed the promise of God had a specific heavenly fulfillment. (Heb 11:10)
The OT believers were not looking specifically for land but the kingdom of heaven. (Heb 11:14-16)
God, through Paul, defines Israel as the people of promise, who have had faith in him in all eras. (Rom 9:6-8, Gal 3:7, Gal 4:28, etc)

It is with this Biblical framework that we can now approach the Old Testament prophecies.

RK might have some to add about Romans 11 and elsewhere. I've got to get back to work.

Thanks!
---

I followed up later with:

One more thought I've been ruminating on. When you read Rom 11 wherein we find "until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in", you gotta ask, "into what". Our reply is: Israel.

Israel is not replaced by the church, but the church is, in a sense, a subset of Israel (though subset is a misnomer, Israel is the Hebrew name by which the people of God are so named.) Remember that Abraham was not a "Jew" until called by God, Rehab was not a Jew and the people Nineveh were not Jews, and so on.

It is possible, according to Rom 11, that at some point in the future, a majority of the elect will again be genetic Jews, but for now it is a majority of Gentiles who are of the elect as we would posit that Satan is bound (as Christ said "now is the time for the ruler of this world to be cast out") and the nations are no longer allowed to be deceived during this period of time.

But that's another discussion. ;)

Micah

Illustrator CS 5 not 64 bit.

2010-05-03T16:59:00.000-07:00

All of you who get the ambiguous "Unknown Error", "An Error has Occured" or the dreaded "The File is Not Readable" errors in Illustrator CS 4. I bring you bad news. Nothing in CS 5 fixes these issues.

The main problem is that for a percentage of Illustrator users, the 32 bit nature of the application limits the number of linked objects on a page. It seems that Adobe wants to force us to use InDesign for page layout, even though Illustrator better suits the specialized purposes of certain markets.

So, until Adobe pulls it's collective head out of neither regions and produces a 64 bit native version of Illustrator, look forward to more "The file is not readable" messages popping up as you try to open that critical, deadline-nearing, project.

A conversation with Troy Brooks.

2010-04-30T15:05:00.000-07:00

I tried a new tactic with Troy, the frequent Internet 'evangelist'. He's rabidly anti-Calvinistic, so much so that even though he's been told not to return, not to connect to the network etc., he continues to enter Dr. James White's chat channel.

So I finally got some answers from him... sort of. But it was a fruitful discussion. (Troy was using the nickname "SallyMae" so as to avoid detection.)

Micah: well, why people choose God (over death) what is different about those who choose God?

Troy: Nothing is different than their choice.

Micah: well, something must differ between the person who comes to faith and the one who doesn't?

Troy: Their choice is different. Because they are sovereign beings and choose as they wish. Molinism can help you understand this better.

Micah: From Molina, the Roman Catholic?

Troy: But the basic idea of Molinism is true. It says that God saves the most and damns the least.

In all possible world ensembles, there is not a situation in which you would be saved in another world if it were to exist and not saved in this one. Because God provides sufficient grace to all, but your god doesn't which shows you worship the evil spirit.

Troy: He chose the world ensemble to save the most and damn the least.

Micah: If God chose the world... do we still have a free will to choose otherwise?

Troy got banned again at this point. But Troy's basic premise is flawed in multiple places. Firstly he doesn't seem to understand that in Arminianism "choosing" is how someone comes to Christ, not why. When I ask the Arminian, "Why do you believe whereas so many others do not", unless cave into Pelagianism (ie: "because I am better, stronger, more spiritual") they will not have any kind of answer.

Troy has no answer, so he keeps answering why with a how. He said he would blog on it, so I'll have to see what he comes up with.

The Biblical answer is of course that we choose God because He first chose us. Christ says that He came to "seek and save the lost", He doesn't seek and try to save the lost. He actually saves them. Apart from God's mercy and grace all of those who enter heaven would be lost. We don't deserve grace, which is the Arminian's first presupposition, we deserve justice, by which we all fall short.

Secondly, while I'm not convinced that Troy understands or represents Molinism properly, his claim is easily defeated by Isaiah 46.

Here's the premise: "God saves the most and damns the least. In all possible world ensembles, there is not a situation in which you would be saved in another world if it were to exist and not saved in this one." In other words, God chose this world out of all possible worlds because in this one the most people would freely choose Him.

Apart from the obvious objections of slaves to sin freely choosing to do good... how does this present an even slightly Biblical picture of God? Also, how does this answer Troy's main objection to Calvinism, which is that man must have free will? What free will is there in this concept? How much more freer is the will of those living in a world God chose where the most people would choose Him? We're still tied to a deterministic scheme, only this time some sort of strange fate is the reason we're saved... Also it seems quite like a snowglobe scenario, God kept shaking the globe until enough of the snow fell where he wanted it. Is that the Biblical God?

Here's God speaking about himself:

Isa 46:9-11 (ESV)
⁹remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
   I am God, and there is none like me,
¹⁰ declaring the end from the beginning
   and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, 'My counsel shall stand,
   and I will accomplish all my purpose,'
¹¹ calling a bird of prey from the east,
   the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
   I have purposed, and I will do it.

Can Troy's God truly say that He's declared the end from the beginning and if God desires to save everyone, how can He truly say of himself, "I will accomplish all my purpose... I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it"?

Thoughts of Francis Turretin: R. Scott Clark Responds to Molinism

2010-04-27T17:20:00.000-07:00

R. Scott Clark responds to Molinism

I've got my differences with R. Scott Clark, but this is a good reply.

HT: TurretinFan

ReachLocal Rocks

2010-04-27T15:53:00.000-07:00

I simply cannot say enough about ReachLocal. Our rep and her team are fantastic and deliver above and beyond the competition all the time. If you have any questions about using ReachLocal for search or display advertising PPC or cpm, just drop a comment here and I'll try to answer.

How to name a volcano.

2010-04-27T10:35:00.001-07:00

The End of Google Maps Usefulness?

2010-04-21T10:06:00.000-07:00

Google maps used to be the best mapping software available.

Google maps pulls its data from many third party sources including "Superpages" what used to be Verizon's yellow page knock off. The problem is that Superpages seems intent on placing incorrect data on a listing so as to spur the owner of the listing to purchase advertising. Also, users can go and edit a listing adding/removing information.

My company has 4 listings for one store in San Francisco. Only one of them has the correct data for that store.

In order to "claim" the listing you have to click on the link, select "Business Owner", make the edits and, if one of the edits is the phone number, you have to wait 2 weeks for a "postcard" to arrive in the mail so that you can verify you're the owner. The problem of course is that we have 28 locations, doing this for each location is ridiculous.

Peter Lumpkins changes the graphic.

2010-04-18T21:40:00.000-07:00

Peter Lumpkins writer at "SBC Tomorrow" blog, had been using a graphic that I made for Alpha & Omega Ministries, but has since come to understand copyright law and has taken it down. He's now using a graphic that Dr. White has posted for media use, so I guess he's in the clear.

Thank you Peter, for complying with the law.

Now about that Arminianism... ;)

Peter Lumpkins thinks he has rights.

2010-04-16T21:30:00.000-07:00

Peter Lumpkins attempted to address his use of a copyrighted image as "fair use". Peter himself claims copyright on his own written material at his blogs.

All written materials on this site are protected by copyright and cannot be used in any fashion without written consent from SBC Tomorrow. Exceptions are limited to "fair use" copyright law for reviews and direct quotes.

There's a direct quote for you Peter. ;)

The problem is that what Lumpkins did was does not fall under fair use. Here's Lumpkin's attempt:

Here is the original:

I made this image a few years back for A&O, I did not distribute this image for personal use. This is used as the Podcast graphic when you download a podcast from A&O.

Mr. Lumpkins has attempted to address my claim by editing his original duplication and "puzzle" filtering of this image by further editing it. However, this isn't sufficient to nullify my (and A&O's) original copyright on the image. The problem lies in the fact that merely changing a work doesn't satisfy copyright claims.

If Mr. Lumpkins would bother to go to http://www.copyright.gov he'd find the following:

How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent.

So, sorry, Mr. Lumpkins, you're still in violation of the law.

Because of my asking him to remove the image, twice, on his blog he has closed comments on the threads and is "going to rethink commenting on SBC Tomorrow in the future". Good for you Mr. Lumpkins! Rather than address the legal concerns of fellow believers honestly and openly, you'd rather create a static blog (like your James White themed one where you continue to violate copyright law) where you can pontificate. Here's a tip Peter, turn on comment moderation up front and let your readers know it is on. It's good policy.

Finally, there's that little issue of Dr. White's video that you hacked into a quick lie. And while you claim that "James White presently is neither a sufficient biblical role model nor a suitable candidate to teach in any Southern Baptist institution in the future", it seems all you have done so far is to cast doubt on your own objectivity in this matter. First you lie about Dr. White's video and now you stubbornly refuse to obey the law of the land per Rom. 13. Seriously, do you think this is the behavior of a believer?

UPDATE
Peter has since stopped using the graphic and is now using a media bio image for Dr. White.

Peter Lumpkins, Liar, Lawbreaker....

2010-04-16T11:37:00.000-07:00

Years ago, when redesigning the Alpha & Omega Minsitries website, I created some images for them to use on their podcasts and the like.

SBC cad, Peter Lumpkins, nabbed one of the images for his anti-James-White screed site.

I politely asked him to remove it on his blog:

Mr Lumpkins, the image you are using on the "James White On" blog is copyrighted. I know this because I created it. Please stop using it. Thanks.

He replied with:

Mr. Burke,

I'd appreciate it if you'd have the courtesy to use my email address I supply on my site for any further complaints you may find there.

As for the image being copyright, could you supply me with some proof concerning the copyright? I get lots of comments from trolls who claim all sorts of things.

In addition, could you explain how my use of the image you claim is "copyright" is not being used within "fair use" copyright law?

Had I known it was "copyright" I surely would not have used it, obviously. And, I'm quite sure if it *is* copyright, you probably would not allow usage so there is no use to ask if, in fact, you have "copyright" the image.

With that, I am...
Peter

True to form, Mr Lumpkins doesn't want the public to witness any interaction with others, that way he is able to hide his snide remarks and flat out denial of responsibility to Romans 13.

I replied:

Peter,

ALL images on the Alpha & Omega website are copyrighted. Hence the © 2010 - Alpha & Omega Ministries notification at the bottom of every page.

Fair use does not mean you can grab any image off of any site and use it for any purpose. The image, the logo etc. were created for the marketing purposes of Alpha & Omega ministries.

There are plenty of public domain images of Dr. White you can play with. Please don't use the ones I've created.

Micah Burke

He also sent the following:

Mr. Burke,

Though I'm not convinced any action on my part is presently obligated, I sufficiently covered enough of the image to ensure I am within "fair use" of your alleged copyright. When I have more time I will get rid of the image altogether.

