Watching His Story

Doctor Rogers' Monster

2009-05-12T19:35:00.005-05:00

Doctor Rogers' monster is Paul Williams! The Monster Mash mixture is a combination of anti-Calvinist free will theology and eternal security. This is a lethal theological concoction. As certain as homosexuality is the end of the destructive sinful path of Romans 1:18-27, Paul Williams is the end of Rogers' theology. Rogers has proximity and proclivity to this monstrosity. They worked together for 35 years and then Williams kept the sodomy a secret from Rogers for 17 years.

Dr. Frankenstein And His Monster!

2009-04-29T18:00:00.003-05:00

While spending a week in 1958 with my cousin, Bill Armstrong, in Woodbury, Tennessee, my aunt gave us enough money to go see a movie. My first movie was FRANKENSTEIN. Looking back it seems providential that I saw this movie.
(Wikipedia) Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus is a novel written by the British author Mary Shelley. Shelley wrote the novel when she was 19 years old. The title of the novel refers to a scientist who learns how to reanimate flesh and creates a being in the likeness of man out of body parts taken from the dead. In modern popular culture, people have tended to refer to the Creature as "Frankenstein" (especially in films since 1931).
Frankenstein is a novel infused with some elements of the Gothic novel and the Romantic movement. It was also a warning against the "over-reaching" of modern man and the Industrial Revolution, alluded to in the novel's subtitle, The Modern Prometheus. The story has had an influence across literature and popular culture and spawned a complete genre of horror stories and films. The novel raises many issues that can be linked to today's culture. These issues include the evolution of man and whether technical progress can be self-destructive.
Shelley wrote: "It was on a dreary night of November that I beheld the accomplishment of my toils. With an anxiety that almost amounted to agony, I collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet. It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs."

Southern Baptist Abortions

2009-04-05T08:32:00.003-05:00

How many of these aborted babies were killed by Southern Baptist mothers? How many babies have been aborted in Christian homes? Does the church need to repent of this awful sin by believers? When Churches post these crosses in their lots do they just think only sinners abort (kill) children? How many good Southern Baptist doctors kill babies? How many Baptist nurses assist in abortions? What is the church doing about this. Do they condemn unchurched people for this and are silent about their own. These people teach in their Sunday Schools and the doctors pay substantial tithes to the church. What about the Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostals, Reformed and charismatics? What about the Catholics?

Survey your congregations and post a cross for every participant whose hands are bloody with the death of poor children. Tally the total murders of these Christians and put up crosses for each murder.

Does God Wink At Ignorance?

2009-04-02T06:47:00.003-05:00

At Mars Hill in the city of Athens Paul encountered a religious concept based on an appeal to ignorance. To establish the fact that every god was acknowledged the Greeks set up an altar to an unknown god. This was done perhaps sincerely by men who desperately wanted to acknowledge the correct god.
This is a fallacy of irrelevant evidence. The Greeks were basing this religious concept on an appeal to ignorance. (Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam) This is a common fallacy among religions and is appealed to by many Christians today. It is the basis of a 'feel good' religion that is desperately seeking 'happiness'. It goes like this: "flying saucers do exist, for no one really knows for sure they don't."
The master of debate, apostle Paul, seized this occasion to present the particular God to a group of people who worshipped an indefinite god.. Their god was far away beyond the reach of the human mind and only their heart could reach out to him in 'feeling'. Paul said the "up close God" uncreated by humans predestines all things beforehand. Even to the Greeks Paul said, "WE are his offspring." "In Him WE live and move and have OUR being." Can we as modern day evangelicals say this to the world? These are bold words from a great courageous man. These words engender common men to rally gladly and enrages religious men to destroy. Why? Common men know that they have little recourse in life and go with the flow of the good and bad. They understand fate and live with it everyday. But religious men live by their beliefs and their destinies are sealed by their decisions. They make life work! When Paul says God alone makes life meaningful and your fate is in His hands; this angers religious men!
When you tell a 'sold out man' to his convictions that he should sit down and wait on God who will save the pagans when He gets ready to do it, he rushes out on his own determination.
He will not wait on God! This is the core of American Evangelistic Evangelicalism. They rush off without God all the while God 'let's them go' but He does not wink at their ignorance.

The adoption of this appeal to an ignorant rush into destiny, a holy guess, you could say is contradictory. They have pragmatically resolved that Christ's atonement not specific in application is specific only when it is believed. They say that our believing makes it true that Christ died for us. The contradiction is they say Christ died for everyone in general, which should make everyone saved (universalism) but specifically only the ones believing are saved.
This makes Christianity just another religion reaching out to God in hopes of 'feeling' after Him.
Rather we say Christianity is a relationship and God is nigh unto us determining our bounds of habitation. This is good news to the common man. A voice cries out in the night "everyman for himself. The mighty ship is sinking swim to shore and if you can't swim hold on to something. An angel assured me in the hull of the ship we would all be saved. Captains and mighty men, "do thyselves no harm" God cares for you also!"

You who are his offspring, not everyone in general, repent. God has changed your mind not you, obey him while you can. "You have another mind" (metanoia) use it. Turn from your wicked ways all you He died for. You will be saved.

Arminianism and it's free will beliefs are rooted in religious ignorance! If a man chooses to be ignorant let him be ignorant.

The Folly Of Pelagianism

2009-03-26T06:39:00.003-05:00

What are the chances that a chunk of coal will become a diamond someday? Do you realize how much coal is in the earth? The power of positive thinking, what folly! It used to be that an American could realize his dreams but now that big government has arrived the chances of self-improvement are extremely slim. To surmount taxation lessens the possibility for progress and the reality that I cannot change myself for the better in America. Accept your lot and be content.
Out of the world population so few will realize true success and fame to amount to anything. You are not a promise with a capital P! Satan has the world where he want it, in a rut. Like rats in a cage, captive to it's own desires to find a way out and no hope in sight.
So here comes a Pelagian singing "I am an old chunk of Coal!" "But I am going to be a diamond someday!" Fat chance Johnny!
Oh, but the message of God! We are dust, unprofitable says Paul. A chunk of coal has profit but we are unprofitable. That means there is nothing to start with. No inherent value to begin a new work. No promise. Nothing. Restoration? NO!

Regeneration, yes! What are the chances of the elect being regenerate? well, 75%, 85%, NO! 100% Yes! How many are elected? An innumerable host in heaven! All nations, colors, languages will be there. This is not folly. Pelagianism is folly. The preaching you hear today from the many pulpits is folly. The gospel is not folly but truth for men, women, rich, poor, famous, unknown, etc. on and on. Our hope is in Christ who became dust for us that the glory of God would be manifested!

I'm Just An Old Chunk Of Coal

2009-03-23T06:50:00.007-05:00

I'm Just An Old Chunk Of Coal (click on title or picture for the video)

On face book the following conversation took place.
........thinking.......I may not be perfect, but Jesus thinks I'm to die for!!!!!!
Wow! How profound!LM
I love that!! I am gonna have to use that. ;)
Love it! I still sing "I'm just an old chunk of coal" under my breath at least once a week. Really glad you are on here and my friend!

Isn't the assumption of this conversation that we are somehow redeemable as sinners? We are not so bad that there is something of value in all of us, no, yes, NO!

Isn't there some Pelagianism in this conversation? We are sinners but not so sinful that we are beyond redemption.

I entered the conversation: Charles Page at 6:41am March 23
Art, a chunk of coal is a bad analogy for a sinner. A lump of coal is good for man and has the potential to be a precious stone. A lump of coal is profitable. A sinner is "unprofitable" (Rom 3:12) There is nothing redeemable in man so if you are saved at all it HAS to be grace. Unmerited favor, undeserved favor. You did nothing to earn it. He gave it to you and He did not ask you if you wanted it. The sinner is so dead in sin that he will not even resist God and God will not acknowledge him. There is no connection between the two apart from Christ. He first loved the unloveable!

Another Amyraut Follower, Andrew Fuller

2009-03-20T02:58:00.004-05:00

Andrew Fuller was born on February 5, 1754 in Wicken, Cambridgeshire, England. He was the son of poor Baptist farmers. Because Fuller ministered during the same era as George Whitefield and the Wesley brothers it would be easy for his name to get lost in their giant shadows. He pastored two congregations during his life at Soham (1775-1782) and at Kettering (1782-1806). Christianity in England was in a generally depressed condition at the time to which Fuller was born. Particular Baptists had fallen into a hyper-Calvinism that denied the need to evangelize the lost or even to offer salvation to anyone.

"The basic issue at stake with Fullerism is the atoning work of Jesus Christ. For Christ to be properly glorified, His redemptive work must be properly taught and understood. Fuller was not an Arminian. He strongly believed in the doctrine of election, advocating that God chose a certain and particular people to salvation. We do not take issue with his view on election, but Fuller’s view of the atonement is the cause for concern. Fuller believed that the atonement of Christ was sufficient for the entire human race, but was applied efficaciously only to the elect. Fuller, in his own words declares, “There is such a fullness in the satisfaction of Christ, as is sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to believe in Him.” Fuller contended that Christ died for sin, in general. Thus, His death is applied to those who believe on Him. ". . .

Continue reading an excellent article here

Amyraut's Disciple

2009-03-16T14:54:00.003-05:00

John Bunyan was born in Bedforsdhire, England in 1628. His early life included a good deal of degradation as well as a stint in the army. Even after he had married, Bunyan was what we would call today a wayward Christian. He later realized he was no Christian at all. The story is oft told of how Bunyan heard a sermon one Sunday morning against the evils of Sunday sports. That afternoon, while playing "cats", Bunyan heard a voice in his heart which said, "Wilt thou leave thy sins and go to Heaven, or have thy sins and go to hell?" Those words would not leave him over the next few months. In one of God’s divine encounters, John Bunyan began to turn from religion in form to Christ in fact.

What was the source of the voice he heard? Comment! Tell me!

Historical Root Of Burleson's Ambivalent Gospel

2009-03-13T07:11:00.000-05:00

Amyraldism
Moses Amyraut (1596-1664), after whom Amyraldism is named.
Amyraldism (or sometimes Amyraldianism, the School of Saumur, hypothetical universalism,[1] or Post Redemptionism),[2] also known as "hypothetical universalism" or "four-point Calvinism", primarily refers to a modified form of Calvinist theology. It rejects one of the Five points of Calvinism, the doctrine of limited atonement, in favour of an unlimited atonement similar to that of Hugo Grotius. Simply stated, Amyraldism holds that God has provided Christ's atonement for all alike, but seeing that none would believe on their own, he then elected those whom he will bring to faith in Christ, thereby preserving the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election.
Named after its formulator Moses Amyraut, this doctrine is still viewed as a variety of Calvinism in that it maintains the particularity of sovereign grace in the application of the atonement. However, detractors like B. B. Warfield have termed it "an inconsistent and therefore unstable form of Calvinism."[3]

Amyraldism in 17th century England and Scotland
John Davenant (1576-1641), like Amyraut a student of John Cameron, was an English delegate at the Synod of Dort and influenced some of the members of the Westminster Assembly. He promoted "hypothetical universalism, a general atonement in the sense of intention as well as sufficiency, a common blessing of the cross, and a conditional salvation. The "root principle of the Davenant School" was the "notion of a universal desire in God for the salvation of all men."[6] In the floor debate on redemption at the Westminster Assembly, Edmund Calamy the Elder of the Davenant School attempted to insert Amyraldism into the Catechism.[7]
Richard Baxter held to a form of Amyraldism, although he was less Calvinistic than Amyraut. He "devised an eclectic middle route between Reformed, Arminian, and Roman doctrines of grace: interpreting the kingdom of God in terms of contemporary political ideas, he explained Christ’s death as an act of universal redemption (penal and vicarious, but not substitutionary), in virtue of which God has made a new law offering pardon and amnesty to the penitent. Repentance and faith, being obedience to this law, are the believer’s personal saving righteousness. . . the fruit of the seeds which Baxter sowed was neonomian Moderatism in Scotland and moralistic Unitarianism in England."[8]
Amyraldism today
Popularised in England by the Reformed pastor Richard Baxter, Amyraldism also gained strong adherence among the Congregationalists and some Presbyterians in the American colonies, during the 17th and 18th centuries.
In the United States, Amyraldism can be found among various evangelical groups, perhaps most notably among dispensationalists in independent Bible Churches and independent Baptist churches. In Australia, many in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney hold to a modified "four point" Calvinism, while in England, Amyraldism has been defended in the recently published pamphlet, Amyraut Affirmed.[9] Yet "Five point" Calvinism remains prevalent especially in conservative groups among the Reformed and Presbyterian churches, Reformed Baptists, among evangelical Anglicans in England and in some non-denominational evangelical churches.

Seventeenth century opponents
There were a number of theologians who defended Calvinistic orthodoxy against Amyraut and Saumur, including Friedrich Spanheim (1600-1649) and Francis Turretin (1623-1687). Ultimately, the Helvetic Consensus was drafted to counteract the theology of Saumur and Amyraldism.

The Ambivalent Gospel

2009-03-12T07:31:00.002-05:00

Wade Burleson could be the poster child for Baptistic Calvinism. He may represent what the Baptist Calvinist is, a synthesis between "Calvinism" and Arminianism. His title is "Christian" not "Calvinist" which means he has avoided the so-called excessiveness his non-Calvinist peers erroneously call hyper-Calvinism, five point Calvinism.

He is getting as close as possible to saying that atonement is limited to the elect only with out offending his peers and local parishioners who believe that the offer of atonement is to everyone in general and not particular.

He uses the term "ambivalent" to describe his belief of the gospel. His gospel should not divide believers so his construct is truly ambivalent. If his gospel divides believers then there must be something wrong with the gospel. The gospel must be constructed so as to unite believers and not divide. Many would call his gospel a "Biblicist" view.

He is ambivalent about the gospel but not so about private power language, women pastors and non-landmark communion. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Perhaps he is ambivalent about those things but why the ambivalence about the gospel?

Wade Burleson, Continued

2009-03-08T15:14:00.004-05:00

I hope that everyone understands that this is NOT an ad hominem criticism but hopefully a sincere theological analysis. I assume that Wade thinks I do not really understand his position. However, I believe I do, maybe better than he understands his own position!

Again consider these statements:

God graciously commands all sinners to repent rather than striking them dead immediately and bringing them before Him in judgment. God even more graciously commands all men to embrace His Son, the only Savior ever given for sinners.

The invitation to take up your cross and follow Christ is universally given, but unfortunately, it is also universally rejected by sinners.

If he will believe and repent, he will be saved, for the Gospel is a “whosoever will” gospel.

Why is not everyone in Heaven? Because Christ did not die for the sinner who refuses to embrace Him.

Christ died as a substitute for sinners who will trust in Him. If a sinner rejects his Creator, if he refuses to embrace the Son and if he dies while spitting in the face of the only Savior ever provided for sinners, then that sinner bears his own sin in hell.

But those who trust Christ will be delivered.

The sinner is commanded to repent and believe but he is a rebel at heart.

We experience hell because we refuse to embrace God for who He is.

So I ask you. "Do you desire Him to break you of your self-love, your longing for sin, and bring to you a love for Christ and the things of God?"If you say, "Yes! I want God to do that in my life."

Then I say on the authority of God's Word, He will, because He never turns a deaf ear to a helpless sinner who calls to Him.

"What is needed is a change of nature, and this is what God brings to the helpless sinner who cries out to Him.

These statements have hints of conditions for salvation ie. regeneration, universal appeals and faith preceding regeneration Wade believes that the regenerate need an enablement to be regenerate. This enablement precedes believing on God for salvation ie. regeneration.

I'm sure that he will disagree with this and insist that this enablement is a part of regeneration and is a conviction that is simultaneous with conversion. He believes that conviction takes place first and then conversion though they are so close as to be indistinct. For him it has to precede in order that free will can operate. A ridiculous and ambiguous argument!

These statements are elements of hypo-Calvinism, Amyraldianism and perhaps indications of four point or less Calvinism. His statements indicate a lapse in belief of original sin, believing in the age of accountability for personal sins. He holds two views of salvation one for infants and another with demands to repent for adults, over the age of accountability.

Babies who die in infancy and the mentally challenged are redeemed the same way all sinners are redeemed; through the obedience, death and resurrection of Christ for His people. God simply has chosen to redeem them without giving to them the gifts of faith and repentance for they lived short or challenged lives where those gifts could not be manifested.Thu Dec 04, 11:21:00 AM 2008 Wade Burleson said...And the adult sinner, who wonders whether or not he or she can be saved, we simply point them to Christ and say, "He is the only one who can deliver you. Ask Him, and He will."Or ignore Him and He won't.Thu Dec 04, 11:22:00 AM 2008

Please Don't Call Wade Burleson A Calvinist. . .

2009-03-06T07:50:00.000-06:00

Please Don't Call Me a Calvinist, But . . ."The following is a reprint of an article written by Wade Burleson, published in the Oklahoma Baptist Messenger in the June 1, 1995 issue," thirteen years ago. I e-mailed Wade and ask him for permission to dissect his Calvinism and post it to my blog. He graciously permitted me.

This is not the result of any problems between us but a discussion of his theology. I don't believe that this will destroy our friendship (which is merely cyberistic) rather we will grow closer. There will naturally be many who cannot comprehend wholesome debate. I am by personal persuasion a high Calvinist believing that the decree for the fall of Adam was ordained and not simply permitted. I reject any free offer to the sinner and believe that the atonement is limited to a particular people. The Holy Spirit applies salvation without any influence other than the will of the Father. I believe that this is the historic position that has been compromised by the Evangelical church today. This is not hyper-Calvinism and I am still searching for a meaning of this over used stereotype.

THE TOTAL DEPRAVITY OF MAN

First, the doctrines of grace rest on the bedrock truth called The Total Depravity of Man. This doctrine teaches that all have sinned and that everyone has sin in the totality of his person. For example, the will is sinful, the emotions are sinful, the thoughts of man are only evil continually and all the actions of man are tainted with sin.
Worse, there is no one who seeks God, and as a result, every sinful person is separated from God and couldn’t care less about finding his or her way to God. Natural man is lost in his sin and he loves it. Self rules the heart and self is unwilling to change so that God rules the heart. Therefore, total depravity teaches that man is wicked and sinful in every part of personhood, and it is impossible for the sinner to embrace the Son and love the Lord Jesus Christ because the sinner is satisfied (in love) with selfishness and evil. The prophet asks, “Can the leopard change his spots? How can you who are accustomed to doing evil change your ways?”
Wade makes a good statement of Total Depravity Wade says: But . . . All we like sheep have gone astray. Our throats are like an open, stinking grave. For all of us have rebelled. (Lifeless sinners can not rebel)

Then he contradicts himself by saying: God graciously commands all sinners to repent rather than striking them dead immediately and bringing them before Him in judgment. God even more graciously commands all men to embrace His Son, the only Savior ever given for sinners.
If the sinner is totally depraved then why would Wade say God commands all sinners to repent? The command to repent and embrace is contradictory to what he has said about depravity. Sinners care nothing for the things of God.