With that, I am...
Peter

Both Peter Lumpkins and Ergun Caner represent all that is wrong with the SBC. Both lie to better their position (either in job or argument) and when confronted both deny the lie. Both present a castrated gospel that makes the work of Christ out to be the problem rather than the solution. Both have so compromised their own witness so as to undermine anything they say or preach. Truly these are men of whom can be said "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

I recommend that readers spend a few minutes at Peter's site getting acquainted with his form of sarcasm and winkingly-spoken smarmy comments. My reply to him was clear:

Remove the image. Again, ~I~ am the creator of the image, ~I~ hold the copyright on the image. There is no "alleged" here, it's a simple legal fact. But, true to form, you've added law breaking to lying. Repent.

Micah Burke

I did in fact make the images for A&O but they're a non-profit. They would hold the copyright, but I still have the original files and regardless of whether they want to claim copyright, I will. Mr. Lumpkins can use Dr. White's media photos all he wants, but he can leave my images alone.

Micah Burke

Camera Express - 757 Beach St., San Francisco - Fraud

2010-04-10T22:03:00.000-07:00

I entered the business of "Camera Express", 757 Beach St., San Francisco, CA approx 1:30pm on 4/10/2010 to examine their products available for purchase. I selected to purchase a generic polarizer for my camera. This item was marked $29.95. Upon taking my purchase to the counter I handed the clerk my atm/bank card and he immediately ran the card for $200

I disputed the purchase immediately, did not sign the sales slip, they then claimed that the item was an "HD Polarizer", and showed me the box, another generic polarizer which now had a price tag of $369 (it was switched behind the counter), though it remained a generic off-brand product. I demanded a refund and the clerk provided me a receipt stating -200 to my card, but also on the receipt it states "VOID". Upon contacting my bank, they informed me that the purchase had gone through but no correction had been made. Upon entering the store to demand a refund, they became hostile and demanded I leave. I argued with them strongly and was very unhappy as $200 was held from my account for this fraudulent item.

Hopefully the law enforcement agencies I contacted will stop these guys from hurting others.

Tilt Shift Flash Example

2010-04-08T15:09:00.000-07:00

Tilt Shift Example - Footage courtesy of Openfootage.net - If you cannot see the video, click past the break.

Sorry, this will take a bit to load, please be patient.

Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

Here's how this was done.

In this case I embedded the video file in the SWF, I recommend not embedding the file but streaming it from the server. The names I used below are changeable, use whatever you want.

Put the video in a movie clip container, this time called video.
Place video on the bottom layer of the stage. Blur it 25px.

Make another movie clip container, I call it gradient.
Make a gradient that consists of clear to black to clear.

Make another movie clip called mask.
Place the video movie clip on the bottom layer and
the gradient movie clip on the top layer.
(Video shouldn't be blurred in this clip.)

Set the gradient blending to Alpha.
Turn on cache as bitmap.

Close out of the mask movie clip and place it on the stage on it's own layer.
Set mask blending to Layer.

Test the video. Alter the gradient and the blur to fit your desires.

Finding an appropriate clip was the toughest part! You might consider boosting the saturation on the video clips to get that "toy" look.

Challies.com's new look

2010-02-27T17:29:00.001-08:00

Tim Challies does great websites... and great theology

Adobe Illustrator CS 4 - File Not Readable - Troubleshooting

2010-02-16T10:14:00.000-08:00

For those who deal with the common issue of Adobe Illustrator giving the "File Not Readable" error, here's a few tips:

What's going on is that Illustrator is running out of RAM during the display/render process. When you place multiple high-resolution files into an Illustrator document, Illustrator uses RAM to render the objects etc.

Illustrator is a 32 bit application is not taking advantage of your 6 Gig of RAM, but only accesses 3 gigs. Nothing you can do will make Illustrator use the rest.
When you place so many files into illustrator, it attempts to render them, using up your RAM.
Make sure you're LINKING files, not PLACING them on the actual page.
Reduce linked file's sizes to exact dimensions you need. (Don't use a 20" x 20" 1200 dpi image if you're printing the file at 300dpi.)
You can force Illustrator to display Document Raster Effects Settings to 72ppi, which will reduce some of the RAM requirements, until ready to output. Also turn of Anti-aliasing in the preferences while manipulating the document.
Illustrator is not a page-layout application. Learn to use InDesign for page layout rather than Illustrator (I'm still working on this myself.)
Once a file gives the dreaded FILE IS NOT READABLE error, you're basically stuck. Your only recourse is to close the application and open it again. If you save a file, which gives the error on opening, the file is pretty much useless. I've found no way of getting into a file that Illustrator has saved in an "unreadable" state.

Many thanks to Wade Zimmerman for help on these notes.

Rotten NewEgg

2010-01-29T17:33:00.000-08:00

Not really... cause it is limited to $10 off. Why not just say up to $10 off?

Cause 10% sounds better....

Did they get my business? NO WAY.

Alpha Gradient Masks Flash CS 4

2010-01-29T16:29:00.000-08:00

Since I keep going back to this video for help, I've decided other folks might want to see it too.

Outlook 2007 Address Book/ Contact Lists are useless

2010-01-19T16:34:00.000-08:00

I've been a long time user of Outlook, but it was today that I really began to question it's usefulness. I created an email, but couldn't remember the name of the person who it needed to go to. So I clicked the "To:" button and up came the "address book". Now, the address book is different from your contact list in Outlook. The address book is a different application, part of Windows, not Office/Outlook.
This address book contained the contact's name, display name and E-mail address... which might have been enough if the search function worked, but it doesn't really. I tried to search for the term "mod" since the person I was emailing's address is @modbee.com . "Your search yielded no results." Ok... it's only searching in the name field, so I select "more columns", search again... same thing. Round and round.

I Google the issue and find out two things. There's no fix, never has been, the MS certified bozos just say "go to your contacts and..." BUT I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. I shouldn't have to get out of the window I'm in to go hunt down a name in another window. Just give me the thorough contact list to begin with and abandon this silly address book junk! Secondly, there's no way to add columns to the address book, say "company name", nor to search them from that button click. Why the To: button doesn't bring up the contact list, who knows?

I've read that 2010 works the same way. I think I'm going to need a better email client pronto.

Hard Plastic Case for HP Mini NetBook

2009-12-08T12:06:00.000-08:00

My company bought me an HP Mini netbook to use in the office etc. Unfortunately I came back from holiday to find it on the floor cracked and the screen broken. The repair cost is nearly the cost of the unit itself (reminder, if you buy something like this, the accidental damage protection is not overkill.) I went looking for a hard case to protect the netbook, only to find that there really weren't any out there that fit the bill. I realize that the point of having a netbook is its small size and portability, but when taking it somewhere, I want some protection for the unit.

So after doing some searches I found the following Blow Molded Budcase with Foam.
Once I get it I'll let you know how it goes. They have other cases but this one seemed the best fit.

Baptism Debates - Paedocommunion discussions

2009-12-06T02:22:00.000-08:00

Found a great resource on these topics including debates and discussions:

Baptism
9 November 2007 - Topic: BAPTISM
#33 - Baptism and the Covenant
Dr. Gregg Strawbridge and Dr. James White debate the issues of Baptism and the Covenant. Part 1 - 64 MIN; Part 2 - 73 MIN

13 December 2007 - Topic: BAPTISM
#36 - Believer's Baptism
Dr. Thomas Schreiner

3 January 2008 - Topic: Baptism
#40 - Why Baptize Babies?
Pastor Mark Horne

Padeocommunion

14 November 2006 - Topic: COMMUNION
#3 - Introduction to Covenant Communion
Covenant Communion is discussed with Pastor Gregg Strawbridge. 63 MIN

29 April 2009
#77 - Children at the Lord's Table?
Dr. Cornelis Venema

14 November 2006 - Topic: COMMUNION
#3 - Introduction to Covenant Communion
Covenant Communion is discussed with Pastor Gregg Strawbridge. 63 MIN

General

25 June 2007
#87 - Recovering the Reformed Confession
Dr. R. Scott Clark joins Covenant Radio to discuss his book Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice

Baptism and Communion... Circumcision and Passover

2009-11-29T04:42:00.000-08:00

My friend, Turretinfan has posted a response to Dr. White who wrote in response to R Scott Clark's reponse to my last post. (Got it?) In this post, Turretinfan states:

The unbloody sign of baptism replaces the bloody sign of circumcision (just as the unbloody Lord's Supper replaces the bloody Passover).

Therefore, if you're keeping score, circumcision = baptism, passover =Lord's Supper.

Now, most Paedobaptists (specifically Reformed ones) baptize infants on the basis of the infants inclusion in the covenant of grace via the infant's parent's faith. That is, because of Federal Headship, that is, because the federal head (father) of the household is a believer all those in the household should be baptized. This concept came out in the debate between Pastor Bill Shisko and Dr. White a while back. Pastor Shisko stated that because the father of a household believed, everyone in the household should be baptized, regardless of faith (including teenaged unbelievers.)

However, when it comes to the Supper, these same folks note that Paul warns in 1 Corinthians 11 that those who partake of the Supper are to do so in a worthy manner and that "he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly". Their claim is therefore that since Scripture demands that one be able to "judge the body rightly" (NASB) and those who partake without "discerning the body" (ESV) do in fact "eats and drinks judgment on himself". Thus they view that only those who have professed faith and are able to "discern the body" are proper recipients of the Supper.

The report by the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) on Paedocommunion of 1987 also makes the connection of Communion to the Passover stating (this report was not adopted by the OPC):

The Passover was in some sense transformed into the Lord's Supper.

In the words of institution our Lord transformed the words used at the covenant-instituting meal at Sinai (Ex. 24). (one exception)...

Children did participate in the first Passover, and were at least permitted to participate in subsequent celebrations of it, while in the New Testament there is no explicit prohibition or command regarding the participation of children in the Lord's Supper. (one exception)

The interchangeability of Old Testament and New Testament sacramental terminology demonstrates the fundamental unity of the covenant (and its sacraments). Cf. I Cor. 5:7; 10:2; Col. 2:11

As there was a definitive Passover and then a commemorative, so there was a definitive Lord's Supper and then a commemorative; in both cases the latter was the celebration of an accomplished redemption.

It should be clear therefore that Presbyterians (and the Dutch Reformed who argue likewise) view Communion as the fulfilled type of Passover. Note also that this report recognizes that children partook of passover and that the OT and NT sacramental terminology is interchangeable and there is "fundamental unity of the covenant (and its sacraments). Yet they recognize that 1 Corinthians 11 requires some responsibility on the part of the partaker to "discern the body", that is that the elements being served are representations of Christ's shed body and blood and in such are holy things that God uses as means of grace to His people.

[ Baptists who have trouble with this last bit should take into account Keach's Catechism, a baptist catechism created by one of the writers of the London Baptist Confession of Faith wherein he writes:

Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.
...

Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation?
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

Q. 99. Wherein do Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God?
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God in that they were specially instituted by Christ to represent and apply to believers the benefits of the new covenant by visible and outward signs.

The Baptists of the 17th century had no difficulty with covenantal and sacramental language as commonly used by their paedobaptist brethren. I encourage Baptist believers to read Keach's Catechism as well as the LBCF if this terminology troubles them. ]

Within the past few decades the debate within Protestant Paedobaptist circles over the issue of paedocommunion has been no small matter. No less than R. C. Sproul Jr., son of respected Presbyterian pastor, teacher and Reformed celebrity R.C. Sproul, has taken the position that consistent understanding of covenantal theology requires paedocommunion as the counterpart to paedobaptism. That is, if baptism is the circumcision of the New Covenant and the Lord's Supper is the Passover of the New Covenant, and if infants and children were the right recipients in the Old Covenant administration, then they are the proper recipients of the means of grace in the New Covenant administration. They believe therefore that since federal headship is the means by which a infant is considered the proper subject of baptism, and since both baptism and the Supper are "means of grace", and since the Old Testament pattern is that infants and children were proper subjects of both circumcision and the passover, they should likewise be the proper subjects of the New Covenant fulfillment of those types. The "Federal Vision" movement reignited this debate to some extent with many of whom this label has been applied to taking the paedocommunionist viewpoint.

We Baptists agree with our paedobaptist brethren of the anti-paedocommunion stripe in this one point, that faith is in fact a requirement for communion. 1 Corinthians 11 clearly expresses the view that one must be able to generally understand what is going on to be considered a right recipient of the elements.

We however believe that the Scriptural pattern, time and again is that one is to "believe and be baptized" (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 , Acts 8:12, Acts 18:8, etc.) and that one is to "repent and be baptized". We do not believe that Acts 2:39, usually partially quoted, provides any support for the view that faith is not a requirement of baptism. In fact, we note that there is much, much more support in Scripture for the view that faith is a requirement of baptism than there is for faith being a requirement of the Supper. If one is just looking content-wise, the number of verses relating baptism and faith far outnumber those for faith and communion.

That said, one must wonder why, if one can have the sign and seal of the New Covenant administered to them without their believing, and in fact (as some argue) even if they're unbelieving members of a believing household, on the basis of federal headship, why federal headship does not apply in the one sign that Christ Himself calls "the New Covenant in my blood". Why, if federal headship alone dismisses all the requirements of faith for baptism in Scripture does it not also apply to the Supper? Surely the faith of the federal head of the family, and their ability to discern the body, can apply for the Supper as well as baptism?

Why is there unity in the sign of circumcision but disunity in the sign of passover? Why are infants and children denied these means of grace?

I would like to suggest that it is simply inconsistent for paedobaptists to administer baptism to their children on the basis of federal headship and yet deny them the body and blood of our Savior. I would also like to suggest that this inconsistency shows a major crack in their argument for paedobaptism, for when it comes to the Supper they argue like Baptists demanding evidence of faith before allowing them at the table.

Dr. White, in his debate with Pastor Shisko asked about the nature of the New Covenant and why infants and children baptized therein are lost if they truly considered "in" the New Covenant. I don't believe he got an adequate answer then. I also note that a post-debate follow-up in the New Horizons magazine Pastor Shisko wrote:

We should stop using the term "paedobaptism" (baptism of infants) and use the more biblical expression "oikobaptism" (baptism of households). The point is not that infants were baptized in the New Testament, but that whole households were baptized.... Certainly in the missionary context of Acts, there had to be faith in new converts to Christianity before they could receive the sign and seal of Christian baptism (in the same way that Abraham received the sign and seal of circumcision only after he believed the promises of God, Rom. 4:11-12). But even as whole families were received as part of the covenant people in all previous ages, so that pattern continues in the New Testament. If, in fact, this household principle was abrogated in the new covenant, one would not expect the household formula to be used as it is in the New Testament.

Yet in the very next month's issue the following was written by James T. Dennison about paedocommunion:

But we dare not admit children without a credible profession of faith. Far from bestowing privileges of blessing upon them, to do so is to hang millstones about their necks.

In that same issue Stuart R. Jones wrote:

Precisely how much discernment a child is capable of and how much understanding is necessary for worthy participation is another matter. The new covenant is simultaneously more accessible and deeper than the old covenant. The demands of the new law are simpler and more far-reaching as the royal law of love. The call to daily cross-bearing is more far-reaching than rabbinic parsing of Old Testament law.

The strange, inconsistent nature of this argument should be evident without much further posting. Even though there is not a single verse in Scripture commanding, commending or even suggesting the baptism of infants, and in fact many, many verses clearly stating the pattern of "believe and be baptized", paedobaptists argue that infants and children should be baptized in the New Covenant because they were circumcised in the Old. And yet, though infants and children partook of the passover meal in the Old Covenant, since there is one passage stating that one should "discern the body" as a requirement for partaking the Supper, they bar the table to infants.

Finally, I want to note the nature of the paedobaptist argument against the Baptist position. As seen in R. Scott Clark's replies to my previous post, there seems to be a lot of rhetorical dishonesty in regard to how Baptists both view other believers and their own children. Just as Clark declared that " According to the Baptists I'm not a Christian" Pastor Shisko calls into doubt the Baptist's love and care for their children, or belief in the saving nature of the New Covenant saying "Baptist views cannot account for the language used of children in the New Testament. While it is true that Jesus did not baptize little children, what did he mean when he took little children and said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven"" and "On a Baptist model, how is it that children are included among "the saints" in Ephesians 6:1-3 and Colossians 3:20 (cf. Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2)?". Both of these men have enough contact with Reformed Baptists to know that these statements and these questions are illegitimate. Reformed Baptists believe that Protestant Paedobaptists are believers, we also believe that God saves children of believers by the same power that raised Christ from the dead, with or without their baptism or partaking of the Supper. Again, Baptists believe that their children may in fact be members of the New Covenant, we do not require a profession of faith to "prove that one is elect" or "regenerate", rather, we note the clear pattern of Scripture that those who profess faith are the proper recipients of both baptism and the Supper. Furthermore we suggest that, given the nature of their argument against paedocommunion they recognize that our argument against paedobaptism is identical in nature. Thus either their argument against our position is untenable or their argument against paedocommunion is, but they cannot have it both ways.

Update:

I found another article by R. Scott Clark on infant baptism in which he states:

Passover (like the other feasts) differed from circumcision, however, in the same way that baptism and the LORD's supper differ: circumcision, the first covenant sign was applied to infants and adults alike, and was a mark of entrance into God's covenant people. The Passover feast was restricted to those who are able to understand God's redeeming acts because it was a sign designed to nurture and lead to growth.

Yet the OPC states:

Children did participate in the first Passover, and were at least permitted to participate in subsequent celebrations of it.

Who is right?

A thought on R. Scott Clark's definiton of "Reformed"

2009-11-22T21:52:00.000-08:00

R. Scott Clark, an ordained minister in the denomination of the church my wife and I currently attend, stated a while back that basically, only paedobaptists are "Reformed". In doing this of course he claims that credo-baptists (those who baptize only those who profess faith) are thereby not Reformed. I realized, re-reading the conversation there, that Clark essentially makes the same mistake that Ergun Caner made a few years back when he stated (paraphrasing): "I'm not a Calvinist or an Arminian, I'm a baptist."

Both Clark and Caner make a category error. The term "Baptist" defines one's view on baptism, not on soteriology. Likewise "Reformed" defines, not one's view on baptism, but one's understanding of the the five solas, and a covenantal understanding of soteriology. Now, Clark might argue that a "covenantal understanding of soteriology" requires a paedobaptistic viewpoint, but the formers of the 1689 London Baptist Confession would surely disagree. Also, consider that Rome had a paedobaptism, and it is Rome from which the Reformers ~reformed~ the church.

Are not both Caner and Clark educated enough to know a fallacy when they state one?

Horton endorses a Who?

2009-11-16T11:41:00.000-08:00

Yeah, ok... so Michael Horton endorsed a book by Scott Hahn saying it was insightful into the theology of Pope Benedict and folks are in an uproar. Listen folks, just cause you say a book is good to teach math doesn't mean you agree with the writer's views on everything.

Great resource

2009-10-26T16:16:00.000-07:00

The entire text of Easy Chairs, Hard Words by Douglas Wilson is available to read online through Google Books. I highly recommend this as an easy primer on Reformed soteriology.

Illustrator CS 4 Slow Toolbar Redraw - Windows 7 64bit

2009-10-05T21:15:00.000-07:00

So I've been using Adobe Illustrator CS4 for a while. On my work PC it runs fine (Vista, go figure), but at home on my beastly Windows 7 box (ATI Radeon 4870), it would refresh REALLY slowly.

So ignoring all the suggestions of updating drivers, I set about trying to fix it. Reset the prefs, deleted the temp files etc... to no avail.

Then I went and updated the ATI driver. And lo-and-behold, it fixed it.

My Car

2009-09-30T17:08:00.000-07:00

2008 Pontiac Solstice

An Excellent Article about the Mithras / Osiris Myths and the Connection to Christianity

2009-09-29T12:16:00.003-07:00

At Equip.org (the Bible Answer Guy) here.

Culture Talks - with Apologetics.com

2009-09-05T08:45:00.000-07:00

Good morning from Bay Farm Community Church!

I'm here to attend an apologetics conference with the Apologetics.com folks including my pal Lindsay Brooks!

Lindsay Brooks - How do we know something -
We need to make distinction between how we know...

Konetra - we know God exists.
Job 21:5 "Look at me, and be astonished, And put your hand over your mouth."

Worldview
A Worldview gives us a foundation to explain our reality and helps us explain our purpose or goal. Post-modern philosophers might call this metanarrative.

A Worldview gives us ability to explain what we see/do and explain the life we live.

not - "You're just saying atheists can't be moral..."
but - "atheism cannot justify what it claims as a worldview and is therefore irrational."

What atheists believe about the nature of the world is inconsistent with the way they live. Atheism is therefore irrational.

Christian Response
Demonstrating inconsistencies of worldview

Most folks reason's for being atheists are related to their emotional response to the problem of evil.

The Problem of Evil
God is all good, God is all powerful, God is all wise. Yet evil exists.

Athesists will tell us that this is an intuitive contradiction (rather than explicit, a=a a!=a). We need things to make the connections.

"God is all good ergo he would want to eliminate evil (etc).
God is all powerful therefore he should be able to eliminate evil.
God is all wise so he knows how to eliminate evil.
Since evil exists, god does not."

This is a difficult problem in emotional situations, a loved-one's death etc.
There is no more difficult, more important apologetic issue than the problem of evil.

Avil Platinga - University of Notre Dame
"The things that we hold are properly basic." - Epistomological construct - how we know what we know.

Properly basic - central to the way we know stuff, noetic web - what we know can change, but doesn't change worldview. If there is no God, that affects everything.

Platinga came up with a lovely defense for deductive problem of evil. Look it up!