But, no sinner ever will believe or repent. Not one sinner will obey God because the sinner loves his sin, hates God (or at least the true God of the Bible) and embraces self more than the Creator.
If the sinner is totally depraved he will not embrace the Son neither can you say he will embrace self rather than the creator. The sinner is blindly following the course of this world. He doesn't make a choice to do anything but follow the prince of the power of the air. My argument here strikes at the root of hypothetical universal atonement. No one rejects or refuses to embrace that for which he has no will. For some reason few people see the logic of this. For Arminians and hypo-Calvinist the sinner must be able to reject the work of Christ by faith something that the T in TULIP annuls.

The invitation to take up your cross and follow Christ is universally given, but unfortunately, it is also universally rejected by sinners.
Again this is a modified Calvinist statement- hypothetical Universalism, Amyraldianism; God desires the salvation of all men but wills the salvation of the elect. It rejects the Arminians by insisting on sovereign grace but charms Arminians by holding a free gospel appeal to all. It is a subtle sabotage of the truth in an effort to make God and His purposes more acceptable to those at enmity with God.

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
God does not choose to regenerate a sinner (make him spiritually alive) because of the sinners’s wealth, fame, skin color, nationality, sex, goodness (humanly speaking!) or any other conditions found within the sinner, for God is not a respecter of persons. God's choice to redeem and regenerate undeserving sinners is a choice based on pure grace.
Again Wade makes a good statement about UE and then contradicts his own view. If he will believe and repent, he will be saved, for the Gospel is a “whosoever will” gospel.
Isn't believing and repenting conditions for election according to Wade? Over and over Wade suggest that embracing the Son and grace are conditions for election. The choice for regeneration rest with God's good pleasure from the foundation of the earth.

God knows no sinful man will naturally choose to repent and believe on His Son. Therefore He takes other steps, by His grace, to ensure that His Son will "see the travail of his soul and be satisfied." In other words, God will not allow His Son to die in vain. So God “unconditionally chooses” to change the hearts of literally thousands upon thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand people, or what the Bible calls "an innumerable company." This doctrine of grace, often called Unconditional Election, simply teaches that God first loved us in order that we might love Him. If a man is to be justified through faith in Christ, and if no man can believe in Christ because his wicked heart desires no Lord but himself, then God must choose to perform spiritual heart surgery.
Regeneration, the new birth and quickening are all synonyms for this heart surgery God performs. Before a man will ever repent of his sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, he must be born again. This miraculous act of God, called "the new birth," is a work that He chooses to perform, and it is without conditions. (conditional on believing, repenting, embracing?)
Wade, do you believe that Regeneration, the new birth, takes place and then the regenerate repents and believes? If you do then you are a 'Calvinist' but if you believe that an enablement or awakening assist the sinner to repent and then he is born again then you do not truly believe in unconditional but rather conditional election. It does seem to me that there is no middle ground here either you believe in unconditional election or you don't. It seem that you believe this but then again you will contradict yourself by statements different to UE. Which is it?
You ask, “Why does He not choose to redeem and regenerate the heart of every sinner?” I respond, “Why does He choose to redeem and regenerate the heart of any sinner?” You ask, “Can a sinner believe on Jesus Christ without this work of grace in his heart?” I respond, “Will a sinner believe on Christ without this work of grace in his heart?”
You say a sinner will not believe without this work of grace in his heart. Again I ask, do you mean believing precedes this surgery or follows this surgery? If he will believe and repent, he will be saved, for the Gospel is a “whosoever will” gospel. Christ died as a substitute for a sinners who will trust in Him.
But when we see a sinner who is willing to believe in Christ, we give God the credit, "for in the day of His power, His people are made willing."I know some of you are saying, “But I thought God simply looked down through the ages and saw I would believe, and then He called me ‘elect’.” Frankly, it makes no difference to me if you believe God looked to the future and saw you would believe and then called you “elect,” or if you believe the traditional view that God graciously overcame your and stubbornness and enabled you to believe, as long as you believe the third doctrine of grace, which is the cardinal truth of Scripture: Christ died in the stead of His people.
Traditional view? I am inclined to believe that the traditional view is Calvinistic, orthodox. Where did this view "God overcame your stubbornness and enabled you to believe" originate? Wasn't it Wesley? I'm not sure myself but it is not the traditional view, I'm certain of that. You may mean that the current majority view of the SBC is the traditional view but that does not mean it is the Christian orthodox view. Your traditional SBC view is a mid-nineteenth century view. The traditional orthodox view is found in the reformation, Augustine and Pauline theology.
In other words, the death of Christ was a substitutionary death. Christ died as a substitute for sinners who will trust in Him. (conditional election)
He died in their place, and the righteous and pure anger of God due their sins was poured out on Him at Calvary.

LIMITED ATONEMENT OR PARTICULAR REDEMPTION
Why is not everyone in Heaven? Because Christ did not die for the sinner who refuses to embrace Him. (conditional election)
To believe that Christ died for “the goats” as well as “the sheep” negates the symbolism of the Old Testament sacrifices and the direct teaching of both covenants of Scripture. Only the believing sinner had a substitutionary sacrifice. Only the sinner who laid his hands upon the sacrifice had the anger of God placated.
Wade, the whole nation of Israel had a substitutionary sacrifice, not just the 'believing' Jews. Was not this sacrifice unconditional? Did not the priest lay hands on the sacrifice that was to placate the wrath of God. The individual Jew just stood and watched! They observed what was done for them. It was truly substitutionary.
Christ died as a substitute for sinners who will trust in Him. If a sinner rejects his Creator, if he refuses to embrace the Son and if he dies while spitting in the face of the only Savior ever provided for sinners, then that sinner bears his own sin in hell.
Christ died for everyone of the elect. There are no qualifiers. God insures that everyone elected are regenerated and believing!
Wade, do you believe in original sin? The reason that men perish in hell is because of the sin of Adam. Actually a sinner can't reject his creator, refuse to embrace the Son and does not have proximity to the Savior to spit in His face. Really, only the regenerate can do these things. Don't you know of Christians who are doing these things today? Now come on, be honest!
...then the sinner bears his own sin in hell. The sins of every man will be punished; either at Calvary or in hell.Wade, do you still believe in original sin? The reason men perish in hell is because of the sin of Adam. If you believe in limited/particular atonement/redemption then it is true that the sins of every man will be punished either at Calvary or in hell. The elect will be saved from Adam's destiny. The non-elect will be passed over to destruction.
It is the historic position of most who hold to the doctrines of grace that Christ atoned for the sins of all infants who die in infancy and the mentally challenged who die in their retardation. Thus, infants who die in infancy and those without mental capacity are in heaven, not because they are innocent (death is only for the guilty, and all died in Adam), but because Christ died for them and the Holy Spirit graciously regenerates them.
Historic position, tradition? The belief that election is unconditional and that it includes infants and mentally challenged goes back to the Bible!
With the exception of infants who die in infancy and imbeciles, the unbelieving sinner will be punished for his own sins in an eternal hell. But those who trust Christ will be delivered.
Your belief implies that there are two ways to be saved. One way for infants and the mentally challenged and another for unbelieving sinners. Actually the T in TULIP implies that the sinner is not just hopefully lost but is also helplessly lost, no better no worst than the infant or mentally challenged. There is only one way of salvation for all.
Often times this doctrine is called “Particular Redemption” to emphasize that not all men will be redeemed (universalism), but that only the bride of Christ, the church of God, believers, those who trust Christ, are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb (i.e. "the death of Christ"). True, Wade, YOU JUST DON'T SAY IT CONSISTENTLY.

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
Every sinner experiences the grace of God in some form or fashion, for the sun rises on the righteous and the wicked.
There seems to be a hint of Pelagianism in this statement. It conflicts with total depravity and seems to affirm general atonement. Because the sun is shining on everyone doesn't mean the light of the Son is shining in everyone. John 1:9 is often quoted without 1:10 ...the world knew him not. It doesn't say the world rejected the light, it did not comprehend the light. The only ones who rejected the light was the ones who knew him covenantly, Israel, his own. Everyone is hindered from experiencing the grace of God because of Adam, they comprehend it not. The ones who should have comprehended it, Israel, willfully rejected it. Those outside of the covenant had no will to reject it. Why, Adam's sin. This is justice and mercy. Think about this Wade, the only ones rejecting the grace and the light today are the regenerate. They have the will to do so. The truth that we can be regenerate, repent and be baptized and go on to reject the truth and live a lie is a neglected truth. The passages we quote to the sinner are actually directed to you and me! In the meanwhile the Holy Spirit is busy regenerating sinners who are brought into the same quandary we have built and we make them worst for having been born!

The preaching of the Gospel is an act of grace, as is being born into a Christian family, as is living in a nation that is Christian. However, as we have already seen, sinners are so wicked that all of these advantages are null and void to them. The sinner hears the Gospel but he is deaf spiritually.
The sinner is like the infant, it hears but does not understand. If it was a case of an adult without hearing he would have an alternative to hearing ie. sign language. He has the ability to understand, the sinner doesn't. The sinner is hindered not just by the degree of wickedness but by the sin of Adam. The source of his inability is Adam, the wickedness is just a by-product. Your statement again implies that the infant and mentally challenged are excused from justice and automatically have mercy. All have sinned and Christ's death atoned the elect, emotionally we would like to think the mentally challenged have mercy but that is not our judgement to make. That resides with God alone.
The sinner is commanded to repent and believe but he is a rebel at heart. Therefore it takes a wonderful work of the Holy Spirit to change his heart and cause him to be willing.
Am I am wasting my time repeating what I feel is important. The sinner is not rebellious. He does not have it in him to be rebellious. He may rebel toward our offers of repentance, that only means he is tired of us. I sympathise with him in that and I grow weary with the Christians trying to convert the sinner. I have been third party too many times to a pal trying to convert a sinner and I just want to say, "close the pie hole!" He doesn't comprehend that he is offensive to God. That understanding comes with regeneration and rebellion is a practice of the regenerate toward God's. Wade, will we ever get this straight?
The fourth doctrine of grace is usually called “Irresistible Grace.” A better adjective would be the word effectual rather than irresistible. God’s grace is often resisted, but the Holy Spirit is an effectual worker. He gets the job done.
Does He still get the job done when you resist him, you do resist him, don't you? Isn't this the same with the sinner who is regenerated? Now does the unregenerate really resist the Holy Spirit? If you believe he does who is convincing you of this? Is it the voice of the flesh arguing against truth and insisting that man has free will? I believe that the commandment is plain and obvious and should be discerned by the spiritual. This is an oracle of the Lord. I Cor 14:36-38

As the appendix to the 1646 London Baptist Confession of Faith states in Article VII, “The Spirit of God doth not compel a man to believe against his will, but doth powerfully and sweetly create in a man a new heart, and so makes him to believe and obey willingly.”
This was compiled in a day when men understood biblical grace. The Spirit does not compel a sinner against his will. Drawing and compelling are two different operations. You are familiar I'm sure with R. C. Sproul's illustration of drawing water out of a well. You do not compell water to come to the top! You lower a bucket and dip it into the water and pull the rope till the bucket reaches the top. You do not woo the water up!
So if you have a loved one who is a hardened sinner, a rebel toward the things of God, the absolute most important thing you can do for him is pray
We are most certainly encouraged to pray for the salvation of the lost. Wade, what do you pray?

What is a "hardened sinner"? It is probablly a sinner who is tired of being bomblasted by a saved relative every Thanksgiving and Christmas! Anxious believers who do more harm than good. Psalms 37:1
God can save our families and nation without our prayers, but it seems He chooses not to save unless we pray, lest we take credit for the salvation of the lost ourselves.
When we pray for the lost our prayers are directed toward the lord of the harvest. In my church when a general altar call is given I pray that the unregenerate will not respond in confusion.

THE PERSEVERANCE OR PRESERVATION OF THE SAINTS
Finally, the fifth doctrine of grace is called “The Perseverance or Preservation of the Saints.” Perseverance simply means a graced person keeps on believing in Christ and keeps on repenting of sin until he dies. Preservation is the divine side of perseverance and simply means He who began a good work in you will carry it on until the day of Christ.
I agree with this statement however I want to point out the problem with conditional atonement is that if a decision is the condition of salvation it can be the sourse of a later denial.
If we can accept Christ we can later reject him. Of course we both know that is not true but you are flirting with conditional salvation as is most Evangelical s today. What is happening is conditional beliefs mean that in many cases pseudo-regeneration takes place and many who thought that they were saved are not really saved and later give up.

Hell is experienced because the sinner refuses to obey God. What about the sin of Adam?
IF the sinner were to obey God fully and completely He would be embraced by God. This is Paul's argument in Romans 1-3. If we loved God, kept His commandments, and willinging embraced His Lordship over our lives, then we would be right with Him.
We experience hell because we refuse to embrace God for who He is.
So, if we are in hell, it is our fault, not God's. If, however, we embrace the Savior who delivers His people from hell, then we have been redeemed by God from experiencing His wrath. So the fault for hell is our own. The credit for escaping it goes to God. The credit goes to God if we are saved and if we perish the credit goes to Adam. We suffer the consequences of his sin. We are born sinners. It is not the degree of wickedness that we have done that gets us into hell it is the result of Adam's sin. Hitler, infants and the mentally challenged are in need of a savior. We are not just hopefully lost but helplessly lost.
There are no degrees of lostness.

Now, some wish to say that the everlasting, unconditional love of God is upon every sinner. If it is, then I can guarantee you that everyone will be in heaven, because the love of God redeems, regenerates and restores that which is broken.
In other words, universalism is based on the belief that God's redemptive love is upon everyone. But the Scripture says that God has redemptive, eternal love for His people.

"You shall call his name Jesus for he SHALL save His people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). Now, the million dollar question is a simple one: Who are His people? The answer: Those who will embrace Jesus Christ, for the evidence of God's love is the willingness to kiss His Son. (conditional atonement)
"But you are saying I can't kiss Jesus unless God loves me enough to overcome my stubborn selfishness, my desires to sin and rebel against Him, and my naturally hard heart. You say I can't accept Christ unless God brings me to brokenness and gives to me the ability to love Him because I've come to the end of myself. Right?"Right. So I ask you. "Do you desire Him to break you of your self-love, your longing for sin, and bring to you a love for Christ and the things of God?"If you say, "Yes! I want God to do that in my life." (conditional atonement and prevenient, enabling grace)
Then I say on the authority of God's Word, He will, because He never turns a deaf ear to a helpless sinner who calls to Him. (conditional atonement)
He is leaving you alone."I guess, Stephen, the answer to your question lies at the very heart of true salvation or deliverance. God does NOT violate your will, for "The Spirit of God doth not compel a man to believe against his will, but doth powerfully and sweetly create in a man a new heart, and so makes him to believe and obey willingly.” The London confession is not dealing with the response of God toward the sinner but the regenerate. I think that many today are assuming for personal convenience that this confession is toward the sinner. The hypo-Calvinist want it to be so but the London Confession follows closely the tenets of Calvinism in Dortian fashion. They also want to reinterpret Dort as well.
Good point Darby.I, like Luther, think the better adjective for the will is "the bondage of the will" in the sense our wills are in bondage to the desires of our hearts.I sometimes do an experiment with my people during Bible study. I ask how many are on a diet. After a show of hands, I make them a friendly bet. I tell them that I can, with 100% accuracy, tell them what they will choose next time they are tempted to eat a piece of cake or a bowl of ice cream. I will tell them, with 100% accuracy, whether they will choose to eat the goodies or they will choose to say no to the cake and ice cream. Then I give them the punch line. They will always choose what is the greatest desire in their hearts at the time. The chooser always follows the inclination of the heart. NOBODY forces the will - this is what theologians mean when they say we are "free moral agents." We choose what we desire.The only fallacy with your McDonald's illustration is that God has set before a sinner how he can be right with God. He can fully, perfectly and eternally keep His laws. The fact that the man or woman CHOOSES to violate those laws is an indictment on the desires of our hearts. We are in bondage to our sinful nature, and we need deliverance from it. Sometimes people choose to reform themselves, but "what thaws in the sun will once again freeze in the shade."What is needed is a change of nature, and this is what God brings to the helpless sinner who cries out to Him.
Thu Dec 04, 11:08:00 AM 2008

Wade, the fact is that a man and woman are born with the consequences of Adam's sin. It is not insignificant that a man violates the law but he does what is his nature to do naturally not willingly. He is not just in bondage to his sinful nature but is in bondage to the prince of the power of the air. He is in Satan's hold.

The 'helpless' sinner cannot cry out to God. He is like an infant who hears but does not have the ability to understand. That is helpless. I have a retarded cousin who is just a few months my age. She is like an infant she hears well but has no intelligent understanding of what anyone says. She is helpless and has been so for over 62 years.
Excellent point SL1M,When people see the obedience, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is that which saves His people, then we can easily see that faith and repentance of gifts from God who, having given us His Son, will likewise give us all gifts associated with Him. Babies who die in infancy and the mentally challenged are redeemed the same way all sinners are redeemed; through the obedience, death and resurrection of Christ for His people. God simply has chosen to redeem them without giving to them the gifts of faith and repentance for they lived short or challenged lives where those gifts could not be manifested.
Thu Dec 04, 11:21:00 AM 2008

Wade Burleson said...
And the adult sinner, who wonders whether or not he or she can be saved, we simply point them to Christ and say, "He is the only one who can deliver you. Ask Him, and He will."Or ignore Him and He won't.
Thu Dec 04, 11:22:00 AM 2008

Wade, you can't have it both ways, either salvation is unconditional as it is with infants and rely on the mercy of God or it is conditional as with responsible adults with cooperation with God in receiving mercy and infants are left in a state of limbo.

For anyone who has read this far I have used Sam Storms' book: "Chosen For Life" as a guide for analysis. Pages 215-219 gives a good summary of the different views of Calvinism as to God's decrees.

My belief is the High Supralapsarianism view. Wade is being analysized by a high Calvinist which adds to the bias of the review! In my opinion Wade is an Ammyraldian Infralapsarian, a four point or less Calvinist. This view is also called hypo-Calvinism, hypothetical universalism. This is the view IMO of the vast majority of Evangelical Calvinist today. A hypo-Calvinist cannot be a five point-Calvinist.