The reasons people become atheists revolve around the problem of evil.
"Why did you make me this way?!"
Have compassion for the atheist - this is a real deep seated issue, tied to the emotions.

Upon these issues there are constructs around them.

Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known what he ought to know... 1 Cor 1-3

Bahnsen - embarrassing historical ironies - modern science could not have arisen excet in the atmospshere of a Christian world-and-life view... fetish idolatry.

-- Alvin Schmidt --
• Christians invented the concept of hospital - true charity hospitals - Nicea 325ad xenodochia

• Christians advanced higher learning - modern universities known today began as Christian church. Harvard - William & Mary - Yale - Princeton - Brown

-- James Whitman --
Jury trials/common law rooted in Christian world.

-- John Calvin --
Church/State Separation - spiritual kingdom of Christ and the civil government are things very widely separated

Most kids are taught that American culture is rooted in ancient Greece - and the Christian eras are considered "dark ages" (crusades, inquisitions, Galileo, etc)

"A backward time when, because of Christianity, Rome fell and there was only the faintest glimmer of brilliance that was snuffed out by the superstitious and ignorant Church as soon as it was detected."

Daniel N. Robinson - noted many great scholars in early church - universities, gothic architecture, Roman law - layed foundation for unified culture and civilization.

The caricature that we grew up with (Greece, Rome, Atheist enlightenment) is a lie.
The secular bias of our Christian faith lies to us... secular humanist plot where revelation is replaced with non-guided forces of random chance etc.

Science - Knowledge - to Split

The investigation of natural phenom thru observation/experimentation - or knowledge produced by such investigation.

Scientific method - careful observation, formulation of hypotheses, tests, conclusions or modification of hypotheses

Christians historically believe the universe is a means of God's revelation of himself. - God made the universe orderly and uniform in accord with his nature.

"The Christian imperative to go out and study that creation that God had made..." - Ken Samples

"...science is logically incompatible with the belief in a non material intelligent entity that controls the universe and is called God..." - Irving Rothschild

Basic requirements for Science

To Know:
What knowledge is
How we can know anything at all
If observation is reliable, and under what conditions if so
Nature is uniform
The future will be like the past
Does the method we are employing produce knowledge

Something objectively true -
What i know is identical to the actual fact
i have a good reason to think so
good reasons are not false

Empirical proof vs Empiricism - "physical stuff of universe is all there is"

Consequences with Empiricism

Problem of reliability of senses
Cow in field - white/black cow
A/B color change - problem of perception
Science tries to deal with problem of perception thru replicated results
Perception - senses are unreliable - is lump of gold's weight actually changing - Gordon H. Clark

The Choice of Equations
Median methods chosen may be problematic - mean - median - mode
Infinate number of curves plotting the data - which is the law? one must choose - Occam's razor
Why is simpler (Occam's) explanation the better one? If the universe is made up of non-goal directed forces... why expect simpler?

The Self-Refuting nature of Empiricism

"The only means to knowledge is sense perception of physical realities" - how can we know that?!

Problems of Induction - the conclusion is a high probability

Hume recognized that inductive conclusions could only be derived deductively from premises such as the uniformity of nature that themselves required inductive warrant, or from arguments that were inductive in the first place.
Induction begs the question - the future will resemble the past (and we know the past)

No justification in naturalistic worldview for doing experiments
- begs the question
- although we do experiments, the world of naturalism cannot account for it

Christian worldview -
God is the basis for the uniformity of nature
we can therefore expect measurements because of that fact

Karl Popper - "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability=, or testability
- Observations verified theories in question - the Marxist finds in newspaper confirmation for his interpretation of history (content and method of presentations)

Falsifiability is the hallmark of modern science
- "scientific method is superior to all other methods"
- "science is never too certain of its results"
- "science can be progressively wrong"

Scientific method - if the ground is wet, it is raining
- make up story that fits evidence
- test hypothesis - ground is wet
- you don't know for certain that it is raining.

Can we know anything at all based on Empiricism -
Are observations reliable
Can we come up with conditions under which they are
Does our worldview justify induction - (the future is like the past)
can the scientific method give us knowledge

Objections -
You're using science in computer • Science works!

In reality, it is pragmatism not science that rules our advances.

The atheist says: "Show me god!"

To properly show God to them,
- be their neighbor -

Apologetics - must lead to christian love
Philosophical debates and discussions of inconsistent worldviews must be lead to a loving relationship -
loving your neighbor - explain how we can know right and wrong from the Word of God revealed

Utilitarianism

2009-08-26T10:24:00.000-07:00

I posted the following question as my Facebook status.

What if science determined that the cells of down's syndrome children were the best cells for fighting cancer, and that it required the death of the child to "harvest" those cells?

Here's the comments:

Stacey Norris Hampton

I'm sure they'd find a way to do it, Hacim.

Jamie Robertson

They'd do it, and the politicians would find ways of forcing it upon people, and the 9th circuit court would rule it a constitutional right for cancer patients and thus rule that killing those down's syndrome kids wasn't murder.

Forest Walz

Um.... I don't know too many people who like killing kids, so it probably wouldn't do anything. I mean, right now there are thousands of people waiting for organ transplants. And, younger people's organs are the best for transplants. But, I don't see death squads going out to collect 18 yr old's organs. (at least not here in the states) Isn't this exactly the same?

Jamie Robertson

Nope, b/c "science" hasn't ruled it yet. They already slaughter unborn children for stem cell research that is shown to be going nowhere when far better stem cell alternatives exist (and are ignored/sacrificed on the alter of political correctness), so this would just be another step in the same direction if it were true.

Forest Walz

I don't think that abortions are done FOR stem cells. Whether you like it or not, currently abortions are performed, and the stem cells are normally discarded. Not using the cells means that the death of the baby was for nothing! If a baby is already dead, and their cells can help someone, then why not use them? Isn't this the same as a 3 year ... old dying and making a decision as to whether you'll donate their organs? Under your logic, we could be encouraging the killing of 3 year olds for their organs. (even if we used them to save another 3 year old) What if stem cells could help save other babies?

Micah Burke

"I don't see death squads going out to collect 18 yr old's organs. (at least not here in the states) Isn't this exactly the same?" <-- But there are "death squads" (in lab coats) going out killing younger kids for their organs or "cells". My point is, the utilitarian argument for stem cell research seems to be that "science must triumph over emotions", why stop at fetuses? Why not take any less-than-useful people-type and harvest what we can? Micah Burke Keep in mind, the difference between a "kid" and a "fetus" is only a few months. Jamie Robertson Not just talking about that but about using embryos from IFV. That's the SAME THING: killing a child just to get his or her stem cells. Harvesting stem cells off of murdered children from abortion is just as bad, it's picking off the dead as if they were nothing anyway. Micah Burke "Not using the cells means that the death of the baby was for nothing!" <--- As opposed to killing babies FOR SOMETHING.

Micah Burke
"If a baby is already dead, and their cells can help someone, then why not use them? Isn't this the same as a 3 year old dying and making a decision as to whether you'll donate their organs?" <-- No this is the purposeful taking of a human child's life and then harvesting their parts.

Stacey Norris Hampton
Jamie.. you mean IVF. I agree with that. When hubby and I were dealing with infertility the topic of "How far are we willing to go?" came up... we decided that IVF wasn't for us. Praise the Lord that we never got to that point anyway!

Forest Walz
Look, if you know of anybody killing younger kids for their organs, you should inform the authorities, and I don't want to hear anything more about it because I don't want to be incriminated. Seriously, dude... murder is illegal, so what the hell are you talking about? If you are trying to thinly veil a debate about abortion... well, your veil ... is getting pretty thin. BEEP! Survey says: On average, 10 out of 10 people are against killing children. Why don't you just talk about what you actually want to talk about?

Jamie Robertson
Yes, I meant IVF. Nothing against IVF if used correctly, it's what they do afterwards with the "unwanted" (yet fertilized anyway..... why?) embryos.

Micah Burke
I think you've done an adequate job of making my case for me.

Brain McLaren observes Ramadan

2009-08-22T14:10:00.000-07:00

...do you think it's appropriate for you to call me, a fellow Christian, Satanic?

Yes, absolutely. As a supposed leader of others, observing the fast and feast of a pagan religion, Islam, specifically for the purpose of being holy by fasting from "food, water, sex, etc., from dawn to dusk" is satanic.

Now, fasting for holiness is Biblical, but there was usually an intent specified in the fast (ie: the removal of demons, etc.) New Testament fasts are not laws, there is no requirement in Christianity for fasts, especially of "food, water or sex". Ramadan is a legal requirement binding on Muslims. I know of a Muslim woman who struggles every Ramadan because the fast dangerously effects her body. She cannot give what her body needs to survive or she'll be considered "unholy".

The connection to the Galatian-style heresy should be obvious. This is works-salvation plain and simple. If ever there was an example of the dramatic difference between Christianity and other religions this is it and far from engaging in this gnostic heresy where abstaining from food, water and sex (especially) makes one somehow more spiritual or holy, Christians should note that Christ and Paul told us otherwise.

McLaren states:

"Our main purpose for participating will be our own spiritual growth, health, learning, and maturity..."

His purpose, expressly stated on his website, is for spiritual growth, health, learning and maturity. Well, if engaging in the practices of pagan religions provides spiritual growth, why did the apostle Paul get so upset at the Galatians for engaging in Judaism? After all what's a little cut of the flesh? What was wrong with the Corinthians seeking the embrace of temple prostitutes? Surely those things were intended likewise for "spiritual growth, health, learning and maturity" in their religions. Why doesn't McLaren engage in sacrifices to Kali too while he's at it?

Yes, Paul did tell us to not worry about feasts and where foods came from, but this is far different than engaging in a practice that is specifically contrary to the foundation of our faith, freedom from the biding of man-made laws in Christ.

Therefore, by willingly engaging in this pagan ritual wherein one binds himself to the laws of a false god and religion, McLaren is truly "satanic". Not only that, but as a pastor and teacher of others, he is by his own actions encouraging believers to follow his example and thus leading others into darkness. Satanic fits the bill perfectly.

Reply to Maggie - from Forest's Facebook page.

2009-07-10T12:59:00.000-07:00

Maggie, thanks for interacting with me about this. It is my sincere hope that this discussion will be edifying for both of us. The Facebook page only provides a few hundred characters of context, so I had to edit a lot of my post. That makes it much more difficult to provide context and emotion. I do not mean to reply flippantly to you, but rather ask that you perhaps immerse yourself in the Scriptures to see if the traditions you hold (we all hold traditions of some sort) conform therein.

Here's my post:

"Sin is not what puts you in heaven Or hell."

the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness..." - Romans 1:18 (read thru -32 )

The context here explains WHY the Gospel is needed in the first place, that is, because everyone sins and is under God's wrath, needing a Savior. Chapter 2 of Romans explains why the Jewish folks, who had the Law and the Prophets, also needed a Savior, because they were sinners to and under greater condemnation for sinning against not only what is revealed in nature (Romans 1:18-19) but also what is in the Law and Prophets. (Romans 2:3-12)

This is why Paul writes: ¹²For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
Notice that everyone perishes... death is the penalty for sin. Chapter 3 of Romans goes on to explain how both the Jews and the Gentiles are alike in that they're all under God's wrath.

Paul writes: ⁹What then? Are we [the Jews] better than they [the Gentiles]? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;

Paul's summary is a quote from the Psalms:

"THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
¹¹THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
¹²ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

Paul is clear. No one, Jew or Gentile, in and of their "free will", seeks for God. Everyone is an enemy of God and by birth, by nature, a child of God's wrath. (Eph 2:3)

"you're not hell bound because Adam ate an apple"

Romans 5:¹² Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

In chapter 5 of Romans Paul establishes the idea that Adam represented us all in the Garden of Eden. Through Adam sin entered the world. Paul goes further stating: "by the transgression of the one the many died..." You and I therefore sinned... IN ADAM.

Let's be clear, Adam's sin was not merely eating an apple. Mankind has since the beginning sought ways to diminish the sinfulness of sin. What Adam did was disobey the Holy, Righteous, Omniscient judge of the universe. In so doing he failed in several of God's commands. Adam failed to rule over the creatures of the earth and subdue them by obeying the serpent. (Gen 1:28) Adam failed to rightly inform his wife of the commands of God, and to ensure that she follow them. Eve sinned by listening to the serpent, and Adam sinned again by listening to Eve and eating of the fruit of the tree God commanded them not to eat of.

This story sets the stage for the need for a promised Savior (Gen 3:15), the need for shedding of blood for the sake of sin (Gen 3:21), and the new reality of sin and death. It's startling to note how you dismiss Adam's sin as merely "eating an apple". Adam's sin is your sin, and my sin. We sin because we are sinners, we are not sinners because we sin.

This might be hard for our modern mindset to comprehend, but it is similar to a king declaring war on another country. The two countries go to war... and everyone, whether they like the king or not, is technically at war. God made a covenant with Adam, (Hosea 6:7), and warned him that he would die if he ate of the fruit. Adam ate, and died, spiritually, the moment he ate of the fruit. In so doing Adam, in effect, became God's enemy and thus we are all born at enmity with God. (Rom 5:10 , Col 1:21)

But that's the bad news as proclaimed by Romans 5. The good news is also proclaimed in Romans 5.

Romans 5: ¹⁷ For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

All mankind is thus born 'spiritually dead' (Eph 2:1), and in need of spiritual life, found only in Christ. I highlighted a portion to note that not everyone is in Christ, only those who" receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness" are given new life in Christ.

God therefore provided Christ as a new representative, a second Adam, (Rom 5:14) to represent His people and provide atonement for their sins on the cross. By faith in Christ then, one is transferred from the kingdom of darkness and death (in Adam) into the kingdom of light and life (Christ.) Col 1:13 - For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,

Everyone is therefore in Adam, and dead, or in Christ and alive. 1 Cor 15:22 - For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Pastor John Piper explains it this way:

The problem with the human race is not most deeply that every body does various kinds of sins... behind all of our depravity, behind all of our guilt, behind all of our personal sinning, there is this mysterious connection or union with Adam, our father who sinned and we being in him in some mysterious way also sinned, and died, and are condemned.

What Christ has done for all who are in him, is far greater than what Adam did for all who are in him. It's all about the superiority of the work of Christ for those who are in him, over and against what happened for all who were in Adam. - John Piper

"This means when they are born, when they become of age, it is up to them where they are destined. "

Psalm 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb;These who speak lies go astray from birth.

Eph 1: 4-5 - just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love, He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will...

Eph 1: 11 - In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,

God had a plan when He created this universe. Sin did not surprise him, in fact it was with the intention that God would provide for His Son a people to reign with Him in eternity that He created this universe.

The words of Eph 1:11 are inescapable... God works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will. Everything that happens happens because God so foreordained it.

This includes the actions of sinful humans:

Acts 4:27-28 - For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

God foreordained that Pilate, Herod, the Jews and the Gentiles to falsely accuse, try and crucify Christ.

Consider also the words of God to Isaiah:

Isa 46:10-11
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, 'My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';
¹¹Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man of My purpose from a far country
Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass.
I have planned it, surely I will do it.

Thus: Whatever God wants, God gets.

"but he also gives you a path of choices along the way so you get to decide your fate"

Let's look at Romans 9 to determine if that is the case.

Romans 9:6-8
But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED."
That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Not everyone who was related to Abraham was a 'true' descendant of Abraham. It is only those who, like Isaac, were born miraculously (Paul is alluding to being born-again), who were truly "Israel". This of course includes we Gentiles, and always have.

Consider that Abraham himself is only a "Jew" because God called him. Before that he was a Gentile like us. Rahab, the prostitute, who is a antecedent of Christ, was not a Jew, but is considered one of the faithful. Thus Paul states that it is those who are of faith, both Jew and Gentile who are the true Israel of God. (Rom 2:28-29, Gal 3:29 Gal 6:16)

Paul explains this further:

10And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;
11for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
12it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."
13Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."

This passage brings up a lot of emotion! God chose Jacob over Esau, condemning Esau BEFORE they were born!? Yes! "though the twins were not yet born"

God did not take into account their deeds? No! "had not done anything good or bad"

¹⁴What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!

God is not unjust, even though it seems that, choosing to show mercy and grace to one person over another before they were born and before they did anything good or bad may seem that way.

¹⁵For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." ¹⁶So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

Salvation therefore is dependant not on our will, or our effort, but on God to have mercy. Consider what God says to Pharaoh:

¹⁷For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."

God raised up Pharaoh to show his power, and wrath... as well as his grace and mercy to the Jews.

¹⁸So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

This is Paul's theme. Salvation depends on God to have mercy on whom He desires. But God also hardens whom He desires to harden. Now, at this point you're thinking: "God is unjust!"

Paul responds to you:

¹⁹You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" ²⁰On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? ²¹Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? ²²What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? ²³And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,

Remember, Romans was written to Gentile Christians.

²⁴even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Yes, it is about faith. But faith is a gift of God to those whom He chooses to have mercy on.

So, let me conclude with Ephesians 2, where this is all sewed up for us:

Ephesians 2:1-9
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.

Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

- It is while we were dead in sins and trespasses that God raises us to life (makes us born again), not after we figured out the Gospel and chose to "let Jesus in our heart".

Instead, God is so wonderful that he actually seeks out us who are enemies of Jesus and gives us a new heart, and puts his Holy Spirit in us, and brings us to new life that we might love and serve Christ. (Romans 8:7-9, Eze 36:22-Eze 37)

This is historic Christianity, and I hope you can see that it conforms to what the Bible teaches. I ask that you consider this, and do some research on it in the Bible and also in Church history.

A good place to start is http://www.monergism.com

Thanks for reading!

In Adam All Die - Shai Linne - Lyrics

2009-07-10T12:39:00.000-07:00

Chorus
We’re cursed from our birth, sinning from the beginning
The womb to the tomb, depraved to the grave
Astray every day, every breath brings death
In Adam all die, In Adam all die

We’re rebels like the devil, scheming like demons
Prideful with our idols, disgusting with our lusting
Twisted and sin-sick, selfish and helpless
In Adam all die, In Adam all die

Everybody knows that they’re guilty
Our conscience condemns us, shows us we’re filthy
Truth be told, we really have no answers
For why we fall short of our own moral standards
The evidence for God is simply bountiful
And it’s illogical to think we won’t be held accountable
A universal day of judgment approaches
Any rational notion of justice would presuppose this
And deep down inside, everybody knows this
But we disregard it because our deeds are atrocious
We prefer the vicious, our words are malicious
Our slurs pernicious, we find the absurd delicious
Depraved in our appetites- the things we crave are lacking light
Because sin’s got us enslaved and shackled tight
And if we are to understand the fruit
We need to go back and examine the root

Chorus

The world we live in wasn’t always like this
The early days had perfect righteousness and bright bliss
Man and woman under God-ruled government at first
Bubbling with mirth, immersed in loving with no hurts
God gave what theologians call the covenant of works
Forbidden fruit- the day you eat of it you’ll be cursed
Husband wasn’t alert; wife lacked discernment
Entrapped by the serpent and that was the first sin
The consequences were monumental
In fact, I’m not convinced they had a clue of what they’d gotten into
Their eyes were opened more- truth in the lies
To their surprise, they didn’t get the prize they were hoping for
They see their nakedness and now regret it
They tried to cover their guilt and then blame shift- how pathetic
And it’s a true story- you want some evidence?
We’ve been doing the same thing ever since

Chorus

We talk Adam and Eve, cats think we’re "throwed off", really
They don’t think it relates to thugs in North Philly
But it’s like Switchfoot said- we were meant to live
But in the garden Adam was our representative
So when the Judge executed the sentence
Adam’s guilt was imputed to his descendants
Global calamity
Major debt, pain, regret, the reign of death- total depravity
And yes, I’m aware that cats were not there
Which opens the door to charges of “that’s not fair”
But God is not subject to fallen notions of fairness
Besides, when it comes to God’s glory, most could care less
We can’t measure how we chase sand treasures
And banned pleasures- similar to our ancestors
So instead of saying if you were there what you would do
Seek your refuge in Adam number two

Bible Giveaway!

2009-07-08T11:46:00.000-07:00

Logos Bible Software is celebrating the launch of their new online Bible by giving away 72 ultra-premium print Bibles at a rate of 12 per month for six months. The Bible giveaway is being held at Bible.Logos.com and you can get up to five different entries each month! After you enter, be sure to check out Logos and see how it can revolutionize your Bible study.

Please help out my pal!

2009-06-11T15:16:00.000-07:00

A wonderful Reformed Christian friend of mine has recently been separated from her husband because of his unfaithfulness. She is now trying to support four children without any support from him and very little from her family. I'm desperate to help her. Please help support with whatever you can. Please email me for more details.

Han Solo P.I.

2009-06-10T13:35:00.001-07:00

Lou Rugg Can't Read

2009-05-06T17:29:00.001-07:00

Paltalk denizen, Louis Ruggerio writes:

Before Esau was born, God knew he would despise his birthright. And before Jacob was born, God also knew he would covet Esau's birthright and offer to trade it with Esau for some venison. God also knew that Esau would choose to accept Jacob's offer. This is why Romans 9:13 says, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Does anyone really think that God arbitrarily hated Esau and loved Jacob for no apparent reason? Well, Calvinists do!

Let's look at Romans 9 to see if Lou Rugg has a proverbial leg to stand on:

Romans 9:10-12
¹⁰And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, ¹¹though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— ¹²she was told, "The older will serve the younger." ¹³As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Now the whole passage is discussing why and how it is that "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" (v6). And it is explained, in this passage that God chose Jacob over Esau "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad".