Adrian Rogers' Theological Snag

2009-03-04T06:08:00.002-06:00

Family! Wife! Children! Precious Grandchildren! How could such be a hindered obstruction to one's theology. It can cloud you belief in original sin. Now other children's behavior may convince us of original sin but not our own. Perhaps unconsciously we stray from a vital truth because of sentimental attachments.

Perhaps the seventeenth century was a different mindset and theology was supreme over men's sentiments! There was true enlightenment in that period of time. The nineteenth and twentieth century saw a major shift form enlightenment to sentimentalism and subjectivism. That has been pervasive in our theology.

Original sin in it true form is a detriment to free will. How could one man's sin affect the free choice of us all? Is it fair to say that we are conceived in iniquity, without understanding and we are not seekers after God?

Spiritually men are as infants, they hear sounds but do not have understanding. Spiritually men are as the seriously mentally challenged, they hear sounds but are not understanding without any capability to communicate. They instinstinctively feel pain and pleasure but there is no understanding about life. Their basic infantile needs are met but there is no progress beyond that. Physically they are alive.

The sinner is spiritually dead, lifeless, without understanding. If you clearly believe in original sin then you have to believe that man does not have a free choice in salvation. "Well no wonder we don't believe in original sin, we know man has free choice!" "How could we love God if we didn't have free choice?"

The real question that is never asked is, "how could God really love us if we had free choice?"
Remember, when God created He pronounced "it is good" on all but man. The decree to sin was not just permitted but necessary for God's perfect demonstration of love. A love that would entail a Son being offered as a sacrifice for sinful man. God's pleasure was fulfilled in Christ. Christ's death brought Him pleasure! What a wonderful thought! Psalms 53

So Dr Rogers' error in saying that there is a little light in man is wrong. The light shines all around but not within. His belief in two ways of salvation is erroneous. There is one way to salvation not one for infants and the mentally challenged and another for adults who reach an age of accountability. There is not one for those who cannot make a choice and another for those who can.

Salvation is by election. All who are elected are saved. The application of election is Holy Spirit regeneration according to the pleasure of the Father. There is no human will involved, no matter how hard you try it will not overcome original sin. The only way to free will is the denial of original sin, one or the other.

Heresy

2009-03-02T05:39:00.004-06:00

If Cyber ink has to dry then my post yesterday wasn't dried before I turned on the TV and by chance saw Love Worth Finding with Adrian rogers preaching, "All Men Have Some Light!" He stated all men have some light, built in knowledge of God through creation and conscience. As this light is refused it increases darkness.

This sermon was posed before the question: Is God righteous and fair to let a sinner die and go to hell who has never heard about Jesus? (I get tired of typing these words; "sinners die and go to hell because of the sin of Adam." It is called justice. If a sinner dies and goes to heaven it is called mercy. God is righteous! Who in America believes in original sin anymore?)

This sermon is the root of the little god ideals spouted by minority unorthodox theologies. If a man prior to the mid nineteenth century had preach such a sermon to a similar national audience pulpits would have been ablaze with rebuttals. There is no voice of protest.

He abuses John 1:9 to say this light is in every man and neglected to read v. 10 that says the world that was made by him did not know him. There is no universal light that shines within all men. This is the seed thought of a cult that eventually escalates to a non-trinitarian, another gospel and another Christ movement.

Eventually all this will emerge as a massive majority view and instead of Joseph Smith, Ellen G White and Charles Russell it will be the charismatic leadership of Adrian Rogers who is even now immortalized as a model for Evangelical preaching.

Free Will Ministries, Continued.

2009-03-01T10:30:00.004-06:00

2 Corinthians 11:3-4 KJV "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." (emphasis mine)

Galatians 1:6 KJV I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (emphasis mine)

The above picture is another Jesus, a spirit being, thought by the Jehovah Witnesses to be Michael the Archangel. Michael came to earth from heaven to be Jesus Christ. He died and another spirit being came to take his place. Michael lived on to do battle with Satan and his angels, according to JW. The spirit being ascended to heaven where he assumed the title King or ruler of the earth realized in 1914, according to JW. The JW now await the beginning of the 1000 year reign with Jesus as King destroying the enemies of God and establishing a Edenic like life for humble men on the earth.

This Jesus, contrary to the Bible achieved independent status on earth, not as Jehovah but as his son, subordinate to Jehovah. He is a 'god.' He is a representative providing ambassadorial
assistance from Jehovah through the faithful servants, the 144,000 heavenly class of people.
The 1000 year reign must begin soon since there are few remaining men left on earth of the heavenly class. They are the ones who provide spiritual food in the form of watchtower literature to the faithful on earth who strive to attain earthly status and reign with Christ.

The JW believe strongly in free will and that Adam forfeited his status in the garden by abuse of free will. Men are under the influence of sin as a result of Adam's sin yet they can exercise faith by showing obedience toward Christ as Lord and savior. God is waiting to see if men will follow the ways of evil or if they will follow him. The focus of this waiting is on religious leaders who have allowed the dictates of Babylon to influence their ministries.

The difference between the Jesus of Trinitarian Christians and the JW Unitarian Jesus is in his assertions that He does not act independently of the Father. In spite of the statements of Christ contrary they insist he acts independently on his own. To state otherwise would be to affirm his equality with the Father, something which Christ affirmed Himself. The New World translation says: " In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." John 1:1 (emphasis mine) A god was with the God. This being did not come from God as a son from a father but was a created being of Jehovah. So when the JW says Jesus came from the Father they do not mean a son with equality to his father but a creation subordinate to the Father. This created being was Michael the archangel.

Now the point of all this is how did they come up with this ideal? It did not originate with Charles T. Russel but perhaps with Ellen G White's Adventist views. It was a nineteenth century religious view of anti-orthodox reactions resulting in Unitarianism. Ironically much of this reaction was against Calvinism. The other Christ and gospel is the result of free will running a course contrary to Trinitarianism. The tenets of free grace are rooted in a Biblical Trinitarian view. Any time that Christian free will is postulated as a major theme then it will run a course opposed to orthodoxy. It ends in Unitarianism.

Many of you who come across my blog think me to be a fool spouting folly and desirous of kicking a dead man. This is not so and many of you will continue to disbelieve me. I love the Word of God more than life itself and believe in a sovereign God who saves sinners, including me.

I will not be alive to see the outcome of Adrian Rogers beliefs but you can rest assured that as sure as the Mormons, JW, T D Jakes, Kenneth Copeland etc. etc. are aberrant theologies of other Christ and gospels that Dr. Rogers' gospel will run it's course in the same manner. 20-40 years from now the SBC Baptist Faith and Mission will arrive at a form of Unitarianian anti-orthodoxy. The mantra will be "come to Jesus," worship will be eclectic, doctrine will be non-existent, Christ will be God without the Father and the Holy Spirit. The SBC will be the major Christian denomination in America, embraced by the ruling powers. All this contingent on the fact that the Lord has not come in His glory. Even so come quickly Lord Jesus!

Do You Know This Man

2009-02-27T07:20:00.002-06:00

Do you know who this is?

Free Will Ministries

2009-02-26T19:23:00.000-06:00

T D Jakes is a Unitarian, a modalist, "One God, but manifest in...three different ways, Father in creation, Son in redemption, Holy Spirit in regeneration." This is called "Jesus Only" doctrine. He is a charismatic minister emphasizing divine prosperity and health.

Charles T. Russell, founder of the Jehovah Witnesses, is a Unitarian. He believes that Jesus as son of God is subordinate to Jehovah on the same level as angels. Joseph Smith is founder of the Mormons, Church of the Latter Day Saints. He is a polytheist. He believes that there are many gods and that we ourselves can aspire to be gods.
Adrian Rogers was a pseudo trinitarian who espoused trinitarian doctrine but in practice he was heading toward Unitarianism with his "come to Jesus" altar calls.
Kenneth Copeland: It is difficult to say what he believes. doctrine seem to matter very little to him but prosperity and health are uppermost. He says: " “If you stood Adam upside God, they look just exactly alike....If you stood Jesus and Adam side-by-side, they would look and act and sound exactly alike....The image is that they look just alike, but the likeness is that they act alike and they are alike....All of God's attributes, all of God's authority, all of God's faith, all of God's ability was invested in that man.” (Kenneth Copeland, Authority of the Believer IV (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1987, audiotape #01-0304), side 1)

Free will is a common thread that runs through the theology of these ministries. The path of free will leads to aberrant views of the trinity. Most of these ministries have reached that aberrant place in theology. Adrian Rogers' views are heading toward a non-functional view of the trinity. When he stands at the foot of the pulpit and says: "come to Jesus" he is the Father issuing the call and the Holy Spirit applying the Father's good pleasure. Rogers and the responding sinner are acting independently of God. The Christ they serve has to act independently of the Father.

Little gods act independently of God. All these ministries have little gods in their belief systems. They are constructed around free will.

Free Will, Continued

2009-02-26T07:31:00.003-06:00

The path of free will leads to Unitarianism. Free will is independence from God. The Christ of free willism is an independent 'god' who acts on his own authority. That makes the gospel 'another gospel'. Free will makes man a 'little god', free and independent from God, Satan's delight! The love of free willism is a 'sloppy agape' and they insist that it necessitates the true worship of God. "We can't truly love God if our will is not free." "We are not robots and we will love God without Him!" The love for God is reduced to human sentiment. That is why so much of Evangelicalism today promotes so much folly in worship. It becomes entertainment and seeing whose sentiment is best. Who can sing the loudest, who can sing the best, whose performance is the best, who weeps the most etc. etc.

Christ successfully resisted this in the wilderness. He maintained what God expects of us all, a dependence on Him alone. This is something the humblest among us understands, the unnoticed common man and something the proud and arrogant deny! Our education and discipleship promotes this independence from God. To achieve success without God's help.

Have the humble naturally understood this? No, the humble are given the understanding by God. They understand because God grants them the understanding.

Free Will, Continued

2009-02-25T17:27:00.002-06:00

Jesus from his birth had restricted dependent thought as Adam. Like Adam he was tested in like manner, only he suffered extreme hardship. Adam was in Eden, Jesus was in a rugged wilderness. Adam had excellent nourishment and a pleasant environment all provided by a caring creator. He enjoyed clarity of thought without duress. Jesus was led by the Holy Spirit for the express purpose of testing and complied with the discipline of fasting. He struggled with clarity of thought under extreme duress.

The temptation of Christ was an attempt to cause him to act as a representative of God from his dependent thought. He was tempted to act independently of the Father. To surrender to this would make Christ another god like Satan himself. The argument given by Satan to Eve was quick and obvious, she should have known to resist this temptation. This temptation of Christ was perhaps lengthy with confusing principles few if any humans could understand. All this under duress.

Christ had not the benefit of counsel through the temptation only the mastery of the Word of God faithfully given through Jewish law; parents, friends, family and synagogue teaching. Dialogue with temple officials formed his understanding. The Holy Spirit was his constant companion through all this insuring he understood the truth.

Many evangelicals today sadly do not understand Satan's offer to Christ. He had to maintain his divinity as an incarnate son of man. He had to be both priest and sacrifice in order to accomplish redemption and that entailed being both God and man. The Word of God taught to the simplest individual was sufficient to combat the devices of Satan. Christ had to live by the Word of God, not tempt God, worship only Him and be His exclusive servant. He passed the test! Heavenly host were watching to see that he would succeed and angels came to minister to His needs.

Many religious leaders would try to tempt him during His three years of ministry. He had to have a clear understanding of who He was. He was not a god independent of the Father, that would make him a representative of God, acting independently. He was God equal to the Father, and not subordinate to Him. As man he surrendered this status to be subordinate to the Father and act dependently on the Father. From the cradle to the grave He was one of us, God the Son humbly obedient to God the Father. He as God died for the sins of the world. From the grave to the throne He sits exalted at the Father's right hand exalted as God and redeeming lamb and priest.

There is a connection to us asserting our free will and frustrating the divinity of Christ. Satan is the author of this confusion. The assertion of free will is a serious violation of Scripture, one which Christ avoided on earth! It is the most common failure of men to violate this. Anyone, even the simplest and humblest of men can comprehend this as demonstrated by Christ, himself. As Christ said to the religious leaders, "I tell you the truth and you believe me not."
This is the hardest truth to be heard by anyone holding to free will. You do not understand this because you are blinded by Satan from this truth, whether you sit in the pew or stand behind a pulpit.

Free Will, Continued

2009-02-25T06:27:00.005-06:00

Adam was born sinless but without free thought; that alone belongs to God. The reason I say 'without free thought' is that there was the test that was before Adam and Eve and free thought, determinate knowledge cannot be tested. It stands alone. Adam was like God but not equal to God. Adam was a created representative of God. All that God created he pronounced it good from the beginning with the exception of Adam and Eve. They never heard that pronouncement, "this is good!" As God's special created representatives they would be tested and they would fail and a wonderful plan of divine intervention would take place to save mankind. This was designed from the beginning and not an after thought.

There is a mystery of iniquity here isn't there? Fearfully I tread here but this needs to be said, God is not the author of sin. His determinate nature, logos, is Holy. There is no lie in Him. We cannot say where sin came from. Christ did say that Satan was a murderer from the beginning, and lived not in truth. Satan lies because he is a liar and the father of lies. John 8:44
Satan was the source of man's test. He had a bent toward destruction and a desire to kill Adam and Eve. Satan served a purpose and did not have determinate thought, logos, else he would have been equal to God. He ursuped authority and became the god of this earth, the prince of the powers of the air. He is the reason we cannot own our own believe the truth. As Paul says, human free will is a lie of the Devil. Amen, brother Paul.

Free Will

2009-02-24T20:09:00.002-06:00

Today at work I ask two colleagues a question: do humans have absolute independent thought? Yes came the answer from both who were Christians of the SBC persuasion. I answered back no they don't.

Both responded that man has free will and therefore must have independent thought. My belief is that only God can have independent thought. He knows the thoughts and intents of man's heart. By virtue of creation he made us and gave us thoughts. "I know the thoughts I have for you." There is nothing hid from Him! Satan and his angles do not have independent thought. The angles who serve god's purposes do not have independent thought. All that was created is subordinated to God and have restricted thought. Humans don't have independent thought and it is an attribute of sovereignty alone.

The logos of God is communicable independent thought. It is the council of the divine trinity whereby thought is communicated in a predetermined manner. All that exist was predetermined by this logos. Christ is the logos and the logos is God. Foreknowledge is the ability of God to see into the future what was determined from His past council. What was planed did not occur by foreknowledge but by determined independent thought. It was absolutely free without influence.

Man does not have this attribute neither is it shared with man by God. The Shema of Israel addresses this with regularity in the gathering of Israel for prayer. "Hear O Israel, "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God! The LORD is One!"

Man will assert and assault heaven and earth to defend his free will, saying "In order to love God man must have free will!" God is Love and all He determines is according to His own good pleasure. He puts the love in our hearts for Himself so that all things work together for good.

God Is Getting A Multitude Ready

2009-02-23T20:21:00.002-06:00

Isaiah 61: 1-3
The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.

A Call To Apathy!

2009-02-22T19:33:00.002-06:00

I've often wondered if the Holy Spirit works in a large Church like Bellevue Baptist with a famous pastor like Adrian Rogers. I have occasionally thought that perhaps the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church and left them to their own man-centered devices.

However the Holy Spirit is still working in strange and mysterious ways. He moves among the common men. In spiritual issues doing nothing is preferable to doing the wrong thing. Most churches adopt the philosophy of pragmatic busyness. They quote the Bible "idle hands are the Devil's workshop" "Jesus is coming look busy."

Perhaps the Spirit is moving in the mist of the congregation discretely encouraging apathy! When Adrian Rogers preached evangelistically, soliciting decisions the Holy Spirit was whispering to men "let the preacher do what he does and don't get involved." When Dr. Rogers exhorted men to be soul winners the Spirit said to them, "ignore the plea."

Perhaps a great move of the Spirit took place and over a thousand people just sat there obedient to the call of the Spirit. They were not recognized for their obedience but in their hearts they knew they loved God and they would not be intimidated by motivation to be busy for the sake of busyness.

America is full of good obedient Christians who are not recognized instead they are the objects of scorn, Sunday after Sunday and through the week on TV and radio. They are the religious oppressed and some are persecuted for the sake of the name of Christ. They have not someone to open the good book at Isaiah 61 and say, "this day this scripture is fulfilled in your midst."

I exhort you to say no to:

1. Any witnessing class teaching you how to lead someone to Christ, just say no.
2. Say no to ascetic practices that make you feel you have earned God's blessings.
3. Say no to disciplining and mentoring, just say, "no thanks I have the Holy Spirit for that, He will teach me."
4. Say no to music entertainment, large orchestration and accomplished singing.
"No thank you, I will just sit here and make a joyful noise to the Lord!"
5. Say no to unity and yes to purity.

Join the massive ranks of good Christians who have been doing nothing for years. Rise up...er...sit there and do nothing. You are a member of a numberless body of people who dearly love God and are doing nothing. You will have your reward! See the salvation of the Lord! The Lord is faithful!

What I Don't Have To Do To Be Regenerated!

2009-02-20T18:56:00.002-06:00

1. Push ups
2. Jumping jacks
3. Knee bends
4. Cry
5. Scream
6. Repent
7. Jack Squat
8. Raise my hand
9. Walk forward
10. Believe
11. Listen
12. Hear
13. Pay money
14. Take out a loan
15. Accept Christ
16. Tithe
17.
18.
19.
20.

What Do I Have To Do To Be Regenerated?

2009-02-20T06:42:00.002-06:00

Click here for full disclosure!

Proud Grandfather!!!

2009-02-17T07:58:00.002-06:00

For the fifth time I am a grandfather. A boy 9 lb. Big guy, Chase Allan!!! Thank you Lord.

'ordo salutis' Order Of Salvation

2009-02-13T07:11:00.002-06:00

Theologians describe the process by which God brings redemption subjectively to the sinner in 'ordo salutis'. This is perhaps the least understood element of soteriology. This determines whether one is monergistic or synergistic, God alone works in saving saving sinners or there is a cooperation of the sinner with the saving work of God. This determines if atonement is substitutionary (once for all) or an ongoing work of salvation. It also determines when justification is given to the sinner.

My JW friend believes that all this was a hastily devised plan after the fact of the fall of Adam in the garden. The "interim ethic" and "passover plot" are also hasty views of Christ's death. The view that Christ resigned himself to the death of the cross after a disappointing attempt to set up a political Jewish kingdom is the result of a faulty order of salvation.

Between these faulty views and the correct biblical view is a wide space of theological manipulation attempting to reconcile what one wants God to do and what God actually does.

Paul in Romans 8:28-34 gives us his order of salvation. The Protestant Reformation was constructed around this in difference to the Roman Catholic belief in faith repentance and good works.