God chose Jacob over Esau not based on anything He foresaw they would do, but "in order that God’s purpose of election might continue".

It is surely true that "God knew he would despise his birthright", but that was not why God chose Jacob over Esau.

Romans 9:14-18
¹⁴What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! ¹⁵For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." ¹⁶So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. ¹⁷For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." ¹⁸So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

God has mercy on whomever He wills, not because of anything they did, but because we're all filthy rotten sinners in need of mercy, and none of us deserve saving.

Lou Rugg, a classic Pelagian, believes God saves you because of what He foresees you will do... Christians however believe that God loved us before we could, or wanted to, love Him and saved us, not because of what we've done, but because of His own grace and mercy.

Titus 3:5
he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

Inconsistency

2009-05-04T14:58:00.001-07:00

Had a friendly scuffle with Tur8infan in his combox over infant baptism. The exchange can be read here. I'm writing these thoughts out in this post as I have never seen this line of thought argued in a debate.

I'm a credo-baptist, I believe that the proper subjects of baptism are those who repent and believe. That does not mean that I deny that God can, and does, regenerate infants or the infirm who cannot verbalize their faith/new birth. We, Reformed Baptists, do not exclude infants or the infirm from church or the hearing of the Gospel, but we do wait until a profession is made before we administer baptism or the Supper. We believe that both baptism and the Supper require one to be conscious of their significance.

(Note: I'm sure there are examples in Baptist churches where this is ignored, but I'm speaking firstly of self-proclaimed Reformed Baptist, or credo-baptistic churches who hold to the doctrines of grace.)

To summarize:

Reformed paedobaptists believe that the basis for baptizing infants lay in the concept of Federal Headship and, as Tur8infan states it: "The declaration of faith and repentance for baptism is either the individual's own, or (in the case of infants) that of the parent(s), just as with circumcision." Thus, because a parent believes, an infant should be baptized.

Reformed paedobaptists (who do not practice paedocommunion) claim that Scripture demands that one who partakes the Supper examine themselves and discern the body. Thus since an infant cannot do these things, they should be excluded from the meal.

Those who do practice both paedobaptism and paedocommunion claim that federal headship applies to both covenant rites and thus infants of believers so baptized and communed are true members of Christ and the New Covenant.

From my perspective, the paedocommunionists are more consistent at least with how they handle federal headship. I would argue that if baptism = circumcision then the Supper most closely resembles the Passover meal. Yet the Passover meal was provided to all who had been circumcised as long as they could partake (milk-fed infants not withstanding). They did not need to discern the body, as they most likely saw it slain.

Yet, since there is as much demand in Scripture for one to believe and repent before being baptized and afterward to walk in the newness of life, as there is for one to examine oneself and discern the body prior to partaking of the Supper, if you are to apply one standard to baptism, it must be likewise applied to the Supper.

If the faith of the parent enables one, it should enable the other. If however the command for examination and discernment is required of one, and thus prevents an infant from participating in one, it must likewise prevent the other.

My questions, for non-paedocommunionists are these:

1) Into what covenant are infants baptized?

2) Where are the stipulations of said covenant found?

3) Do infants baptized into said covenant receive all the benefits thereof as described?

4) On what basis are infants, baptized into said covenant, excluded from the one rite/object actually identified with that covenant?

5) If circumcised children/infants participated in the Passover meal why are baptized infants prevented from participating in the fulfillment of that meal?

I may think up more questions in the following days, but one other issue must be addressed.

In almost every credo/paedo debate, the paedobaptist side brings up the fact that John the Baptist leapt in his mother's womb, that Jesus told the disciples to bring children to him, that one has to have faith "like a child" etc. as some sort of argument for their position.

The problem, of course, with this is several fold. Firstly, since the paedobaptist argument lies in the fact of federal headship and the faith of the parent, not that of the child or infant, the potentiality of faith/regeneration of infants does not make a case for federal-headship-infant-baptism. Leaping babies, blessings from Jesus and faith "like a child" are emotional appeals that speak to the nature of the child and/or God's care for the child, not to the correctness of baptising them. If one is arguing for paedobaptism on the basis of federal headship, the infant's faith, or even ability to have faith, should be of no regard.

To this, Tur8in fan wrote:

The John the Baptist example demonstrates that young infants can, in theory, have faith, repentance, and a regenerate heart. (and you wonder why it keeps getting trotted out in debates ...)

But this still doesn't answer the question or explain the usage. No Reformed Baptist denies that infants can be given the gift of faith, or a regenerate heart... so the only purpose therefore in a debate is as an emotional appeal without consistent basis in the Paedobaptist's federal headship argument.

Finally, I wonder if the fact that we seem to have reduced the Supper to a rite of drinking a thimble of juice/wine and a little piece of bread alters our opinion of what is to be done. I don't believe that the 1 Cor 11 version of the Supper was merely the clinical ceremony it is today.

Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Appearance of Evil...

2009-04-19T00:48:00.000-07:00

I wanted to address 1 Thes 5:22, but I found that Dan Wallace already has.

To add to what Wallace states, some view this passage (as rendered by the KJV alone) as speaking of the Christian life in general:

John MacArthur once wrote:

1 Thessalonians 5:22--"Abstain from all appearance of evil. " That verse doesn't refer to something that only appears to be evil but really isn't; it means that as soon as evil even appears you had better get out! Don't stick around. When you hear a perverse mouth or see evil behavior--get out. As soon as it appears, be gone. Don't sit around long enough to figure out whether it's evil. If there's any doubt, be on your way.

MacArthur, writing about sin in general rightly interprets the verse but wrongly applies it. This verse is NOT talking about evil in general or something that appears evil, but specifically real evil in doctrine.

The greater context bears out the meaning:

1 Thess. 5:20-22
do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything [carefully], hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil. (NASB)

The context relates to the church and doctrine specifically, not to anything someone might consider "evil". I've seen this verse misused to place legalistic binds on believers considering celebrating Halloween, drinking alcohol, using Proctor & Gamble products, going to movies, and just about every other activity imaginable.

One person told me that since my Facebook profile contained links to secular music groups I was somehow in violation of this verse.

I understand the desire for purity, but let's make sure our purity and piety is based on trustworthy texts and exegesis and not on some legalist's view of a particular text.

New Devotional Blog - with contest

2009-04-17T11:54:00.000-07:00

Head over to http://devotionalchristian.com/ and sign up for their contest.. oh yeah and read their links!

Great design and computer repair

2009-04-13T20:25:00.000-07:00

Hey, I'm doing a bit of computer repair and graphic design business on the side. I offer great rates and can fix quite a few problems via remote connection. So, consider this a shameless plug.

6 weeks plus

2009-04-06T11:27:00.000-07:00

It's been six weeks since I've heard from a certain friend who is going through some serious personal issues. Six weeks since I was sure of their safety and comfort. I understand that they're probably uncomfortable airing their problems to the world, but I need to know they're ok, I need to be assured that they're breathing... I can't stumble around the net looking for answers.

Don't abandon us, don't abandon me, and don't abandon God. You taught me so much and gave me a place to learn and grow, I owe you. I know you may feel alone and the desire to crawl into a different shell is ever present, especially given the circumstances, but there are people who truly love you and worry about you and yours.

I Grieve - Peter Gabriel

UPDATE - thanks, missed you... need you around. I cannot tell you how much you mean to me and others. You're not alone.

Dan Phillips on Blackaby - and my thoughts

2009-04-05T00:29:00.000-07:00

Dan's got a couple of great posts on Christian decision making and the view advocated by Henry and Richard Blackaby. Here's the links, they're long but worth reading.

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/04/non-sola-scriptura-blackaby-view-of.html
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/04/non-sola-scriptura-blackaby-view-of_03.html

I wanted to add to Dan's comments a couple of other thoughts.

Firstly, it is quite possible to be so nostalgic so as to be sinning. It is one thing to reminisce about moments long ago, but it is quite another to look back longingly at the past, or wonder "what if" especially as it relates to marriage, relationships and sin. To recall sin fondly is
a sin in itself.

Secondly, where you are right now is where God foreordained you to be and He has tasks for you to do there. We've all heard missionaries give their spiel and we all left from church feeling like perhaps God is calling us to the missions field (or at least to give money.) It is quite possible that God is calling you, however, if you are married, have kids and other responsibilities, it is more likely that God HAS called you to a missions field already and you're just not aware of it. As a believer your first responsibility to is glorify God and enjoy Him forever... and perhaps the second is to love your neighbor as yourself ala the 10 commandments. Now, your neighbor, as a married person is your husband/wife. As a parent your neighbor is also your children, and from there those near you. They are your missions field.

Many of you may have heard this before, but consider, your love and care of them is as important in the economy of heaven as the work the missionary does. Taking care of your home, your family, your neighbor is fulfilling the Law of God.

Some folks may think "well, gee, I enjoy spending time with my family... that can't be the kind of sacrificial action God demands of missionaries", but consider that God has given missionaries a heart, a joy, to be missionaries and He has given you a joy to be salt and light to your family and friends.

Lastly, we must shake off this gnostic idea that pastors, elders, missionaries and others who do more visible service in the kingdom are somehow more holy or worthy of reward than the man or woman who washes her family's clothes and prepares them meals. Gnostic dualism creeps in easily through our society and even religion and causes us to doubt not only our worth in the economy of God but also our salvation.

Salt and light.

Streamlining a PC for Gaming

2009-04-02T12:22:00.000-07:00

A friend (ht: Lane) shares my passion for PC gaming and was considering upgrading his brand new Intel i7, Nvidia GeForce 285 rig to a GeForce 295 because of some slowdowns he was noticing in Far Cry 2 and just because he has power-envy.

My thought, knowing the rig he has, and what it can do, is that his slowdowns are caused less by the video card and more by the basic setup of the PC and the stuff probably running in the background.

While this guide is not designed to eliminate spyware, some of the steps are the same.

Here's some steps to streamline your PC for gaming.
WARNING: Some of the steps involve messing with the basic startup, registry and other features of your PC. I accept NO responsiblity for any stupid mistakes you make by messing around with Msconfig etc.

1) Remove Unused Applications from your System.
Who knows what kind of stuff is on your PC? YOU SHOULD! Get into the control panel and start removing those applications you installed to try-out. Keep an eye out for spyware that may have been installed. (See 4)

2) Allow as few programs to launch on start up as possible.
Many vendors provide apps that install helper-apps designed to increase startup speed of their apps, as well as taskbar residents that serve only to eat RAM and CPU cycles.

To do this, we'll get a little help from MSCONFIG, a little app that's been included with Windows for ages. You can access MSCONFIG by clicking on your start button, [click RUN on XP] and then type in MSCONFIG and hit enter.

You'll see the System Configuration dialog box appear. The tabs indicate different aspects of your PC's system. Select the "Startup" tab and scroll through the list. Read the vendor name and software path to better understand what each application does. DO NOT uncheck something you're completly unsure of. When in doubt, Google the application name, especially the exe name. To disable an application from startup, uncheck it here and select "ok". When you reboot the application shouldn't start up and you will receive a notice that you used the "system configuator" to make changes to the startup. Turn of the warning message if you're happy with the boot up.