Heavenly And Eternal Salvation

2009-02-12T07:11:00.003-06:00

My Jehovah Witness friend believes that God designed a perfect Eden for man to live in. He created a place for man to dwell and enjoy perfect fellowship with Himself. In this garden the world would be replenished and an eternal Kingdom established on earth. The fall of man was not in the mind of God and thus the plan of redemption emerged in war-like conflict. The plan of redemption was an afterthought, an interruption of divine plans by mortal men and fallen spirit beings. So now a patient God waits to test his creation as to who will truly follow His ways or rebel in disobedience. It will end in a destruction on earth of all evildoers and a final setting up of an "edenic" kingdom on earth ruled by an angel of God, Jesus Christ, the chief of Princes and his elect heavenly class (144,000) spirit beings.

The plan of salvation then is an afterthought! It is an interruption of divine plans. Naturally I have taken issue strongly with him on this. Christ's death was not an afterthought but a decision made before the foundations of the earth was laid. It was decreed in eternity before any created order. Oh, does he ever disagree with that! "Why that would violate free will." "Man sinned by free choice otherwise God would be the author of sin!"

Our salvation was a product of heavenly holiness. A state of perfect love and justice. Decreed by a triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. An eternal counsel was convened in eternity and a plan laid out without interruptions. There were no conflicts nor mysteries. There were no opposing forces in this plan. God is just and right in all His ways!

Eternal Redemption Accomplished

2009-02-11T06:25:00.002-06:00

The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins. But it could grant forgiveness for the errors of the people on a regular basis. The conscience of sins remained with the worshippers.
The covenant with Israel was maintained by ceremonial sacrificial laws.

When Christ died the perfect sacrifice was offered and accepted by an offended Father. Sins were finally atoned. It was a "once for all" event. The old ceremonial law was now useless and that fact was demonstrated by the ripping from top to bottom of the veil that kept the worshippers from accessing the Holy of Holies. The common man could look into the sacred place and not be destroyed.

I'm certain that the arrangements were quickly made to repair the veil and continue the ceremony of sacrifices. Only now there was not a need of sacrifices. Christ had ascended to the Father's right hand as priest and lamb. What the old covenant could not do Christ had perfected the way into the presence of God.

From Calvary's cross eternal redemption had been accomplished!

Christ's Victory Cry, "It Is Finished!"

2009-02-10T05:15:00.002-06:00

Hebrews 10:12-18 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Christ died, rose from the dead and ascended to the right hand of the father where he maintains an expectation that his enemies will be his footstool. This heavenly sacrificial transaction, unlike the earthly transaction, was an eternal once for all event.

Unlike the earthly sacrifice it was offered often. But Christ's offering was a once for all sacrifice not to be repeated. This means that the Lord's supper is to be an ordinance of remembrance not a transubstantiation of the elements into the body and blood of Christ. The symbol of the empty cross represents a once for all sacrifice for sins. The worshipping of a crucifix from which a suffering Christ hangs is unbiblical. The confessional booth from which sins are confessed to a priest is unbiblical. It all nullifies the wording of the New Testament book of Hebrews.

The sin of Adam and Eve is forgotten. There is no quilt for their sin and the errors of the saints are to be confessed personally to the heavenly high priest, Christ our advocate. We have the calm assurance of ready grace and cleansing from heaven.

Catholics are not the only abusers of Christ's sacrifice. Evangelicals demand the sinner to repent. This is something that the sinner can't and won't do anyway. But to go ahead and urge repentance is a judgement imposed by the saint upon the sinner. We are told specifically not to be a judge following our Savior who came not to condemn but to save. When we bring up the sin of the sinner we are requiring a re-cucifixion of Christ and that means the sinner has to confess his sin in order to obtain salvation. This then is Pelagian and Arminian evangelism far more deceptive than Roman Catholicism! It is salvation by works! It is cooperative salvation by the confessing sinner and the coerced Savior. The Holy Spirit has to acknowledge the confession, Christ has to die again for the sinner's sin and the Father bows to the will of man. This is a humiliation to God and yet in His loving kindness and patience sinners are saved. Someday someone will pay dearly for this evangelical disgrace.

The Battle For Gospel Preaching

2009-02-07T05:00:00.000-06:00

Murray makes the statement on p. 70 of his book: "So the preacher has not done his work when he has spoken of Christ and proclaimed the historic facts of salvation." (emphasis mine) "From there he must go on to urge the reception of Christ upon all men." This is hypothetical universal atonement, hypo-Calvinism. It is an attempt to appease the Arminians while being a "five point" Calvinist. It is an attempt to appear evangelistic in order to endure the free-willers. It is a deceptive theological position.

On the day of Pentecost Peter preached about Christ and the historic facts of salvation. (Acts 2:22-36) That is all. The Holy Spirit did the rest! They were pricked in their hearts when they heard him. "What shall we do?" Only then did Peter urge them to repent. The Bible is clear that unregenerate men are never urged to repent. When a Biblical offer for repentance is given it is in the general context that repentance is part of the gospel but never urged upon sinners.

The non-condemning Christ offered himself a sacrifice for the elect who will believe when the Holy Spirit regenerates. That is the message that we preach indiscriminately to the whole world. We preach convincingly in the power of the Spirit, believing that the Holy Spirit will give the increase.

Are Southern Baptists Blind Or Blindfolded?

2009-02-06T07:33:00.003-06:00

Dr Adrian Rogers did not employ a gay associate. The associate was a pedophile for just a few months but that is in the past and let us not bring this subject up any more, please! Gays do not serve as SBC ministers. We love gays but they do not hold official positions in the SBC and especially at Bellevue. Now every once and awhile a male minister may abuse an under aged boy but he is not gay.

Didn't I say we don't employ gays?

Stifling Dissent

2009-02-05T00:53:00.004-06:00

If people are not allowed to express their views about the color of the carpet in the sanctuary then they will be silent when an associate pastor sodomizes his own son.

When Jesus overturned the tables of the currency exchangers and merchants displaying anger toward them with a whip in hand he was the son of God. "My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer?" He stood at the entrance and would not let merchants carry merchandise taking a shortcut through the temple court.

He was the Son of God doing this but he was also a man as well. He was a homeless man without any credentials, a stepson of a carpenter from Nazareth.

It was common folk who picked up stones to stone a high-handed violator of the Mosaic law. Where did the common man get this passion for the law? It was embedded in his mind. The judicial system starts with the passion of the common man. Sin abounds when the passion of the common man is stifled. Scholarship, appointed authority, judicial sitting and skilled leadership are not the source of the move of the Spirit among men but the obscure common man. God dwells in the hearts of men by regeneration. He is the source of the passion that humble men possess and that passion which is a powerful force in man should not be quenched.

If God wants the carpet to be purple then He will get the right carpet by giving a common man the passion for purple carpet. But if the common man is told that it is not his business what color the carpet will be then don't be surprised if nothing is said when an associate sodomizes his own son. The common man will just sit back and let authorities take control and usually sin is covered.

"The carpet should be purple and I am mad as hell!"

Fire And Brimstone preaching

2009-02-02T15:43:00.002-06:00

Fire and brimstone is a term used, sometimes pejoratively, to describe a motif in Christian preaching which uses vivid descriptions of judgment, and the damnation to Hell of sinners forever to encourage repentance out of fear of divine wrath and punishment.
The Puritan preacher Thomas Vincent (an eyewitness of the Great Fire of London) authored a book called "Fire and Brimstone in Hell", first published in 1670. In it he quotes from Psalm 11:6 "Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and a horrible tempest, this shall be the portion of their cup."
Preachers such as Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield were referred to as "fire and brimstone preachers" during the Great Awakening of the 1730s and 1740s. Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" remains among the best-known sermons from this period. Reports of one occasion when Edwards preached it said that many of the audience burst out weeping, and others cried out in anguish or even fainted. One member of his congregation, Joseph Hawley, slit his throat after listening to it.
Today, preaching in more conservative branches of Christianity, such as many Baptist, Nazarene, Pentecostal, Restoration Movement and Church of Christ churches, may be described as "fire and brimstone" in style. In contrast, such styles would be out of place in quietist traditions, such as the Society of Friends (or Quakers). The term "fire and brimstone" is more often used in current language to stereotype fervent preachers (though such few preachers would label themselves that way). -from Wikipedia

Edwards preached: "The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times so abominable in his eyes as the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours."

I am not appealing for a modern gospel of love in which we follow a Christ who provided an example for us to follow our own path of righteousness. I believe in substitutionary atonement. God laid on Christ our sins and he bore the awful wrath for us. Edwards lost sight of that in his effort to bring about reformation of the youth he cared for. Edwards and Whitefield sought evangelistic results in Arminian style through compromising their Calvinism.

Fire and brimstone sermons are products of Arminian-like theologies. Calvinist who seek to compromise limited atonement and irresistible grace are proponents of fear sermons that fail to consider the substitutionary atonement. The preacher is insisting that the sinner's sins are not atoned until a decision by the sinner is made. This annuls the words of Christ from the cross, "It is finished!"

Think About It!

2009-02-01T13:25:00.002-06:00

Really! Sinners in the hands of an angry God! Why did Christ die on the Cross? Didn't His death appease the righteous wrath of God? Christ himself came not to preach a hell, fire and brimstone message but to save the world. When he open the scroll he went directly to His passage in Isaiah and he spoke graciously.

The poor were having the gospel preached to them. Who gave us the notion that we have to preach a message of fear, urging men to repent and accept Christ. "Hang them over the hot flames of hell by a thread!" Why would you ask a spiritually dead sinner to repent, when he can't? Why try to complicate a simple message with unwholesome words designed to entice a decision.

The decision lies with the Father, but you think that narrows the "saved" to just a few with the majority lost. First, we have no control as to how many, but the descriptions of heaven portray a large crowd too large to count. We are commanded to speak the words of the gospel. God uses the mouths of men to spread the good news and the Holy Spirit works alongside that speech.

The message is a proclamation, an announcement without coercion. The Holy Spirit does the convicting and revealing by regeneration. The message to believe and repent follow this work of the Spirit.

Christ tell us not the sinner that "he who believeth on him is not condemned." Paul tells us not the sinner, "whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." John tells us not the sinner, "whosoever will let him take of the water of life freely." We are not told to tell the sinner these things but we are told to believe that is what happens when the regenerate are coming to us. The regenerate believe, call and drink when they are born again. They need us to provide the promises to believe, give their savior a name, and hold out the cup to drink freely.

I will post later about who is in the hands of an angry God. It may surprise you.

Jonathan Edwards, Calvinist?

2009-01-29T19:44:00.004-06:00

Jonathan Edwards preached the famous sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an angry God"

"There is nothing that keeps wicked men, at any moment, out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God." "All wicked men's pains and contrivance they use to escape hell, while they continue to reject Christ, and so remain wicked men, don't secure them from hell for one moment."

Johnathan Edwards wasn't a good Calvinist (if in fact a Calvinist at all). He believed in the well meant offer and universal atonement. He was practically an Arminian when he preached this sermon. Sinners are not in the hands of an angry God, Christ, His only begotten Son was in His angry hands. God laid on Him the sins of the world. His wrath was appeased at Calvary! This is NOT the message of fire and brimstone but a glorious proclamation and announcement!

Sinners are not called by men at all but God by the Holy Spirit regenerates men according to the pleasure of His own will. Once regenerate the call to repent and be baptized is issued. What was Jonathan Edwards thinking?

Did He believe that God saves sinners? Didn't he remember that Christ himself said He came not to condemn the world but that through Him they might be saved.

edit to add (Feb, 2, 2009: Perhaps I was overstepping to suggest that perhaps Edwards was not a Calvinist. My criticism is with the sermon and far be it from me to speculate about Edwards. The struggle with Calvinist to cooperate with the non-Calvinist in evangelism and revivals seems to me creates a tendency to compromise the sovereignty of God in making a free off to the sinner. This compromise by great men has created problems for Calvinism. When I say Calvinism I mean the Biblical gospel of grace. We are living with the consequences of those compromises today as witnessed by the current American Evangelical scene.

Do You Really Believe That God Saves Sinners?

2009-01-27T06:00:00.000-06:00

Notes to Acts 2:4 Scofield Reference Bible
(8) Sins against the Spirit committed by unbelievers are: To blaspheme Mt 12:31, resist Acts 7:51, insult Heb 10:29, "despite," lit. insult). Believers' sins against the Spirit are: To grieve Him by allowing evil in heart or life Eph 4:30,31 and to quench Him by disobedience 1Th 5:19.
The right attitude toward the Spirit is yieldedness to His sway in walk and service, and in constant willingness that He shall "put away" whatever grieves Him or hinders His power Eph 4:31.

There is a problem with these notes. If you believe in total depravity then you know the sinner is spiritually dead and alienated from God. He can't blaspheme or insult God. If you believe in irresistible grace then you know that God cannot be resisted by the unbeliever.

However if you don't believe in these cardinal and orthodox doctrines then you believe like Scofield that the unbeliever can blaspheme, resist and insult God.

There is another problem with these notes. These notes do injustice to the sacrifice of Christ to take away sins. Didn't Scofield believe in the effectual atonement for sins? No, he didn't. Didn't he believe that Christ offered a once for all sacrifice for sins? No, he didn't. Didn't he understand the meaning of Christ sitting down at the right hand of God? No, he didn't. You don't either if you believe like Scofield!

Friends, do you believe in substitutionary atonement? Most American Evangelicals today don't, do you? Do you recrucify Christ anew every time to make the free offer to the sinner? Don't you recrucify Christ anew when you say that the greatest sin is the sin of rejecting Christ?

Conversion And Water Baptism

2009-01-26T09:08:00.003-06:00

Yesterday at my Church seven were baptized. One child, five teenage girls and an adult lady.
I joined in with everyone in clapping of my hands as an expression of praise but it has left me contemplating what conversion means in our church.

All were ask the question, "have you put your trust in Christ as your savior?" All answered in the affirmative. "I baptize you, my sister, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Buried with Christ in His death raised to newness of life" was the pronouncement as they were immersed in water. Naturally they were lifted out of the water!

To differing degrees the minister commented on each candidate as to their conversion testimony. A couple of teenagers were particularly noted by the minister as vibrant in their witness to Christ.

Were their conversions the result of decisional regeneration? I am sure the pastor and his staff would be in an uproar if I asked that question of them. I do rejoice in these baptisms.

Nevertheless it brings me to the general question as to what we believe conversion is. The term has undergone changes in definition in our modern American society. When I was a boy a terribly ruthless child would be sent to a reform school where it was hoped he would be reformed in his behavior. An adult criminal was sent to a State Penitentiary where it was hoped he would through struggle of isolation reach a penitent state and come out reformed.

The rest of us were whipped vigorously by parent and teacher in hopes we would reform our ways. In all instances a change in behavior was evidence of reform and were rewarded with status in society. All this is history in our society and memories of days gone by.

We are encouraged to love and accept people as they are without judgment. They can't change and so society changes and adapts to their norm. Above all we must be a united and loving people. Hasn't this infiltrated the Church? Christ is a loving nonjudgmental being and we must follow him in a united nonjudgmental behavior before all.

So basically the problem for society is people like me who just can't give in to this. Eventually people like me will be sent off to institutions where it is hoped I will reform and be productive for society!

Oh my! I have digressed!

What is conversion anyway? Theologically there are three erroneous types of conversions represented by baptism that come to my mind. I have not gotten this from a textbook. It is a product of my own thinking. They are ceremonial, decisional and regenerative baptisms. All three involving actual water. I would hope that the nature of this would incite discussion and my views would not be seen as exclusive. I welcome debate.

First there is a ceremonial baptism, particularly infant baptism, that looks forward to a change in behavior and provides a historical landmark to look back to. There is no actual change in the candidate. The responsibility falls on the observers and baptizer to guide the candidate to a conversion. In my mind there is some validity to this as seen in the Acts accounts of households being baptized; adults, children and perhaps even servants. Still it lacks in some fashion.

Secondly there is decisional baptism that result from a previous decision followed by a water baptism. The responsibility falls on the candidate to actualize the conversion. Only he can validify the certainty of the decision. In my mind there are lots of problems associated with this baptism. Predictably there is a vast falling away of candidates from this.

Regenerative baptism is the greatest error and hopefully least practiced. It assumes at the time of baptism the candidate undergoes a conversion and is saved at baptism. It is expected that some evidence of conversion is displayed at the time. An emotional display of rejoicing by the candidate is expected and particularly with some Pentecostals the evidence of speaking in tongues is the single evidence of salvation. These are "Jesus' name" baptisms in which the doctrine of the trinity is denied. It is not only erroneous but dangerous in that it encourages phony evidence in order to meet the demands of the observers and baptizer. In a sense you get a one shot for salvation and you had better come up shouting and speaking in tongues. Incredible coercion creates nervous ship-wrecked believers, spiritually.

I hesitate to mention a fourth error because it is a conversion that does not need actual water.
It is "faith" baptism. It is often call "word of faith" and it seems to place little importance on water baptism at all. A personal positive confession of scripture made without verified evidence is all that is needed. It is ceremonial and intellectual and the results come later. You "name it and claim it" and it is yours by "faith." Many Charismatics and "health wealth and prosperity" preachers hold to this belief. Also many of the decisional baptism people practice this as well. It has a strong emphasis of "faith."

I hope that this encourages you to think and perhaps debate. What do I believe? I believe in Holy Spirit baptism, I Cor. 12:13, in which an actual heart conversion takes place, not ceremonial nor intellectual assent. It is like a birth all over again! It does not come from the believer's faith but the will of the Father. It is followed by a water baptism with the baptizer pronouncing confidently "thy sins are forgiven! Thou shalt receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and follow Christ!" It is a supernatural work resulting not in perfection but progressive sanctification looking forward to glorification. The rejoicing is not by the candidate but the emotionally excited baptizer and observers. They embrace him in a teaching community. The candidate is established in faith in an affirming community!

How Can Irresistible Grace Be Denied?

2009-01-25T16:02:00.003-06:00

Steve Gaines preached a good sermon dealing with irresistible grace. He nearly convinced me to drop the doctrine as unbiblical! He has a sophisticated and intellectual audience and they were trained by Dr Rogers to listen intently and imitate the Bereans in searching the scriptures.

He made a few preparatory statements leading up to the main point. He has been trained in theology and good presentation. Who could argue with him? His main point was "some people believe that stuff!" I was floored. I had never thought that deeply along that line.

Webster online dictionaryfor "stuff": "writing, discourse, talk, or ideas of little value : trash" But it is not just Gaines using the word to settle a theological issue it is the way he says it. When a man from Alabama uses the word "stuff" he enunciates it with a snarl. Elvis could pronounce "stuff" with a snarl, raising the lips on one side and with a mouth full of mush.

The sanctuary was full of Christians and doubtfully not a single person could protest. This was the final authority. It was a definite infallible pronouncement.

He was a member of the 2000 BF&M revision committee and did he contribute this wisdom at the table with the other members? I wonder if Al Mohler just quietly accepted this definition?
I'm sure Dr. Rogers agreed with him. I would like to have been a fly on the wall in this discussion!

What this causes me to ask, is there credibility with Gaines and Rogers? Is their anti-Calvinism a willfully insincere denial of irresistible grace. I am inclined to think there is willful deception.
To deny irresistible grace is to admit that God's will can be resisted and that the blood of Christ is not effectual, that there will be people in hell who refused the blood of Christ.

Irresistible Grace

2009-01-24T19:51:00.003-06:00

The sinner cannot resist the grace of God. Man cannot turn the jet stream that flows over America neither can he stop the earthquakes that erupts in her belly. Neither can he resist the Spirit of Grace! The Lord is not slack concerning His promises. God accomplishes His will!

edit to add: Irresistible grace is also effectual drawing. John 6:44 No one is dragged kicking and screaming into heaven but through regeneration the elect are drawn from spiritual death as one draws water from a deep well. (R C. Sproul) The sinner is not wooed to come up from the deep but is literally re-birthed and by the active force of the Holy Spirit brought to Christ according to the Father's will. None of this is accomplished under any cooperation of the elect. The Holy spirit compels by force. He does not extend an invitation or entice anyone to come. Jesus spoke to Lazarus and he left the tomb of death and came to life.

William Carey

2009-01-23T07:34:00.002-06:00

Wouldn't you like to be able to go to India and labor for ten years without a single convert? I hear the virtues of Carey being praised from pulpits everywhere. With unwavering faith he labored steadfastly in the face of difficulties without a single convert! Oh my, I wish I was that dedicated!

Fret not thyself! Today, thanks to the development of Christian Science and media technologies you can go to India and see souls saved on the airplane before you get to India. The vision of Charles Fuller and the struggling missionary pioneer, William Carey, has been perfected and refined from a ten year struggle to a ten week crash course. In fact you don't even have to have the crash course. My friend if you have forty dollars to spare you can equip yourself! There are now 'means' to reach the lost. NavPress offers a "one verse evangelism" program for under, now don't miss this, $39.99. Evangelism Explosion offers a Level 1 Trainee Starter Kit w/ KJV Learning Cards for $34.95!

Today you can become a William Carey in the ease of your own home. Win friends and influence them to make a decision for Christ. In this day and time, if you are an Arminian, you have no excuse for not winning souls. No one but yourself hinders the cause. If souls are not saved it is your fault! Now go out there and get some decisions!

The Sacredness Of Grace

2009-01-22T05:34:00.001-06:00

The Catholic church treats the handling of the communion elements with utmost respect. When it is blessed it becomes for them the actual body and blood of Christ. The officiating priest carries a cloth to wipe the cup lest any excesses be spilt. The wafer crumbs are to be caught and placed in the silver plate. A cloth is used to wipe any residue and then shook into the plate. If any of the wine is spilt it is wiped with a dampened cloth and rung back into the chalice.

The remaining host is consumed by the priest and the wine is either drank by the priest or placed back in the sanctuary where it can be used in another service or served to the sick-at-home. Any misuse of the elements is considered a sacrilege.

This is symbolism of irresistible and effectual grace. No grace is ever wasted and to consider grace an unholy thing to be wasted by the sanctified is to insult the Spirit of grace. This is trampling under foot the son of God. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God.

Adrian Rogers' misleading his followers into Pelagianism is guilty of a sacrilege of grace. He was a careless and indifferent priest, mockingly spilling the blood and scattering the bread to be trampled underfoot. There is no forgiveness for this and to do so is to fall into the hands of an angry God!

The blood is effectual and irresistible and not to be cast out carelessly. Not a drop of holy blood will be carried into the lake of fire. Every drop will be carried through the portals of heaven to be displayed before the Father for his glory.

Anti-Calvinistic Arguments - Continued

2009-01-21T05:45:00.000-06:00

Adrian Rogers chaired the 2000 BF&M committee for the Convention. He met with able bodied men who thoroughly discussed all the assorted aspects of the document. Surely he was nothing less than Semi-Pelagian when he discussed original sin and enabling grace. He was an informed participant to the discussion of Calvinism. Like many of his peers he would argue for "mystery". Surely he would subscribe to the fact that there is an unknown element in the manner in which God grants a decision.

Yet when he stood in the pulpit he intentionally preached a deceptive message. He adjusted his belief so as to appeal to the common man. His presentation was a Pelagian argument. His straw man argument issued from a Pelagian view. Sadly all who listened and adhered to his sermons were led into Pelagianism. The common man in the pew cannot readily accept the ambiguity of Semi-Pelagian arguments. The simple ideal of all men having the capacity to choose is Pelagianism. This is not a small matter. It is not insignificant.

At the least Dr Rogers was insincerely wrong however the possibility exist that he was intentionally mischief with his theology. His attack may be an attack on the beliefs of Bible believers.

Anti-Calvinistic Arguments

2009-01-20T16:00:00.000-06:00

Two predominant arguments arise against Calvinism. I have argued against both. Simply put they are: 1.) "Calvinism doesn't make sense to me." 2.) "Calvinism makes sense to you."

The first is rooted in Pelagianism, emotive and generally comes from an uninformed person. The second comes from a Semi-Pelagian and informed person. It carries errors of ambiguity.

The first ignorantly (at least the people I have argued with) deny original sin. Usually they blame me for doing harm to others by saying "God elects those He saves." They bring up the salvation of their children. It is a highly charged emotional argument that can erupt in outburst if pushed. To them Calvinism does not make sense. These people fail to give a good argument for total depravity.

The second group believe in original sin and total depravity and thus are Semi-Pelagian. They are informed and non-argumentative. Included in this group are those who insist on the universal free offer. They are hypo-Calvinistic and in my opinion are not really Calvinist. They are Arminian of a different sort. Their appeal is that my Calvinism is logical.

They embrace "mysticism" to describe the method God employs to give the sinner free will. The appeal is beautiful and implies the essence of faith in order to accept it. It has a Roman Catholic ring to it. It is the sacramental language of communion, how a dead sinner is enabled to make a choice.

Both groups by differing degrees reject any regeneration that precedes faith. The first group clearly insist faith precedes regeneration, clearing the way for an aggressive evangelism to the whole world. The second group insist that regeneration and faith are inseparable and mystical. It is such that a "universal free offer" is made to all rather than just the particularly elected.
The free offer is thus contrived and made to appear evangelistic. Simultaneously limited atonement is embraced by an insistence of two wills with God; a desire to see all saved and a special will for the elect to be effectually saved. This group takes issue with the first.

Both groups accuse hyper-Calvinism of being the enemy of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Neither of them can identify a hyper-Calvinist, though it is the arch enemy of the evangelism of the church!

Evangelical's Rick Warren

2009-01-20T06:28:00.003-06:00

Now we know what kind of Christianity will converge with the one world religion. It will be emergent ministries that are the product of Arminian American Evangelicalism. It comes from Fuller Theological Seminary. It is Church Growth Ministries with missionary emphasis. It is Evangelistic. It has a SBC flare about it! It carries an Adrian Rogers endorsement.

The religions it emerges with carries a temporary acceptance of "one man one woman marriage" but we all know this will just be a honeymoon thing. In fact the honeymoon has already been soiled by a gay activist prayer partner with Warren who will pray first.

"Blest be the ties that binds..."

edit to add: Reverend Lowery, not a gay prayer partner, offered the closing prayer.

Baptism Of The Holy Spirit

2009-01-18T05:59:00.001-06:00

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is regeneration, the new birth. God sovereignly directs new life into the hearts of the elect. It is the impartation of a new nature whereas the old was dead.
It is a quickening, a calling, a drawing, resurrection, translation, new creation and a "circumcision of the heart." All these describe a different aspect of the new birth. The Holy Spirit washes and renews us, baptizing us into the body of Christ, We are mystically joined to his universal body of believers. God is active in this birth and man is completely passive. It is not progressive but immediate and effectual. It is supernatural and actual.

It takes place below the level of consciousness. Like a new born babe he is not aware of his existence. He will acquire that consciousness as it grows. In Acts 2:37 it is described as a pricking.
It is the flow of spiritually fresh blood in an otherwise spiritually dead body. With the eyes of a child he ask "what must I do"? The new born have to be parented. Disciples are born and have to be taught the ways of Christ.

Perhaps most people, if not all, are unaware of their new birth. It does not come by the whims or desires of man. It blows like the wind and the source and direction is unknown. It is brought about by the Word of Christ, spoken in creation terms. God spoke and it came to be. It is effectual to whom he speaks. God's word never return void!

It is irresistible. Those whom the Father draws are effectually and wonderfully added to Christ's Church.

Come To Jesus!

2009-01-17T05:01:00.001-06:00

Did Adrian Rogers hold to claims of being God? When he said "come to Jesus" to an auditorium full of people did he think he was God himself? Could he draw men to Christ? If salvation is according to the good pleasure of the Father wasn't Dr Rogers doing the Father's work by calling them to Christ? Was salvation according to the will of Adrian Rogers?

Did Adrian Rogers claim to be God? When he said "come to Jesus" did he believe that he had a magical key that would produce the new birth in the hearts of sinners? He said when you come forward someone would show you some scriptures and pray with you. Was there a magical incantation that if the sinner would yield to he would be saved. All the sinner had to do was submit to that secret prayer. When he uttered this prayer he would be mystically saved!

Dr Rogers undoubtedly believed that Jesus was divinely God, fully God. He had to be to fully purchase our salvation. But...did he know the Father and Spirit were equally God? Were they weak in certain areas and needed his help? Could the Father work according to his own good pleasure and was the Spirit capable of doing his part without the help of man?

Decisional Regeneration

2009-01-16T04:41:00.002-06:00

There are three views of regeneration: baptismal, monergistic and decisional regeneration. Some believe that you are born again when you are baptized. The Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans and Oneness Pentecostals believe that you are regenerated when you are baptized. Others hold to a Holy Spirit Baptism, monergistic, solely the work of God apart from any cooperation from man. These are Calvinist and Reformed believers. The third baptism is the predominant view of evangelicals. It is decisional baptism in which the believer cooperates with God, opening his own heart to God for regeneration.

Decisional baptism is regeneration, new birth, received at the time of a sinner's deciding to accept Christ. It is expressed as walking down the isle to accept Christ. One may be lead to Christ by a soul winner who explains the way of salvation and leads the sinner in a prayer of acceptance. This DOES NOT MEAN that everyone saved this way are lost but it does mean that many false conversions are secured in this manner. Too many to dismiss this topic as merely argumentative. It has inherent dangers and poor results.

The dangers are a mistaken believe in the ability of man and this corrupts the foundation of all else that is professed in Christianity. It is an insult to the sovereignty of God and his own self determined pleasures.

It has no biblical basis nor does it have a historical tie to the first century church. It is a product of Charles Finney's methodology seen in the last several centuries.

For a good article about this and particularly as it relates to the Southern Baptist church go here.

Amazing Grace

2009-01-14T05:38:00.003-06:00

I have this obsession of gnashing my teeth and humming. It drives my wife crazy! The last five days I have been humming "Amazing Grace" to the tune of "House of the rising sun."

Last Saturday my manager and a coworker from work went with me to the homeless shelter to feed the hungry. Our Bible fellowship class along with a group from Arkansas go there once a month.

That day at work that tune was going over and over and the Lord dealt with me to sing that song in the service after the feeding. I haven't sung in church for over 20 years! I was scared and asked for permission thinking I would be denied. They already had very good singing and I am not that good and it had to be without music since the pianist didn't know that song!

They heartily agreed to let me sing. Now, it seemed that the Lord had directed me how to do this. There were nearly 200 homeless in the room and with the workers the room was packed.
I gave a brief testimony and then sang a few verses and though nervous I did OK but not real good. I forgot some of the words.

Now the Lord had directed me to get some fellows to come and help me. I said to the men "Is there anyone here who can do better?" About four hands quickly rose and as instructed I said, "well get up here, quickly." Everybody laughed but only a one armed man stood by me. I pointed to a songbook I had found and pointed to the verse and we would sing together. I don't think he could read so he said, "you sing the verse and I'll join you." I put my arm around his neck so we could share the microphone. He sang so forcefully and our voices blended in good harmony. Together we were good! I never felt so close to heaven! The praise was wonderful and the whole room came alive. I led the whole group to sing with us.

We become like Christ when we get with the right people. That one armed man needed that the well fed men needed that and I needed that. Thank you God for leading me!

As The Leader So Goes The Church

2009-01-12T16:45:00.001-06:00

" The SBC church, institution or agency that believes the "leader" is beyond simple accountablity will find that leader has the capability to ruin the organization. When and if that happens, the fault will reside not only with the leader, but those laymen who were unable to see that a lack of transparency is the first indication that something is wrong." Wade Burleson

I am sure that Wade didn't have Dr. Rogers in mind when he posted this. However it applies to Rogers. I commented: "Is Bellevue the only SBC big church run this way? Rogers got by on this earth because of the self discipline of his personality. He just made you like him! That veiled something that God is revealing and Jesus said that wich is done in darkness will be revealed. Perhaps Paul Williams and this recession are providentially arranged to make known the truth."

Someone else said long ago: "The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

Was Rogers' God Contemptible?

2009-01-11T21:01:00.005-06:00

The "god" of this twentieth century no more resembles the Supreme Sovereign of Holy Writ than does the dim flickering of a candle the glory of the midday sun. The "god" who is now talked about in the average pulpit, spoken of in the ordinary Sunday School, mentioned in much of the religious literature of the day, and preached in most of the so-called Bible conferences is the figment of human imagination, an invention of maudlin sentimentality. The heathen outside of the pale of Christendom form "gods" out of wood and stone, while millions of heathen inside Christendom manufacture a "god" out of their own carnal mind. A "god" whose will is resisted, whose designs are frustrated, whose purpose is checkmated, possesses no title to Deity, and so far from being a fit object of worship, merits nought but contempt. Arthur W. Pink

Was Pink talking about Adrian Rogers' Jesus.? Well let's see.

1.) Could his Jesus be resisted?

2.) Could his Jesus' designs be frustrated?

3.) Could his Jesus be checkmated?

4.) Could his Jesus possess a title to Deity.

5.) Could his Jesus be worthy of worship?

All five items enlist argument as to whether his Jesus was the logos of John 1:1. Was He the Jesus who was with the Father and was God? Any one item that fails would disqualify Rogers' Jesus of being truly God. My considerations here are extremely radical and leave little room for anything but contempt for Rogers' Jesus. Am I as radical as Arthur W. Pink? You be the judge.

Mrs. Rogers' inheritance

2009-01-11T06:12:00.003-06:00

And one of the company said unto him, "master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me. And he said unto him, "man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?" And he said unto them, "take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth."

And he spake a parable unto them, saying, "the ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully": and he thought within himself, saying, "what shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits?" And he said, "this will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry."
But God said unto him, "thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?" So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.

Message For Joyce Rogers

2009-01-10T06:14:00.001-06:00

For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.
Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.

This Is Fun!

2009-01-08T12:03:00.005-06:00

Pie Thrower said...
Mr. Page: My name is Darrell. I was the man that threw that pie in your face back those many years ago. I have read your "version" of that incident. Now please let me tell all about what really happened.We were on the town square celebrating the history of our town. Several of our town officials had volunteered to have pies thrown in their face to raise money for abused and orphaned children. It was hot and many people had lined up with money in their hands. All of sudden this young teen rudely pushed himself into that line and brutally shoved people aside to see what was going on. Apparently from your story, that rude young man was you.Well many were hurt and angered by your actions. So I exacted a sense of justice. If you wanted to see what was going on so badly to act the way you did I thought it only proper to show you up front, first hand. I threw that pie in your face. And let me tell you I would do it again if you acted the same way.I see that you are claiming to have suffered from “Arrested Development” for many years afterwards. What I should have done was had you arrested then; then you would have really suffered from being “Arrested”. Have you ever thought just once about the harm you did to those people you shoved aside so rudely? Have you ever apologized to them? How about taking an ad out in our Southern Standard and apologize to those people you hurt and injured by your actions? You were not the only one hurt that day. One of those hurt was my wife. You pushed her to the ground and she injured her knee badly. She ended up having surgery on it. How selfish of you to forget the pain and horror of your actions that day. Shame on you. Mr. Page; do the Biblical thing and ask them for forgiveness or does the Bible not apply to those you hurt and injured that day? I guess it only applies to you when convenient. Shameful, oh so shameful. Darrell
January 8, 2009 11:36 AM

My insightful, gracious and deeply humble response.
WatchingHISstory said...
Darrell, you are desperately lying!But let me say this, if you were the pie thrower I forgive you and you should know that you are an instrument to develop me as His servant. What you meant for evil (public assault on an under aged child - never to be justified regardless of my actions) has turned into good. I love you dearly and pray for your best from God.
January 8, 2009 11:48 AM

WatchingHISstory said...
Darrell, my friend What side of the courthouse did the event take place? what side of the crowd was I standing?What was the flavor of the pie? What kind of material was the pie plate? Was it cloudy that day?What outstanding thing that made the day around the courthouse interesting?