If you're using a laptop, you're likely to see applications related to the proper functioning of your touchpad. Again, if you're unsure what something does, don't uncheck it until you are sure.

3) Run CCLeaner.
CCleaner is a little tool for cleaning up your system. Download it, run it. Do so regularly.

4) Run Hijackthis to ensure a clean, spyware-free existence.
I've talked about this great program, Hijackthis before and I must reiterate its greatness. This application is designed to help you root out spyware and other nefarious applications by digging thru the running processes, startup applications, and browser extensions. Use this program with care, when in doubt, seek assistance in using it.

NOTE: DO NOT DOWNLOAD HIJACKTHIS FROM ANY SITE OTHER THAN TRENDMICRO AND ITS AFFILIATED LINKS. There are fake versions out there that are infected with spyware.

You might come across a startup application that will simply not cease from working when unchecked from the MSCONFIG window. Hijackthis can help you better understand what the application is and can possibly stop it.

As I stated before, make sure you know what something is before shutting it down.

Once you run Hijackthis, click "Do a system scan only" (unless you're wanting to save a log).

From this list you'll be able to select startup applications, browser helper objects, services and toolbars and other aspects of your system to eliminate. Hijackthis saves backups of the items you remove, if you ask it to, in the case you need them later. Some websites will also examine your Hijackthis logs to determine if you have a problem and help you fix it. I do not offer this service.

5) Free Up Resources
Before starting up the system-intensive game, make sure you have other applications closed (especially if you're going to play multiplayer.) Applications that use a lot of RAM (Photoshop, Premier, etc.) or CPU (videos players, video recording/converting) will cause framerate issues in game. If you're playing multiplayer, also make sure that any net-intensive apps are shutdown. Don't try to download torrents, videos, or games while playing unless you're sure of your network and system's capabilities. When all else fails, you can open the taskmgr (Start, [run], taskmgr) too see what is going on.

Sometimes you may find apps stuck open (such as Windows Media Player is in this example) and resource hogs by sorting the Processes list by CPU and/or RAM.

Final Thoughts
There's no reason anyone with several Gigs of RAM, an i7 processor, and an Nvidia 285 should be complaining about speed or framerate issues in a current-era game unless the game has issues of its own, the system's resources are mismanaged, or there is a spyware issues.

Far Cry 2, for example, has issues on some systems when using DirectX 10. After some time in-game, the game will begin to stutter and slow to a crawl. The fix is to use DirectX 9, which you can do by accessing the Graphics menu in-game.

Bit-torrent related applications can and will eat all of your net bandwith, Windows Media Player likes to get stuck open and Firefox can sometimes eat CPU cycles, when in doubt, check taskmgr and/or Hijackthis taskmanager for more details.

For those of you who just have to have the fastest machine on the block, go for it, but I can guarantee that on a 22" (or smaller) LCD monitor, you will see very little, if any, performance increases with a 295 over a 285. But if you've got a GeForce 8800 or ATI 3800 series, you will see dramatic increases in performance with a higher-end video card. But keep this in mind for the most dramatic increases in performance in upgrading: first RAM, second video, third CPU. This assumes that you have at least an Intel core duo2 (or similar AMD), a game-quality video card (at least a GeForce 8600 or ATI 2600), and 2 Gigs of RAM.

I'll surely add to this post as other ideas occur to me. Please feel free to add your comments/suggestions.

Happy Gaming!

Fear, hate and the state of discussion. - Real discrimination

2009-03-23T12:21:00.001-07:00

I was listening to NPR driving home last night from Northern California. I know, some of you are shocked that I would listen to National Propaganda Radio, but to be honest, some of the programs (Marketplace for one) are top notch and have no equal on commercial radio. Regardless, I was listening to "Latino USA", when Maria Hinojosa came on with a sort of editorial in which she lambasted folks like Glenn Beck and Shawn Hannity for spreading "hate" and "fear" of Latinos in their disapproval of "undocumented workers".

"Illegal immigrants" she claims she was told by a Jewish human rights activist, was a phrase used by the Nazis to castigate the Jews... the proper term, according to her is "undocumented workers".

Firstly, Ms. Hinojosa needs to get her vocabulary corrected. Few "fear" Latinos, even fewer "hate" them. I'm quite certain that neither Glenn Beck nor Shawn Hannity either fear or hate Latinos, or even "undocumented workers". Their vocal disapproval of the people who attempt to immigrate to this country through dangerous and illegal means is based not on "fear" or "hate", but rather on political, economical and moral grounds.

Secondly, Ms. Hinojosa needs a history lesson. Initially the Jews that were targeted by the Nazi regime were documented citizens of Germany. As Nazi expansion increased the Reich's control over other European countries, Jewish citizens of those countries were also targeted for the nefarious systematic plans. It is clear that the Nazis used race as one criteria for selecting those they'd discriminate and eliminate, and yes they may have declared these people to be "illegal", but the Nazi's plans, the Jew's status and the nature of the immigration debate in America have absolutely nothing in common. It is shocking, scandalous even, for a journalist to make such ahistorical and ignorant comments. It is even more scandalous that American taxpayers paid her to do so. Let's clear some things up.

People who cross borders, in opposition to the standing laws of a country, are immigrants who came here illegally. There is nothing specifically discriminatory about the term "illegal immigrants", and her derision of the term is based not on factual, but emotional grounds. The fact of the matter remains, these "undocumented workers" are in the United States illegally... they are therefore properly termed "illegal immigrants". Just because you don't like what a term means doesn't mean you can indiscriminately declare it wrong and choose some ambiguous replacement. Of course, this is the motis operandi of the left... it's not a "baby", it's a fetus, it's not killing a baby, it's "terminating a pregancy".

Also, no one who opposes illegal immigration and the economic burden of illegal immigrants in this country does so because they "fear" the individuals themselves. This claim, like that of "homophobia" are simply discriminatory labels used by those who dislike the claims of others but have no substantial argument against their position. By calling someone a "homophobe" or saying they "fear" or "hate" someone the left seeks to nullify the claims and marginalize the arguments of their opponents. By saying someone is driven by "fear", you attach to them a stigma of irrationality and thus declare their position as one unworthy of discussion. In essence, they discriminate against their opposition, ironically the very transgression they claim of their position's detractors.

Now, today, Rep. Barney Frank, homosexual legislator for Masscahusetts declared that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was a "homophobe". I'm quite sure that Justice Scalia is neither afraid nor hateful of homosexuals, thus the claim is not only baseless but discriminatory. Again, the left's goal is to vilify their opponents as "fearful", "hateful" and "unloving", sidelining their arguments and their persons. This is the height of hypocrisy.

AIG, the bonuses, the bailout and the hypocrisy.

2009-03-19T20:12:00.000-07:00

I know most folks will initially disagree with me, but hear me out.

AIG entered into legally binding contracts with workers who were promised a certain amount of money to stay on while they went through a troubled period. These are called retention bonuses, they're not based on company or even personal performance, rather, only on the fact that said individual remains with the company through the time specified in the contract.

These people truly EARNED this money, you might not make a million bucks a year, but that doesn't mean we or the feds should have the right to reach into their pockets and take it back.

The Federal government, rather than allowing AIG to go under, gave AIG BILLIONS of dollars to stay afloat. In fact, all told, the federal government is spending over $3,000,000,000,000 *three trillion* dollars to deal with this whole financial meltdown, and they're angry over a $165,000,000 owed by AIG, legally, to various employees. In fact they now are going to tax these bonuses over 90%. That's right, the house has voted to raise taxes (on certain folks money) to 90%+.

Let's see:
$165,000,000 AIG "bonuses"
$3,000,000,000,000 Federal Government "bailout"

Chump change folks, intended to get your mind and eye off the fact that the government is printing money like crazy, raising taxes on the "rich", increasing the speed at which children are murdered and the moral and social decay of this country.

I realize that, in this "crisis" brought about by loosened restrictions on home loans brought about by groups like ACORN and the democrats who made it lucrative for mortgage companies to give home loans to people who couldn't afford them (1995 folks... pre-Bush), the loosening of restrictions on market "products" (ok, Repubs should take the hit for that one!), and the ever growing corruption in our government.

AIG is doing what it promised to do, pay people for work. The Federal Government, well known for giving money to people who won't work, is planning on taking it away from these folks to flush down some other sewage filled hole.

If the house and senate are really that upset, they can take a 100% tax on their income this year.

UPDATE! From The Buffalo News

“One way or another, we’re going to try to figure out how to get these [bonus] resources back,” said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Dodd has accepted $280,238 in campaign cash from AIG’s political committee and employees in the last 20 years.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N. Y., said: “If they don’t give the money back, we will put in place a new law that will allow us to tax these bonuses at a very high rate so that it is returned to its rightful owners — the taxpayers.” Schumer has accepted $111,875 from AIG donors over two decades.

“They’re not going to get the financial benefit of those bonuses,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.

Baucus collected $90,000 from those connected to the insurance giant that has received more than $170 billion in federal bailout funds.

Obama was one of four people who ran for the presidency who ranked in the top five of recipients of AIG employee and political committee donations over the last two decades. He pulled in $107,332, mostly for his presidential race.

UPDATE 2: (HT AOmin)

A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial.

Bills of attainder are forbidden by Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the United States Constitution.

UPDATE 3:

Turns out those "bonuses" we specifically exempted by the bailout bill.

Regardless, these folks are owed the money, we have no right to take it from them nor retroactively tax them.

Saitek Bluetooth Stereo Earphones Headset A-350

2009-03-09T16:10:00.000-07:00

The old A-350 Bluetooth headset will work with any device (Blackberry) that will handle standard Bluetooth stereo connections. The pairing code for the headphones is 8888. I had an old pair laying around and decided to try to hook them up. Thought you might also. :)

The Nephilim Strike Back

2009-03-09T14:53:00.000-07:00

“Much has been written concerning those fallen angels who chose human wives and created a hybrid race...

If this is going on today — and many scholars believe this is EXACTLY what is happening under the guise of UFOs and "alien abductions" — then the culture is being primed to accept these hybrids as benevolent inter-galactic visitors. This is a major part of the "great deception" that will soon overwhelm the world.

Of immediate interest to us is the question of when these "fallen ones" will come out of hiding and visibly begin advancing their agenda. Clearly, they will be FORCED to do so at the time they are driven out of the spiritual realm. Knowing that this is inevitable, and possibly knowing when this will take place, they are already signalling their manifestation. The time they are presenting is December 21, 2012.
”
http://rogershermansociety.org/pentecost.htm

Yah, nothing strange about the whole angel-sex Nephilim view. (HT. Kim Riddlebarger)

Quote of the day

2009-03-09T12:15:00.000-07:00

After flying off the handle and calling Paul Washer a neo-legalist, I received a reply:

" judging from the parade of worldly nonsense in your personal interest section you might benefit from a little of Washers neo-legalism."

Ironic, eh?

In Adam All Die

2009-03-06T20:47:00.000-08:00

I've posted this song before, but after some discussion on a Youtube video of Jacque's (an open theist pelagian)I think its time everyone listen to it again.

In Adam All Die - Shai linne

I simply cannot say enough for Shai Linne.

Calfskin ESV Bible Give-Away

2009-03-01T00:46:00.000-08:00

The "Boomer in the Pew" blog has just celebrated its first birthday and is giving away a beautiful calfskin ESV. This Bible retails for $239.99, and is available free to one "Boomer in the Pew" readers, courtesy of the folks over at Crossway.

Core FTP Beeps When Selecting in Directory View

2009-02-27T10:33:00.000-08:00

Arrrg! I hate it! Driving me nuts! My computer started beeping with every mouse click in the Core FTP LE directory list menu. There was no error, no mention in the Options how to turn it off. Turns out...
it's a Windows bug! I'm using Windows Vista 64, and doing a search at Core FTP's forums brought me this page which took me to this Windows Knowledge Base article 944150. I choose the registry fix:
1. Click Start, type regedit in the Start Search box, and then click regedit in the Programs list. If you are prompted for an administrator password or for confirmation, type the password, or click Continue.
2. Locate the following registry subkey:
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\AppEvents\Schemes\Apps\.Default\CCSelect\.Current
3. Right-click .Current, and then click Delete.
4. When you are prompted to delete this registry subkey, click Yes to delete the subkey.
5. Exit Registry Editor.

But I don't think it is permanent, I notice it started beeping again later. The other option is to replace your beep sound with dead air... yeah, right.

Fair and balanced... but can't spell!

2009-02-20T22:02:00.000-08:00

The Secret - A Review

2009-02-06T19:30:00.000-08:00

HT: Dharp

Since I believe it will soon be deleted, I am posting a review of the book "The Secret" from Amazon.com

The Secret saved my life!, December 4, 2007
By Ari Brouillette
Please allow me to share with you how "The Secret" changed my life and in a very real and substantive way allowed me to overcome a severe crisis in my personal life. It is well known that the premise of "The Secret" is the science of attracting the things in life that you desire and need and in removing from your life those things that you don't want. Before finding this book, I knew nothing of these principles, the process of positive visualization, and had actually engaged in reckless behaviors to the point of endangering my own life and well being.

At age 36, I found myself in a medium security prison serving 3-5 years for destruction of government property and public intoxication. This was stiff punishment for drunkenly defecating in a mailbox but as the judge pointed out, this was my third conviction for the exact same crime. I obviously had an alcohol problem and a deep and intense disrespect for the postal system, but even more importantly I was ignoring the very fabric of our metaphysical reality and inviting destructive influences into my life.

My fourth day in prison was the first day that I was allowed in general population and while in the recreation yard I was approached by a prisoner named Marcus who calmly informed me that as a new prisoner I had been purchased by him for three packs of Winston cigarettes and 8 ounces of Pruno (prison wine). Marcus elaborated further that I could expect to be raped by him on a daily basis and that I had pretty eyes.

Needless to say, I was deeply shocked that my life had sunk to this level. Although I've never been homophobic I was discovering that I was very rape phobic and dismayed by my overall personal street value of roughly $15. I returned to my cell and sat very quietly, searching myself for answers on how I could improve my life and distance myself from harmful outside influences. At that point, in what I consider to be a miraculous moment, my cell mate Jim Norton informed me that he knew about the Marcus situation and that he had something that could solve my problems. He handed me a copy of "The Secret". Normally I wouldn't have turned to a self help book to resolve such a severe and immediate threat but I literally didn't have any other available alternatives. I immediately opened the book and began to read.
The first few chapters deal with the essence of something called the "Law of Attraction" in which a primal universal force is available to us and can be harnessed for the betterment of our lives. The theoretical nature of the first few chapters wasn't exactly putting me at peace. In fact, I had never meditated and had great difficulty with closing out the chaotic noises of the prison and visualizing the positive changes that I so dearly needed. It was when I reached Chapter 6 "The Secret to Relationships" that I realized how this book could help me distance myself from Marcus and his negative intentions. Starting with chapter six there was a cavity carved into the book and in that cavity was a prison shiv. This particular shiv was a toothbrush with a handle that had been repeatedly melted and ground into a razor sharp point.

The next day in the exercise yard I carried "The Secret" with me and when Marcus approached me I opened the book and stabbed him in the neck. The next eight weeks in solitary confinement provided ample time to practice positive visualization and the 16 hours per day of absolute darkness made visualization about the only thing that I actually could do. I'm not sure that everybody's life will be changed in such a dramatic way by this book but I'm very thankful to have found it and will continue to recommend it heartily.

An Incomprehensible, Senseless and Tragic... evolutionary event?

2009-01-29T12:53:00.000-08:00

It's being called "incomprehensible", "senseless", and "tragic" by the media and, indeed it is. A recently unemployed father of 5 killed his family and then himself in the LA area. Yet why is this senseless, tragic or incomprehensible at all, given the worldview of both the media and our nation?

What happened, in the vernacular of today's left-leaning, god-hating, atheistic culture is nothing more than self-induced euthanasia, mercy-killing and post-partum abortions. Why should we give a rats-whisker about this family that "chose" to end its existence?

If you argue that the children had no choice in the matter, the fact remains that neither do the thousands of unborn children murdered each day. The children were a matter of inconvenience for the father and/or mother and it should be their "right" to terminate the family. What consistent position is there otherwise?

In the end, since we're all just collections of cells living out our darwinistic evolutionary place in the world, isn't it just natural selection at work that determined that this family would become extinct? Why the outrage? Why the sadness?

To summarize a song which identifies that worldview accurately, "You and me baby are nothing but mammals, so let's do it like they do it on Discovery Channel." Nature is red in tooth and claw... why therefore mourn the death of a small family of animals?

If however, we recognize the inherent worth of the human, the fact that they're created in the image of God and therefore represent something greater than mere cells in a dish, we might understand the normal reaction to such crimes. Everyone recognizes this, to some extent, and even the most hardened of hearts feels some sense of the tragedy that occurred here. Since the fall, sin has been the normal path of human nature but God's Law and commands are never far from our minds and we know what occurred was dreadfully wrong.

What consistency therefore is there in the atheistic, god-hating, baby-killing worldview that finds these events "tragic" and yet celebrates the "right for mothers to choose"?

Dr. James White on Church Discipline and Fox News

2008-12-21T22:36:00.000-08:00

Calvin's Commentaries for E-Sword

2008-12-21T21:57:00.000-08:00

I found Calvin's commentaries for E-sword! Those of you who use E-Sword (fantastic, free, Bible app for Windows) can now add Calvin's commentaries. No more switching between screens!

If the link doesn't work, let me know, I'll post them.

Florida Woman Says Former Church Plans to Make Her Sins Public

2008-12-18T21:56:00.000-08:00

From Fox News:

A 49-year-old Florida woman says her former church is threatening to reveal her sins to its congregation after learning that she is in a "sexually immoral relationship."

Rebecca Hancock told FOXNews.com that Grace Community Church, a non-denominational church in Jacksonville, Fla., was against her relationship with boyfriend Frank Young because the two were sexually active but not married.

When she wasn’t willing to obey the church's orders to leave him, she decided to leave the church instead, allowing her two children to remain active members.

Now, she says, church elders have given her the worst ultimatum yet: In a Dec. 8 letter, they told her she either has to meet with them and end her "immoral" relationship or she will face public humiliation.

“Bottom line, on January they 4th they are going to the church publicly with my sins, and my children will be sitting in church at the time,” Hancock told FOXNews.com.

Ok, help me here... the woman is upset that the church is going to go public with her sins, so what does she do? She calls FoxNews?

A church leader wouldn't commit to an interview when contacted Thursday by FOXNews.com. The Rev. T. Scott Christmas, pastor of the church, told the Florida Times-Union that the "process of loving accountability" is made very clear to members, and the church is doing "nothing more than following the practices of what biblical churches have done through history."

Christmas is a Reformed Baptist pastor of a FIRE fellowship, seemingly practicing proper church discipline.

Hancock, who is divorced, said the problems began in March, when she started telling her church mentor about her relationship — in what she thought were confidential conversations.

Confidential? She was expecting a lay-leader to lie by omission for her?

“As it progressed I told her about it and she said, 'You’ve got to get out, you’re biblically wrong,'” Hancock said.

The mentor was right.

Despite knowing her relationship was against church rules, Hancock said she never realized that disclosing it would trigger the first in a three-step process used by the church to deal with sinners: private admonishment, admonishment in the presence of witnesses and finally public admonishment.

Yeah, nothing about that in the membership info you received when you were baptized/became a member?

“In the room, there were several women that I never told my business to. And they proceeded to tell me about my business and what I was doing and what a sinner I was — just persecuting me.” Hancock said. “One of the ladies was even saying ‘I was at your house when you didn’t come home all night.’"

It was then that Hancock said she decided to leave Grace Community Church.

“I told them, ‘I cannot believe you people are doing this. I’m not going any further — I’m never coming here again,’” she recalled.

Yes, just like marriage, if it doesn't work, just leave!

“The pastor kept calling her, and I informed him that she [Hancock] would appreciate it if neither he nor any member of his church contacted her ever again,” Young told FOXNews.com.

Almost two months later, Hancock received the letter from the elders of Grace Community Church, explaining that she had left them no choice but to continue the disciplinary process.

“Your refusal to repent and be restored in your relationship with God and His Church leaves us with no alternative than to carry out the third step of the discipline process,” the letter explained. “In accordance with Matthew 18:17, we intend to ‘tell it to the church.’”

Sounds like what the Bible commands.

Darrell L. Bock, a research professor for the Dallas Theological Seminary, said that public admonishment is not uncommon in churches that focus on discipline but added, "Most churches would handle this much more privately than this particular community is choosing to do."

This kind of process normally would happen after "much more private interaction" with the person, Block said, and is normally reserved for church leaders as opposed to "a normal member of the church."

Not according to Scripture. Bock may be saying what goes on in typical evangellyfish churches, but not in Reformed/Calvinistic ones.

More importantly, he said, the actions are unusual given that Hancock had severed her relationship with the church.

Hancock sent a formal letter of resignation after receiving the elders' ultimatum in hopes of solving the dispute. She said she fears for her 20-year-old son and 18-year-old daughter if the church carries out its threat.

She fears for them? Why? They know she was screwing around with some unbelieving kid.

“I don’t really care what they do to me. But I am concerned about my children sitting in church with their mother being crucified by the church that they trust,” she said. “I am very concerned about how it would affect them.”

But not concerned about how exposing your sins for FoxNews would affect them? Perhaps this is the kind of thinking that started the whole church discipline thing to begin with?