What was the closest public school to the courthouse? What was the closest church? Where was the Southern Standard Office? What local Radio station was nearby? What was the name of the funeral home near by? What was the name of the Auto dealership next to the courthouse. All these are things you would know. Naturally I have inserted trick questions and you would know which ones are tricks!
January 8, 2009 12:02 PM

Ain't I sharp? Tell me on the poll in the margin.

edit to add:

Pie Thrower said...
Dear Mr. Page: You and I both know I am not a female. I am not sure where you are coming from with all those other names and stuff, but you are STILL the same rude young man that hurt and injured several people many years ago and you refuse to apologize. I am almost 74 years old and I have little patience with you as I did back in McMinnville. I should have turned you over my knee and spanked your behind good. I cannot believe you are still as rude as you were back then. My dear Hilda wants to do more to you because of the way you hurt her. But it would not do any good, she is almost blind and is confined to a wheelchair. After I hit you with the pie you took off like a scalded dog. The way you scrambled off was got folks laughing at you. You can tell me on this blog that you forgive me but what about my dear Hilda? And the other people. You know very well you hurt people that day. I know my days are short before I join my dear Savior and I don't think I will hear, read or see you apologize to those folks. I was foolish thinking you would. This will be my last post to you on this subject. My sweet grandson, Sidney has been so kind to type all this for me. He has to be back to college and finish his degree in the seminary. He leaves in the morning. I am still amazed at all this high tech computer stuff. Never knew they had such gadgets. I really don't know why you are so mean. Maybe someday the blinders will really come off your eyes. Good bye Mr. Page.
January 8, 2009 8:03 PM

Hypocrisy - Leaven Of The Pharisees

2009-01-08T07:48:00.002-06:00

Not all Pharisees were hypocrites. Many sought out Christ and He dined with them. He had lasting friendships among them. However "Pharisaical" has become synonymous with hypocritical. Jesus said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

We all sin daily and fall short of God's glory. We are normally remorseful and seek forgiveness. This sin so often springs from ignorance and failures to exercise diligence. Sin is inexcusable and yet seemingly unavoidable. Our common lot is a daily miserable state of wretchedness! Like the apostle we seek deliverance from this "body of death." "A just man falleth seven times and rises up again." Proverbs 24:16

There is a condition of sinfulness which is not the result of accident or ignorance. It is a willful construction, intentional and purposeful from a calloused heart. It is taught and mentored. It is rooted in pride and self glory rather than seeking the glory of others. While we are taught that the blessed life is found in poverty of spirit this condition is never remorseful nor repentant.
It exacts the law in ways that Christ warned, "ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin".
It is pressing, forcible and and urgent, efforts to obtain the desirable and appropriate demand for self fulfillment. To rise above the common lot of men and be seen as successful and self determined. Often this is seen in efforts to achieve victorious Christian living and an absorption with the overcoming life.

The end of the last century and the beginning of this century we saw a revival of Phariseeism in the form of John Darby and C. I. Scofield's dispensationalism. "Ye exact the Bible for the scientific and precise meaning of every word," Christ would surely say. Not content to see through a glass darkly with our "fragmented and disconnected" words and our utter dependency on the Holy Spirit to be progressively sanctified, we were given a glorified form of the Word. Perfection had come in the form of a Bible, not a translation but a reference Bible that gives the "vital reality" "wholly lacking...in expository novelties and merely personal views and interpretations." "The last fifty years have witnessed an intensity and breath of interest in Bible Study unprecedented in the history of the Christian Church." That which is perfect has come in the form of scientific minds, great men, humbly acknowledged in the third person by Scofield himself! Reference the Introduction to the Scofield Reference Bible

How arrogant can a man be? All this is "clear to his mind," and the "invaluable collaboration of a wide circle of spiritual and experienced Bible students and teachers in England and the United States." This is the works of men and then to seal out the Holy Spirit's assistance it is acknowledged in near blasphemous tones that these "injunctions," scientific determinations, are equivalent to the "commandments of the Lord." see Scofield's note to I Cor 14:1 item 5 old Bible edition

"Thank you, Holy Spirit, we don't need you and our word is equivalent to the writing of the Apostle Paul!" Phariseeism! At it's worst! So prevalent in today's American evangelical community. Many have abandoned the Scofield Reference Bible, however the wicked self-absorbed spirit remains in the form of Spiritless expository preaching and discipleship programs. Adrian and Joyce Rogers have been the chief proponents of this Phariseeism. Hardly any part of evangelical Christianity is unsoiled by this science.

Rogers' Island

2009-01-07T05:41:00.003-06:00

Greg Alford on Southern Grits and Sovereign Grace deals with the issue of SBC and Pelagianism.
He is a scholar I aspire to be. He commented last night Tue Jan 06, 09:55:00 PM 2009 to Wade's blog, Grace and Truth to You: But I do know that the “vast majority of Southern Baptist hold Pelagian beliefs of some sort or another…” Then I responded this morning at 7:29 AM.

This is the point I am crudely making on my blog with real person accounts in ways that are offensive to people. See Anon's comments on my two previous post and I am certain we will hear from him again today. He cowardly refuses to reveal his identity. He makes "drive by comments" and my windows are full of bullet holes! Ha! Naturally his comments are emotional and baseless.

Adrian Rogers built a ministry on the sandy mythical island of human goodness. He falsely attributes this goodness to an enablement of God's grace, so stated in his BF&M. His methodology insist on the existence of this island and the people he leads to Christ live on a similar island. On this island a sinner can make a choice to accept or reject Christ. Naturally he is not clear if everyone lives on an island like this or if only the elect. It seems from his altar call methods everyone, that is everyone in the building, do live on such an island.

This is a variation of Pelagianism and Pelagianism is heretical! Is this variation also heretical? In my opinion I tend to think so with growing understanding of it. Can you make a decision for Christ on a sandy mythical foundation and then move to a secure place, which he calls eternal security? (and boast that you are a one point Calvinist) I don't think so.

He has denied original sin, total depravity, election, predestination, sovereignty and unconditional grace. How close to heresy can you get?

I believe that he lived his "regenerate" life on this island and claimed growth in "sanctification" and by conduct even "glorification!" This is the reason for the charismatic attraction that his followers saw in him. "He could do no wrong." From childhood he and Joyce were such good people! He could build a great ministry without anyone questioning him. He was virtually unaccountable to anyone. Boards and committees were just mirrored reflections of his views.

When Joyce rushed to Steve Gaines to get an affirmation that her husband did not know about the awful crimes of Paul Williams she was asserting residence on this mythical island. Listen to me, Steve Gaines, a man just like Dr. Rogers in theology, saw for himself the sandy foundation she stood on and could not affirm her request. I believe that day her house crumbled from a faulty foundation.

While everyone else all around her were tainted with Adam's awful sin, she and her husband were clean from this issue. Adrian Rogers sits weeping in heaven.

The Sin Of The Pharisees

2009-01-06T05:54:00.002-06:00

The sin of the Pharisees was neglecting the weightier matters of the law. Matthew 23:23 In terms of importance this sin is a greater sin. It is committed willfully, repeatedly and knowingly with a calloused heart.

Only with the assistance of the Holy Spirit can the Christian properly discern the presence of sin but also the deceptiveness of the heart. Left to our own human devices we are certainly always going to be deceived.

Most American evangelicals believe that the only Gentile condition for salvation is believing and without delay the Holy Spirit is obligated to save. (see Schofield note 2 g - Acts 2:4) This places the final decision on the individual and eliminates both the willful desire of the Father and the fulfilling work of the Holy Spirit.

There has created a false belief that the inspired Word from the Holy Spirit is replaced with the rational discourse of the "mere" mind of man who properly exegetes the Word. (Schofield note ICor 14:1) He who properly exegetes the Word has the presence of God Himself. Believing this exegesis obligates God to act according to his Word. This human twisting of God's arm is shameful and brings awful consequences.

The Pharisees believed that a strict legalism obligates God to honor their reverence and obediance. American Evangelicalism denounces Pharisaical legalism and embraces easy believism.

Both groups create a false "island of righteousness" from which springs all sorts of hypocrisy.
That sin is religious pride, tedious devotion to outward conformance (self perfection) to the neglect of the important matters (the glory of others).

So let me say that when Joyce Rogers sought the protection of her husband's legacy she was acting from this "island of righteousness" and neglected a prayerful searching of the mind of Christ from the Holy Spirit. She was "pharisaical" shamefully so and failed to denounce the awful sin of Paul Williams and did harm to the one who bore the painful consequence of that criminal act, Chris Williams. She thought only of herself and nothing at all of Chris. She, of all people, should have made a public display with the same fervency she rushed to protect her husband and embraced Chris Williams. That is what Christ would have done!

She of all people should have led the congregation back to God, allied with Steve Gaines seeking to repair the breech between an offended God and a broken church. No, she jumped ship!

She has now reaped the consequences of opposition to Calvinism. The teaching of Pelagius has bore it's fruit and reaped it's awful destruction. People still will say "theology is not important!"
"Though she is wrong she is sincere! God love her." That won't cut it!

Joyce Rogers' Sin

2009-01-05T09:37:00.002-06:00

A H Strong in his Systematic Theology says that everyman is by nature (not) prone to every form of sin. This is because some forms of sin exclude others. For example the sin of stinginess may exclude the sin of luxury, the sin of pride may exclude the sin of sexual desires. Strong references Matthew 23:23 as a scriptural illustration.

Joyce Rogers' strong sinful pride drove her to announce her husband's innocence before a Memphis TV channel 5 reporter and then call Mike Fleming's radio talk show on AM 600, WREC defending her husband's innocence of Paul Williams' horrible crime.

She acted on pride and failed to denounce the awful sin of Paul Williams. A sin of commission excluded a sin of omission. "We who teach shall be judged with a greater strictness." James 3:1; Luke 12:48

Not only did she fail to denounce Paul Williams with the intensity she defended her husband's integrity she led by example an arrogant walkout of Steve Gaines and her beloved Bellevue thus leading to a massive following of folks. This has lead to a large lay-off of regular laborers at Bellevue and perhaps even more. A Church she and her husband built she has helped destroy.

To the praise of Steve Gaines Bellevue is rebuilding with a newer vision.

Reference my previous posts here, here and here

My Testimony: My Day Of Pentecost

2009-01-04T05:41:00.004-06:00

Remember my previous post of a secret cloud hanging over my head from age 13. Now I am going to tell you something about myself that occurred despite this unknown cloud. Sanctification is a life long process initiated at regeneration and continuing toward glorification. Glorification takes place at a glorious time of the Christian life, his or her death! Death, where is your sting?

Many of you will struggle with this testimony because you have dispensational issues. So don't just throw the baby out with the bath water. Read and rejoice or shelf it for contemplation.

Growing up Pentecostal I struggled with what was erroneously called the "baptism of the Holy Spirit." This baptism is regeneration. I Cor 12: 13 This baptism is a necessity for the new birth and a walk with Christ. It was the baptism of Jesus and the promise of the Father and the experience of Pentecost we sought. In my eight years of tarrying in my hometown church for this experience, I never realized a Biblical fulfilment of this promise. (only those of you familiar with classical Pentecostalism understand this) I never achieved the confidence that I was truly baptized with the Holy Spirit. This was probably because I was never taught the Biblical pattern for baptisms. I was unquestionably baptized by the Holy Spirit and had been baptized in water (trinitarian baptism) by a faithful minister but it was the baptism of Jesus and the promise of the Father I sought. I did not understand this nor did I know that I did not have to seek it! It was a promise and a gift.

In 1966 I was drafted into the Army and was stationed at Dachau, Germany. Our post was part of the concentration camp and our barracks were formerly for Hitler's SS troops. Across from our barracks was a small military chapel and we started a Pentecostal fellowship. Glen Wise was the fellowship leader and G. A. Swanson was the servicemen's representative for the Church of God European Servicemen's Department.

One night prior to our departure for the Kaiserslautern Serviceman's Camp meeting I was again tarrying along with others in the service. As usual it was getting late (time is never a factor in a Pentecostal service!) and in exhaustion I slipped from the altar and went back to my pew.

I sat down ready to go and get some rest for the long ride to Kaiserslautern, the next morning.
The first Biblical hint about this Pentecostal experience is I was "sitting" and more than likely when the seasonally southerly Egyptian wind blasted into the upper room in Jerusalem their "one accord" minds were not necessarily of a spiritual concern. They had been there for ten days! Maybe some were praying, some were testifying or singing. But there had to be some young Davids sneaking a peek at a young Mary at the back of the room. And there were some tired saints wishing they could retire to a sleeping mat somewhere. There were probably people huddled reminiscing of favorite times with Christ.

The only command was to tarry in Jerusalem not Dachau! When Jesus from heaven poured out the promise of the Father on the obedient 120 disciples it began a flow that has not stopped over the face of the earth. They tarried for Jesus' baptism. That is all the tarrying to be done!
We are not waiting on Jesus, He is waiting on us! The irony is that you are waiting on Jesus! No! You are the holdup! If you want this bad enough you will receive it. Ironically your tarrying is the very hindrance because it is a gift and a promise.

I was entering my ninth year of tarrying! I was not giving up but this altar experience was not working and it would not work. I was "sitting" and suddenly I was filled with the promise of the Father! I leaped into the air feeling like I would reach the ceiling. Before my feet touched the floor I was speaking in tongues and praising God. I was endued with power from on high.
Everyone looked back to see what the commotion was. The tarrying stopped and all joined me in praising God. We rejoiced back to the Wise's quarters and that night I knelt by the couch, my bed, and prayed away most of the night in tongues. At Kaiserslautern I met up with fellowship brethren from Munich and we rejoiced in the German streets running, speaking in tongues and praising God. Were the Germans understanding us? I don't know. Was there a gift of interpretation of tongues? I don't think so. We had a personal prayer language. I know that.

So here is the application. I believe it was Tozer who said "no one was filled with the Holy Spirit in a way that he doubted he was filled!" If you doubt you were filled then you probably were never filled. There are two conditions. This sounds contradictory doesn't it? First, sit down, stop resisting, stop hindering and start believing in Christ to baptize you. Let him 'gift' you this promise. He will not 'gift' you a stone or a snake. His eagerness to 'gift' you is greater than your expectation to receive it. Can't you see the self hindrances you put up? I can already hear you saying, "now that speaking in tongues is crazy!" "I will never do that!" "You'll never catch me jumping up and acting a fool!" Well, let me say, you won't receive it! You will never experience the baptism of Christ though you know the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Second and connected to the first is you have to "hit the street" with this baptism. You have to "go into the world" speaking the marvelous mysteries of God. You have to proclaim it in the market place, every place that commerce is transacted you have to be heard and not just seen.
Now this will not be a decision on your part to be heard and not just seen. It is a product of the filling. You will be swept outside. If you are not being heard in the streets then you have not been filled. Absolutely! Not seen in the world but heard in the world. Shame and this baptism don't mix. Bashfulness is swept away by this baptism. If you are ashamed and bashful before the world, if you are intimidated by what men think or say, YOU HAVE NOT BEEN BAPTIZED BY CHRIST IN BIBLICAL FASHION.

Well, I said many of you will not be able to receive this and now you know why! Go, sit, contemplate your commitment and then receive this promise. Maybe, though I truly doubt it, you may receive this endowment with out acting like a fool and "speaking in tongues" but when you are filled you will know it. You will speak the mysteries of God and that in itself is a "foreign language" to most evangelicals today. When you are filled and you know it "speaking in tongues" will be a piece of cake and the world will think you are a fool!

My Testimony: Arrested Development

2009-01-02T20:43:00.004-06:00

Not till quarter to midnight December 31, 2005 did I realize what had happened to me when I was thirteen years old. My wife and I were watching TV. I had my Bible open to John 16 and was sharing with my wife what I was reading, I dropped to the floor and on my knees said to her, "honey, when I was a boy I was hit in the face with a pie!"

Immediately I thought to my self, "where did that come from?" I had never told anyone about that incident. It was 45 years ago! I was downtown McMinnville, Tennessee and we were celebrating our sesquicentennial founding of Warren County. I was alone and trying to elbow my way into the crowd to see the pie throwing event. Pies were being thrown at local celebrities. Someone thought it would be cute to hit an unsuspecting individual and I was that person. Suddenly I was the focus of the crowd and everyone was laughing at me. People still laugh at me when I tell this but it traumatized me to the core. I had to go to the 'colored' bathroom that was used as a homeless bathroom. It was filthy and the pie dried to my face making it difficult to clean it off.

I never told anyone about that event. It entered my deep psyche and remained hidden for 45 years. It left me frightened of crowds, always afraid of people laughing at me. It robbed me of my own human potential. I lived 45 years with this deep buried secret. I went on with life, Army, college, marriage, family, career and on the morning of December 20th, 2005 did what I did every morning while taking a shower; bang my head on the shower wall and repeat over and over, "I am so stupid." That was my life's mantra for 45 years.

My Testimony: "God Saves Sinners"

2009-01-02T05:56:00.003-06:00

I was regenerate at 10 years old! No one knows when they became regenerate but they know when they confessed their sins and were baptized. Youth camp on Lee Highway, east of Chattanooga, Tennessee was the place I first received remission of sins. I remember weeping as we sung "Oh how I Love Jesus" standing on sawdust and wood shavings in an old open air tabernacle!

Even though I was raised a Wesleyan Pentecostal I was a Calvinist before I knew what Calvinism was. My family listened to local radio, especially Church programs and gospel singing. I heard an old fashion Baptist preacher say Sunday after Sunday we are "sinners saved by grace." That was the little leaven that leavened the whole loaf. I never read what John Calvin wrote. In fact I never heard about Calvin till college. The words of that old preacher went to the core of my being and remained steadfast. Nobody knew better than me that I was a sinner "saved by grace" and when Wesleyan preachers said, "we are not sinners saved by grace, we are saints of the most high," I knew better. While everyone else was confusing glorification with sanctification, I was a young sinner in a struggling process of sanctification seeking what B. B. Warfield called "that sight of the majesty of God that pervades all of life and all of experience."

I overheard adults describe a god who observes human lives from atop a tall building and he sees the cars in collision courses and therefore has knowledge of what is going to happen. "He doesn't force us to do something we don't want to do" they said. I said, "my God has to be bigger than that!"

I knew I was weak and had only a little strength and if I was to keep his word I would need a God bigger than that, otherwise I was on too many collision courses. As a young lad I focused on a sovereign God and not my human potential.

He Was Just A Man!

2008-12-31T05:18:00.003-06:00

I've heard that over and over now
that he is dead and I have started this
blog. I have criticized not the man but his theology
and his ministry methodology.

But while he was alive he was a god in the sight of so many. The Bible was inerrant because he said so. People came to Jesus simply because he ask them. If he said, "don't buy a John MacArthur Study Bible," folks believed him. If he said pickles have souls then you stopped eating pickles! His wife shamelessly sang to him from the same pulpit that God's Word was preached and a teary eyed audience joined her in "man" worship.

Christ died with just a few friends to carry him to a borrowed tomb. Peter and Paul were martyred to the glee of heads of state. Adrian Rogers was memorialized as a head of state and now you say he was just a man!

May I remind you again as I have over and over that he was in close proximity to the worst sin imaginable, an ordained associate raping his own son and keeping it secret for seventeen years.

The lingering question is why didn't Dr Rogers know about it? Was God unable to break through and intervene? Did God let this happen and keep Dr. Rogers in the dark?

Is there something wrong here? Could God's wrath be stirred for some reason unknown to us?

Bellevue has now regrouped and moved on with Steve Gaines leadership. Little by little the church will grow back but where is the legacy that Adrian Rogers left?

Someone's Wonderful Grandmother

2008-12-27T18:46:00.003-06:00

I ordered a used theology book over the Internet and I received it in good condition except someone had noted on the dedication page: "To Kim and Tony please read page 82 that is so plain to me and explain so well I love you Nana XXXXX"

So here is page 82 (I'll share the title of the Book later)
Likewise, the idea that man must attain salvation by works or merit - that he must do something in addition to the work of Jesus on the cross in order to be saved, i.e. repent, be baptized, hold out faithful to the end, say the rosary, do penance, etc., adds a variable to the equation of salvation making the outcome uncertain. Salvation by human works puts a question mark where God has put a period. Scripture, however is clear concerning the certainty of salvation (2 Sam. 23:5; 2 Tim. 2:19; Jno. 6:37), a fact that can only be explained if salvation is all of grace and none of works.

The team cooperating in salvation, then, is the monergistic team of Father, Son and Spirit, not the synergistic team of God and man. God the Father began the work in the everlasting covenant. God the son executed the work at the cross of Calvary. God the Holy Spirit applies the work during each individuals natural life. From start to finish, salvation is of the Lord.

Warning To Adrian Rogers' Followers!

2008-12-25T10:11:00.007-06:00

The Om SakthiSpiritual Movement (from their website)
Humanity stands at a point in history where the world is shrinking and our different cultures and religions are in conflict. This has the potential to destroy almost everything we have accomplished in our short time on this world. This diversity is the wealth of our world and should be embraced. If people realize that we all share the same God and that He/She has allowed us this diversity so that we can each find our own way to Her/Him, then we can accept our differences and even embrace them in peace."
"Also known as the Adhiparasakthi Movement, the purpose of the Movement is to bring Adhiparasakthi's message to the world and serve humanity by helping those in need. Our Guru, known as Amma (Tamil for mother), is the Guiding Light and Spiritual Force behind the Movement. He/She teaches that the greatest form of worship is service to humanity and that we can all serve God together within our individual religions without strife, thus the motto: "One Mother One World." The Movement undertakes many charitable and educational activities and urges its devotees to take an active role in helping people in their communities."

The message Dr. Rogers preached has the early beginnings of synchronization that makes it acceptable with the Om SakthiSpiritual Movement. His free offer to man is the humanistic leaven that satiates the whole loaf. The modern emergent gospel will be a part of the one world religion ruled by the antichrist!

The biblical message of grace is unacceptable to a one world rule. Election and predestination authored by a sovereign God are incompatible with the World's systems. There is no wiggle room for human reasoning to decide. The principles of grace of necessity must be altered to be considered by the world as acceptable.

If your gospel is derived from a steadfast adherence to Dr Rogers, you should seriously consider the problems and prayerfully study the Bible for a correct course. The problems are not minor as so many say but they are major and they have serious consequences. This is a love worth serious analysis as to its biblical content.

Christmas In New Orleans

2008-12-22T11:47:00.003-06:00

Christmas in New Orleans. . . enjoy!

The Righteousness Of The Best Of Us - The Saints Struggle With Original Sin

2008-12-22T10:15:00.009-06:00

"Things About Bellevue That Embarrassed Me!" I posted in March

NASS' comment on her blog "... Then Steve Gaines had to do what he does nearly every week and make it about him. He jumped up and immediately broke into an "impromptu" a cappella solo and the congregation soon joined him. Please, pastor, I'm trying to give you some helpful advice here. It's not about you! (Nor is it about Jamie, but The Jamie Show has become a Bellevue staple.) These little spur-of-the-moment, pastoral solos, tacked onto the end of a congregational hymn or inserted into the middle of a sermon are not "impromptu," they unnecessarily and inappropriately call attention to yourself, and IMO they are not conducive to a positive worship experience."

TN Lizzie said...
"One guess where she got the tiara. "There's no telling ~ Craig or her sons? Her DIL's? Any of the Mamas who have been drawn closer to Christ through the Moms ministry? No, I was thinking from Donna Gaines. Do you really think Donna would let go of her tiara?
1:02 AM, December 16, 2008

My comments about Joyce Rogers, NASS' comments about Steve Gaines and Jamie Parker and TN Lizzie's about Donna Gaines are abrasive comments perhaps bordering on unacceptable. However they do point out the consequence of original sin in the lives of the best of believers. They point to the hold that "him who has the power of death" still has over the "not yet glorified" believer. These comments point to the inclination "concupiscence" to evil of even the sanctified. In our battles against the evil of the world and Satan, the least victorious is the battle against the flesh! We can renounce abortion and denounce Satan all the while giving place to the flesh, perhaps the most deceptive of our enemies. We ourselves are our greatest enemy. The sin of Adam and the sin of the world resides potentially in our souls. It is a daily battle to keep ourselves in humble obedience to all God has for us. These failures are so easily hidden until people like NASS, TNLizzie and myself so abrasively point them out.

So often we neglect this aspect of original sin, if we believe in it at all, that not only are the worst of humanity very evil but the best of humanity share in this heritage as well. Scripture says we all have sinned and fallen short of the kingdom of God.

Joyce Rogers, singing to her husband, the pastor of a great church, was drawing attention from the worship of God to the worship of a man. Dr Rogers should have stopped her from this awful show of flesh. If the best of us don't know how to contain the base elements how can the rest of us expect to do the right thing? This is a battle we all must fight and it requires the help of the Holy Spirit daily to do the right thing.

In Praise Of Prevenient Grace"

2008-12-21T13:58:00.008-06:00

"And can it be that I should gain"
Charles Wesley

Long my imprisoned spirit lay
Fast bound in sin and nature's night
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light
My chains fell off, my heart was free
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.

This verse is declaring the wonder of prevenient grace not the new birth. It is praising the enabling grace of God whereby a sinner rises to his feet to make a choice to follow Christ. If a Calvinist sings this song he has to change not the words but the sense of the verse. The Wesley brothers kindly requested that anyone of nonsensical theology please note in the margin or at the bottom of the page that they are not a part of such "doggerel" men who would seek to mend their theology. I beg leave to mention a thought which has been long upon my mind, and which I should long ago have inserted in the public papers, had I not been unwilling to stir up a nest of hornets. Many gentlemen have done my brother and me (though without naming us) the honour to reprint many of our hymns. Now they are perfectly welcome to do so, provided they print them just as they are. But I desire they would not attempt to mend them, for they are really not able. None of them is able to mend either the sense or the verse. Therefore, I must beg of them these two favours: either to let them stand just as they are, to take things for better or worse, or to add the true reading in the margin, or at the bottom of the page, that we may no longer be accountable either for the nonsense or for the doggerel of other men. -John Wesley

Naturally in our day of "it doesn't really matter what you believe anyway" such issues are of no importance. The next time you sing this hymn in Church, unless you just sing praise choruses, remember who wrote it and make a mental note that this is not the new birth nor regeneration but a Wesleyan song about prevenient grace leading to a sinner exercising his will to decide for Christ.

Now if you are saying, "Charles, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. This is just theology and when I worship in church it comes from my heart and as long as I am sincere that is all that matters to God." Remember this we must seek to worship God not just in spirit but truth.

edited to add I found this song in the hymnal at my church yesterday. When the SBC sings this song it is sung in praise of divine enablement that causes a person to rise and make a choice for Christ. When my pastor gives an altar call he assumes that those coming forward have been enabled to come and accept Christ. As a Calvinist I bow my head and pray that the regenerate will come forward confessing their sins. I am also praying for the unregenerate to remain seated until they are called! Salvation does have a protocol. Without this there is confusing destruction evidenced by churches filled with unregenerate members.

God Predestines No One To Go To Hell

2008-12-19T15:02:00.007-06:00

Adrian Rogers was a cruel author when he wrote this little booklet, "Predestined for Hell? Absolutely not!" He had to have intentionally misrepresented the Calvinist when he accused them of believing that God arbitrarily sends a little baby to hell. By now we all know that he was constructing a straw man argument to turn around and destroy it thus disarming the Calvinist argument.

But what about his belief? Does he believe that God does not predestine people to hell? According to Rogers who goes to hell? Why, all who do not accept Christ as their personal savior.

Those who are capable of moral action can make a decision with the enablement of God for themselves to go to heaven.

What about children who have not reached this capability? Oops! They created a clause that excludes these children. It has been a historic tradition that has been in existence for as long as there were fundamentalist in Britain and America. What about those who are incapacitated intellectually to make a decision. I think they have included them in this as well.

Where did this belief that God does not predestine anyone to hell come from? In the fifth century a man named Pelagius held that a man by the natural power of free will, without the use of God's enablement, could lead a good life. For him Adam's sin was merely bad example. Augustine refuted this and the Catholic Church convened a council, Orange II, 529 AD. Pelagianism was ruled a heresy and the Church firmed up a position on the transmission of original sin.

One of the practical aspects of this was infant baptism, which was a practice of the early church fathers. The Catechism of the Catholic church states: "Because of this (death of the soul) certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin." CCC 403 Original sin is a "certainty of faith" "closely connected with that of redemption by Christ." 407

Pelagius believed that the problem with sin was surmountable. In the sixteenth century the Protestant Reformers were perceived by the Catholic Church as denying original sin, though Luther affirmed it. They were believing that the reformation was heading toward a Pelagian view and thus the Council of Trent was formed to combat that in 1546 AD. 406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

The Catholics correctly identified the Pelagian views as surmountable sin not affecting human choice and semi-Pelagian view of sin as insurmountable destroying free choice. All this in spite of the fact that they were practicing a semi-Pelagian gospel themselves. Now doesn't this happen all the time. We see the wrong in others while not seeing it in ourselves.

My guess is that the Catholics saw this as a defection from infant baptism. Their belief in OS affirmed the need to care for the less capable among themselves, particularly infants. This belief in baptismal regeneration was erroneous. But what seems to be important to me is a warning to not abandon the less capable among us. The argument over freedom of choice leads to abandonment of those not capable of a moral choice. Though themselves practicing baptismal regeneration they saw the problems in decisional regeneration!

They also saw the problem with Pelagian corruption of God's character. 1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance": Father, accept this offering from your whole family. Grant us your peace in this life, save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen.

Pelagianism leads to attempts to adjust the sovereignty and character of God to fit in the scheme of human choice. The Catholics affirm emphatically, God destines no one to hell! They also affirm that God does not send someone to hell for rejecting his own Son's offer of salvation! People clearly go to hell for willfully turning away from God (a mortal sin) persistently to the end. Who go to hell? Those who inherit Adam's sin! Who go to heaven according to the Catholic lip service to doctrine? Those He has chosen! God destines no one to hell and all who go to heaven are destined by his choice to go to heaven! What a definite clear presentation of grace!

The Catholics saw the error in Adrian Rogers' theology hundreds of years ago! They failed to see the truth in the Protestant Reformers in the sixteenth century.

Prevenient Grace

2008-12-14T20:26:00.003-06:00

I wholly reject any ideal that PG is scriptural. I was raised in a Wesleyan Holiness Pentecostal Church. French L Arrington wrote, "Unconditional Eternal Security, Myth or Truth?"
He states: "Without Jesus Christ as their Savior, all people share a common spiritual condition - inwardly and outwardly sin dominates their lives. Failing to seek god, they are in a desperate condition (Rom 3:11). But when someone seeks God, it is evident that God through His grace, is seeking that person. This requires the inward prompting of the Holy Spirit and shows a positive response to Jesus Christ. Such prompting is often called "prevenient grace," which is grace that prepares the way for us to receive saving grace or some other other enabling grace."
The Holy Spirit enables unbelievers to repent and to accept God's gracious invitation to salvation. Because the holy Spirit draws all people to Christ, each person is a candidate for salvation and can respond favorably to the call of the gospel, which is God's invitation to receive Christ as Savior and live the Christian life."

You must be born again to see the kingdom of God. Apart from the new birth you are not able to see the kingdom of God. The Holy Spirit baptizes the sinner into the body of Christ. Then the sinner sees the kingdom of God! After that he repents and is baptized in water to receive the remission of sins.

The Spark Of Life

2008-12-14T19:00:00.003-06:00

I bought a book at a garage sale: "Doctrines of the Bible," Herald Press, by the Mennonite General Conference, 1925.

The section , "Man in his fallen state" states in clear scriptural support of the fallen state of sinful man. There were five pages with good presentation and then on the sixth page a short final paragraph, "the spark of life": "This is not the 'spark of divinity' which some people seem to think may be found in every human soul. Dismiss that delusive thought, if you have ever entertained it. All unsaved souls are dead absolutely "dead in trespasses and sins," depraved and and defiled, without hope and "without God in the world." Yet there is something in all men that is capable of responding to the goodness and grace of God. As Adam, perfect and sinless, had something within to which the devil could appeal and get a response, so the soul that is "dead in trespasses and sins" has something within which God appeals and may get a response. Yea, the hour "now is, when when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live" (Jno. 5:25).

This is a case of semi-Pelagian's "island of righteousness" - "spark of life." From this mythical spark ignites the choice of the sinner to cry out to Christ. This in spite of so many scriptures supporting the sinner's dead state and depravity.

Why can't men allow the Father the exclusive right to choose whomsoever he wills according to his own good pleasure send the Holy Spirit to impart regeneration and graciously grant life in Christ? In spite of the truth of the Word they insist that man must decide for himself.

Is God gracious without us insisting He be gracious? Can you see the offense to God with this theology?

Can You Spot The Error? (Thought I Had Forgotten?)

2008-12-14T16:40:00.000-06:00

"To be true to himself and to his holy standards, God justly sentenced Adam and Eve to death and expelled them from the garden of Eden. Thus, Paradise, happiness, and everlasting life were lost, while sin, suffering, and death resulted. What a tragic development for the human race! However, immediately after sentencing the couple, God promised to undo all the harm resulting from their sin without compromising his own righteous standards.
Jehovah purposed to make it possible for the offspring of Adam and Eve to be freed from sin’s deadly grip. He accomplished this through Jesus Christ. Through him, God will eliminate sin and all its effects and will make the earth into a global paradise, just as he purposed in the beginning." *

Without looking at the source can you detect the error in this passage? There is a hidden error and you may not find it without cheating. It is a disguised message to conceal the error.

edited to add:
This treats the actions of God as an afterthought brought on by the sin of Adam and Eve. There was no need of redemption nor a redeemer prior to this event. My Jehovah Witness friend confirmed this belief and when I ask him about the foreknowledge of God he said that God did not foreknow this event.

* source

God's Delusions

2008-12-13T07:48:00.003-06:00

Genesis 18:17 (King James Version) And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?

Isaiah 66:4 (King James Version) I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

2 Thessalonians 2:11 (King James Version) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

A Strong Delusion!

2008-12-09T07:09:00.003-06:00

"Could we be warned to not face an angry God with our delusions. Our delusions will melt in the fires of God presence.

The elect of God cannot be ultimately deceived yet Satan desires desperately to deceive them.
The elect can be a part of the end time falling away and they can come under the influence of delusions. These delusions need purging and a constant battle is waged by the elect to resist them. These delusions are not always purged and the elect carry the works produced by these lies into eternity. There they are burned as chaff in the heat of God's judgment.

Jimmy Swaggart was purged of his sin through embarrassing exposure. As a result we have plastered for ever the awful expression of a man crying: "I have sinned." it is better to suffer here for the wrongs done than to stand the exposure of these sins in heaven. Swaggart has suffered the loss of a great ministry and the price has been great! Better here than there!

Now everyone of us will face this judgment. Especially dreadful will be the judgment of ministries. Those who have been entrusted with much will suffer a greater accountability! There will be many cries of Lord, Lord, didn't we preach your Word, didn't we win souls? There will be a division in heaven between those whom God knows and those he did not know. I believe that this refers to relationship and not destiny. There will be the "first" and the "last."
The first will experience preeminence and the last will suffer shame of exclusion. Some will rule over golden estates and others will merely sweep streets of gold. All will be eternally glad they are there!

'I Am At Perfect Peace'

2008-12-07T09:52:00.004-06:00

Steve Gaines was at Rogers' bedside the day the ventilator was in place and he would not be able to speak anymore. His last words according to Gaines was "I am at perfect peace."

Gaines could not say the same thing. Perhaps he already knew there were difficult days ahead for him and peace would be the least of the emotions he would experience. From heaven Rogers observed that "he was not at peace" he had a delusion of peace. He sees the situation of his family's reaction and knows there was no peace there. If ever a man could have used another 15 years of life it was Dr Rogers!

When conservative scholars write about depravity they always quote the old adage, "depravity does not mean that every person is as evil as he can possibly be." Everyone does not commit murder or incest but everyone has the potential. Hitler and Stalin become the examples of total depravity. However no one says: "depravity means people cannot be as good as they imagine themselves to be!" "No one can be as good as their friends think they are!" "No one can be as good as their mother thinks they are!"

The full spectrum of total depravity means that from each end we are totally depraved. If we think we are good we are wrong and if we have been all-out evil we are not as bad as we could have been. Paul deals with both ends inRomans 1-3. The worst that a man can be is when God gives him over to vile affections. 1:26 The best that a man can be is unacceptable to God and we see this description of all men bad and good. 3:9-20

Bellevue had this spectrum. I don't know of a man more evil than Paul Williams. God gave Paul Williams up to the vilest of affections. An associate working with Dr Rogers left the natural use his wife provided, burning in his heart a desire for his own young son. He yielded to this desire for 12-18 months about 1987. We yet have no ideal how many victims there were but it is hard to believe there was only one. Qualitatively speaking Bellevue employed a man as vile as Hitler and Stalin. He was a SBC minister.

Bellevue was pastored by the best America had to offer. He and his wife were a model couple dating only each other from grammar school. Together they built a Christian relationship. They built a great church and began an international ministry, Love Worth Finding. He represents the other end of the depraved spectrum. Yes, Adrian Rogers was depraved. He was a born-again believer who was daily being sanctified but still having the present potential for sin.

What is God looking for in His people? Poor, contrite heart and one who trembles at God's word. Isaiah 66:2 Paul Williams' sin is the sort that speaks of delusion. God lifts his hand from a person and they are let go to do their worst! Yet in close proximity was Dr Rogers who apparently had no clue as to what Williams had done.

God says: "the heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?" but God is not impressed with the buildings we have built and the ministries we have established but He is looking for men not buildings. God inhabits the praises of His people. The place of God's rest is a poor, contrite and word-fearing man.

I am but a common man, just another sinner saved by grace, but we have here a man who apparently turned a deaf ear to God at some unknown point. There are lawyers with files that could reveal the truth. There are safe-keeping places where some truth is concealed. Money has been paid to keep people silent. When we make poor choices God will send a delusion to us. He will let us believe a lie and even take that lie to our grave. God will get his rest! He will get His pleasure. If we are corrected here in this life and receive our discipline humbly then God gets his rest and has a habitation. If we are stubborn and vain in our confidence God will get His rest in the judgment We will die in our deception but awake to the truth. We lift up our eyes seeing clearly. We will be ushered to a place of destruction of our works. Fire will consume all our works and our soul will escape the fire.

The beliefs of depravity are not directed toward the sinner, he understand nothing about sin nor righteousness. He is dead in his sin. Depravity is directed toward elect believers. This understanding is the basis for growth in Christ. As a believer you still maintain the ever potential for sin and Satan is a liar and deceiver. He has successfully infiltrated the church with his deceptions. Satan promotes all ideals of human divinity. He said to Eve, "ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." All concepts promoting islands of righteousness and sparks of divinity from which human choices are made are lies. Compromises that make God creating an island for choice is just another synergistic view that falls short of scripture.

God alone saves!

What Must We Do?

2008-12-03T15:52:00.004-06:00

What is the first responsibility of the new born believer? John 3:3

Repent and be baptized. Acts 2:38

Now that you have been born and baptized by the Holy Spirit and by a supernatural work you are a part of the body of Christ (I Corinthians 12:13) you now must have remission of sin! Maybe you are surprised by that. You say: "well, if I am born-again then I am sinless."

You can't confuse regeneration, new birth, with glorification. Glorification takes place after you leave this world. What the Holy Spirit starts, regeneration and sanctification, Christ completes when you leave this earth. You were reborn in a moment and the twinkling of an eye and your final change shall come in a moment and the twinkling of an eye.

Your rebirth was just the start. You are a part of the invisible spiritual body of Christ and now you need to belong to the physical body on earth. All this is following Christ's teachings. To enter the earthly body it is necessary to confess your need of Christ and be baptized in water.

You are saved and you have a ticket to heaven. But you need to belong to the earthly body. The earthly body has a common foundation, it is a community of sinners who are walking time bombs ready to explode with transgressions! I'll bet that is the first time you have read that definition of the church. If you have been in church long enough you will know how true that is. If you join this body thinking too highly of yourself you will be the fault in the next explosion. Quite often thinking too highly of yourself stems from a misunderstanding of who you were when you were born again. Greatness in the church goes to him who thinks the lowest of himself. Your first impression of yourself when you were born again is the impression that will last.

More than lightly if you got saved in America you got bad teaching from the beginning. You cannot rise above your teacher! Your mentor's sky is your sky. The Holy Spirit did a good work as usual! The church has failed you. WHAT! Charles, are you nuts!

The church has abandoned the old fashion belief in original sin and there goes two hundred years down the toilet. I have got to go to work!

What a way to end a post!

Free Will

2008-12-03T06:49:00.002-06:00

Does repentance lead to the new birth (John 3:3)? NO

Does repentance lead to remission of sins (Acts 2:38) YES

Free Will

2008-12-02T20:12:00.001-06:00

Do you have any choice in your own salvation?

No

"England Swings Like A Pendulum Do"

2008-12-02T04:50:00.002-06:00

2 Thessalonians 2:7-12 KJV
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Any serious student of scripture knows that there is an end times scheme to draw religions into a unified system to serve the Antichrist's interest. The present turmoil in the SBC over Calvinism is a part of this scheme.

Mega church pastors want a people who are gentle meek and mild so that common goals can be obtained. To accomplish this the pastors present themselves as loving compassionate and tender. A large church thrives on a pool of supporters.

Satan wants for his church a gentle, mild and meek Jesus. The Antichrist wants to have a pool of supporters. He too will present himself as tender, loving and compassionate.

Is the SBC part of this shift? Is Adrian Rogers' gospel a part of the Antichrist's end time scheme?
He was a factor in the conservative resurgence. He played a major role. Could he have been a puppet for Satan to draw a denomination away from what it once believed? What the SBC once believed was not compatible with end time schemes. Rogers' stance on the Bibles as the Word of God was apparently compatible with the Antichrist's scheme. What was not compatible was what the word of God had to say about soteriology.

What Satan fears is a strong trinitarian salvific formula! Rogers' "come to Jesus" theology was music in Satan's ears. He was lured and wooed toward a dysfunctional trinity and a unitarian appeal. Of course the untrained followers were lured by Rogers' boisterous support of the inspiration of Scripture. "If you have the word for a thing you have the thing itself." If you have God's Word then naturally you have His gospel formula. Satan didn't buy that mantra, though everyone else did!

Is it coincidental that in 1925 the SBC held to the "whole Gospel," in 1963 they surrendered that for the "whole man" and in 2000 no one knew what the SBC believe? They can not qualify SBC loyal missionaries because they don't know what they believe. Everyone makes their own rules and ultimately the money determines who makes the rules. Is it coincidental that in 1987 there was a new age "Harmonic Convergence?" 1987 was Adrian Rogers peak year. Though evolving over time a final gospel convergence emerged, a synergistic message of various scriptural interpretations surfaced. A swing toward a pragmatic humanistic evangelism. There was a dislike of dogmatism, hatred of controversy and a call to "close our ranks."

Little did Rogers know but He had just led his denomination into a one world evangelical spirit of ecumenism and his signature was forever stamped on a "purpose driven movement".

And in 1987, there abouts, Paul Williams sodomized his own son and it remained hidden for 17 long painful years. No one but me sees a connection! I see the hand of God restraining in strange ways anyone being able to go to Dr Rogers and say, "sir, we have a problem." Is there a strong delusion here?

Sinners Saved By Grace!!

2008-12-01T06:39:00.002-06:00

Paul never said, "O wretched man, that I am! How am I ever going to live the overcoming life?"
He did say, "who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"

It is not a question of self-discipline but a question of God's deliverance. Paul is saying that the remains of corruption after regeneration and being joined with Christ are like a dry tender box and one spark of temptation could set it afire. It is not an exaggeration to say we are walking a mind field and we have to have the leading of the Holy Spirit to navigate our way.

If the Holy Spirit takes his hand off us we are certain to step on a trap and be blown to bits. "Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil."

We are sinners saved by grace! That statement has been the leaven in my life from the year of my rebirth. I was raised in a church that pronounced one a saint instead of a sinner. Our saint hood was determined by self-discipline and overcoming formulas requiring vigorous ascetic practices.

I knew myself to be a sinner "saved by grace." Self mastery has not got me where I am now! God is undoubtedly the source of my deliverance! Self mastery has its rewards. It does profit some! Some can boast of their rewards but for me the lack of rewards is my boast! I am decreasing as He increases!

I am saved by grace. I am sustained by grace. Grace will lead me home!

Free Will

2008-11-30T08:33:00.001-06:00

Is God free to love anyone He wants?

edit to add: Yes

Do you not know that wisdom begins with fearing the Lord? Have you no fear?

2008-11-29T08:19:00.002-06:00

Yes Ace, I have fear! I stood in the middle of the street with my dog and heard the angry voice of God ordering Adrian Rogers to "sit in this chair and watch your Bellevue crumble and be destroyed." That struck fear in me and subsequent revelations have deepened my fear. There will be many ministers there crying unto the Lord for mercy. "Lord Lord, didn't we faithfully preach your word?"

I live with this revelation everyday, Ace, I don't have any confidence in the message being preached from America's pulpits. My voice is not alone in this. Multitudes are crying for the word. They know they are not hearing from the Lord!

Ace, there is not a work of righteousness, not in the least, to merit our salvation. We are saved by grace. It is a free gift of God. He chooses us for redemption and not by any merit on our part. We do not come to him by faith or repentance he comes to us in regeneration. He does not offer us any enablement so that we can approach him. God takes total pleasure in gifting us with his grace. If our testimony to grace implies that we were seeking and we wanted to be saved then we have deprived the father of his pleasure.

Sheep seem to be the meekest of all God's created animals but when one is lost from the fold by straying into difficulties the shepherd has to retrieve it by force. The sheep will not come to him the shepherd goes to it. It will flee it's rescuer. "Not one will be lost!" says the shepherd.

When the seemingly meekest American preacher clarifies the doctrines for this present age, and defines beliefs against the backdrop of modern confusion and a rising generation of Baptists recognize the significance of these biblical doctrines, assume this is their Baptist heritage and own this confession of faith for themselves they should not be surprised when rotten fruit are produced.

Do you not believe that corrupt fruit is produced by a corrupt tree? Do you not believe the woes pronounced unto those who call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter?

Dear Southern Baptist

2008-11-24T05:45:00.002-06:00

From the Chairman of the Committee on the Baptist Faith and Message, Adrian Rogers

2. In the context of modern denials of the omniscience, exhaustive foreknowledge, and omnipotence of God, we have reaffirmed the teachings of the Bible and the consistent teaching of our Baptist tradition, as reflected in Article II: "God."
God has all knowledge. He knows all things simultaneously. His knowledge is immediate, without the process of thought, reason, or inference. His foreknowledge of events does not necessarily mean that He predetermined them. He knows the workings of his natural, physical, moral, and spiritual laws which work toward definite ends. Man is free to choose in the light of them, but is responsible for his choices. God knows these choices beforehand, but does not predetermine them. Herschel H. Hobbs, The Baptist Faith and Message (1971), p. 36.

"His foreknowledge of events does not necessarily mean that He predetermined them."
My Jehovah Witness friend says God willfully chooses not to know what our choices are. In fact he says that God does not have that foreknowledge. Adrian Rogers says that God has the foreknowledge but has not predetermined our choices.

Systematic Theology affirms strongly the incommunicable attributes of God. God is without any limitations. He does not submit himself to any limitations. Self-existence and immutability confirms this.

Any thought that denies the ability of God to know or do anything flies in the face of scripture and all who have sought diligently to clarify theology.

Rogers says: "In the context of modern denials of the omniscience, exhaustive foreknowledge, and omnipotence of God, we have reaffirmed the teachings of the Bible and the consistent teaching of our Baptist tradition. . .God has all knowledge. He knows all things simultaneously. His knowledge is immediate, without the process of thought, reason, or inference. " That is a clear concise statement to make.

However his next statement contradicts the first. " His foreknowledge of events does not necessarily mean that He predetermined them. God knows these choices beforehand, but does not predetermine them. " Now he is practically saying the same thing as my Jehovah Witness friend. There are strong similarities of SBC to Jehovah Witness beliefs!

Actually Adrian Rogers knows a fool would be saying what he just said so he acknowledges the source of this absurdity to Herschel H. Hobbs who is dead at this time.

However this absurd and foolish statement has to be said! Why! Why does it have to be said?
Why put the words in the mouth of a dead man! Because this falsehood is the foundation of the next falsehood. "Man is free to choose in the light of them, but is responsible for his choices. God knows these choices beforehand, but does not predetermine them." In order to establish vibrant worldwide evangelism, Baptist tradition has to be disposed and a satisfaction of the demands of modern humanism must take place!

This is the foundation of a false gospel and another gospel foreign to the Bible.

First Cars

2008-11-23T16:09:00.000-06:00

My father's first car, Ford Model A and my first, 1961 Ford Galaxie Starliner, 352, four barrel. I changed the two barrel for a four barrel carb.

Tribute To John Mark

2008-11-23T13:34:00.003-06:00

On Solomon's blog is a post on "The Passing Of An Unlikely Friend" John Mark who was a familiar commenter on several blogs dealing with Bellevue Baptist. He recently passed away and Solomon has posted an excellent tribute to John. I always liked John Mark and recognized the quality of his comments. He could be jagged and compassionate. I appreciated his honesty. We will miss him. John: rest in peace.

John 'Arminius' Mark

A Blogging Intermission

2008-11-23T05:45:00.001-06:00

Several years ago I was driving on Huston Levee road heading south toward Collierville. At that time construction was beginning for a new four lane highway. The old road leading from Macon Road was a winding road with some good tight curves. I was driving my old Bonneville behind these two identical white Cobras. Older men were driving and both were bumper to bumper hanging into the curves. They were not really racing but obviously enjoying their drive. I tried my best to stay up with them knowing that these were two classic cars. Watching these two cars

accelerating into curves and seemingly jockeying for a possible pass was exhilarating to an old man like me who grew up in the sixties with "real muscle cars." I was doing my best to keep up in order to see it all. There are some tight curves in places and these two cars hugged them with ease. My Bonneville fought to just stay on the right side of the road! I had to make a straight path while they stayed in their proper lanes.

Just before Wolf River Road which had just become a four lane intersection both cars stopped side by side at the red light. I came up behind in the right lane. They were talking to each other and throttling those big v-8 engines making the kind of music only a sixties guy would understand. I prayed! Oh did I pray! I ask God, "I am an old man who will not see this stuff anymore. I grew up with these kind of cars. Lord, let these men tromp these engines and smoke 'dem' tires, please." I am trembling with cold shivers as I type this.

The light turned green and they eased off for about four feet and then all hell broke loose as they jammed the pedal to the metal. Both cars surged and squatted as treaded tires bit into the pavement desperate for traction. The rubber screamed in anguish and burning tires smoked underneath. The rear ends twisted as both cars split the air with a roaring of full throttled engines. The precise mixture of air and gas exploding inside cylinders and forced out of manifolds into exhaust pipes made sounds like unto heavenly sounds. It is a man-thing!!

I jammed my foot into the floor of my car screaming like a man gone out of his mind. I could not catch them but man o man did God ever answer my prayer! We hear people say God supplies your needs and not your wants. They don't know squat about my God. There are times that He delights in seeing an old man one more time thrilled out of his mind. I gave God glory over and over and I have not stopped thanking Him for that little pleasure. This morning while driving my old F-150 to work I remembered that day and tears filled my eyes as I thought how much God loves me.

I shared with my manager my experience since he has a love for old classic cars and I told him about my tears and I looked up and there were tears in his eyes. he said, "I know what you mean."

Spare me the retorts. Wasting gas, breaking laws and driving too fast. Poor people who don't have nice cars. Hey I have a God who cares about me and my silliness and just maybe He gets excited about muscle cars!

2008-11-22T16:24:00.003-06:00

Man, I am a good looking guy, for a boy who was maliciously assaulted by a pie in the face and traumatized for almost 50 years! What a good God to set me free from that attack and liberate me to be the outstanding man I am today. It is a credit to his grace and moves me to give him my all. I am blessed in appearance and heart! What a great God who chose me before I was hit with a pie, long before that! Before the foundations of the world was laid. He blessed me with good looks, too. Ladies, I am already taken, sorry. What a Calvinist!

Bold, Evangelistic, Spirit Filled, High Calvinist

2008-11-22T05:06:00.004-06:00

Luke 4:18-19 (KJV) The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
I am filled with the Holy Spirit and I speak as the Spirit gives me utterance. Acts 2:4
John 15:26-27 (KJV)But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

I am a 'narcissistic* Bapticostal'! I have the best of both worlds; true historical Baptist beliefs (that which the SBC seems to officially despise) and the utterance the Charismatics desire!

The Charismatics and Pentecostals need what the Baptist used to have, 200 years ago, and the Baptist need what they had 200 years ago and what the Charismatics and Pentecostals have now! Don't we all need the Spirit and the Word?

*anonymous source

Message To Billy Graham

2008-11-21T07:06:00.000-06:00

Please, Dr Graham before you die and meet your maker, renounce the gospel you have preached. Renounce the "one percent that the believer has to exercise in order to be saved." Please tell everyone there is no work of righteousness that the believer can do to be saved.

Tell them they are saved by grace alone. Tell them they are sinners under condemnation from birth. They are incapable of making a decision for Christ.

Quit this man made appeal and let the Holy Spirit do His work. Call the elect regenerate to obedience. Just preach Christ and Him crucified. Tell your son to do the same.

Please, don't face God with the message you have preached to the world! It is not too late.

Graham and Rogers, Inc.

2008-11-20T17:00:00.000-06:00

"God does ninety-nine percent of it but you still must do that last one percent." Billy Graham

"The context of John 3 teaches that the new birth is something that God does for man when man is willing to yield to God", and "He gives the Holy Spirit to draw you to the cross, but even after all this, it is your decision whether to accept God's free pardon or to continue in your lost condition." (B. Graham, How To Be Born Again. Originally published 1977)

"Come to Jesus." - Adrian Rogers

Why can't these two great American preachers see the plain truth? It is not too late for Dr Graham to get it right!

In spite of our will we are saved. We are not wooed to the cross we are dragged, lifeless spiritually, physically resisting, to the Father. There is no self-merit in our salvation. The only reason an undeserving sinner can be brought to the Father is because of the cross! The sinner is declared justified by the Father and presented to His Son, a justified sinner. Christ will raise the sinner to glorification at the last day. John 6:44 You believed because you were elected to be a believer! Your choice does not determine your election.

Rogers' Island

2008-11-20T06:29:00.000-06:00

anonymous said Mon Nov 17, 07:05:00 PM 2008 on "Grace and truth to you" "A doctrine cannot be unscriptural without doing actual harm. God's way is right; man's way is wrong. And when the doctrine on the matter of salvation is wrong, it is certain to hinder the cause of Christ."
This statement sheds light on what has happened at Bellevue Baptist. Unquestionably the cause of Christ is hindered at Bellevue. Ignoring the "full" sovereignty of God and operating from an imaginary and mythological "island of righteousness" certainly hinders the cause of Christ as demonstrated by the saga of the history of Bellevue Baptist under the leadership of Adrian Rogers.

The Pelagian Captivity Of The Church

2008-11-19T20:16:00.002-06:00

If you are interested in the "island of righteousness" go here. Very interesting read and thoroughly Calvinistic if you are wanting information.

OC Said I Was Just Asking For It!

2008-11-19T05:48:00.004-06:00

oc said... here
"elbowing my way between the crowds..."Then you deserved the pie. You should have been more polite.Just sayin'.oc.
November 18, 2008 8:15 PM

Now where have we heard this before. Let see, she deserved to be raped she was just asking for it. The way she dressed no wonder she was raped.

What kind of statement is that: "Then you deserved the pie" I was picked out of the crowd because I was the least likely to put up any resistance. It was a cowardly act of a bully who knew I was defenseless to fight back! The bully was right!

OC, you are a bully! But your error is that I am not defenseless. You are a male chauvinist bully.
You use weak people to get your way. Your statement gives you away. You are truly a coward!

My God Is A Good God!

2008-11-18T22:00:00.001-06:00

For nearly half a century I lived under a cloud. I was afraid of what people would say about me. I was functional, I married a wonderful girl. We had two daughters. They married and we are a clan now. It was an eroding process in my life that left me every morning saying to myself in the shower, "I am so stupid." It was a habitual ritual, every morning. Banging my head on the shower wall, "Oh, I am so stupid."

December 22, 2005 that all changed! Uninvited, God broke into my life like a thief in the night. It started as I was working with a Jehovah Witness in a 53 foot trailer early in the morning. We started talking about religion and BANG, I was nabbed by the Lord. The Lord had an assignment for me and this Jehovah Witness was it. The rest of the story I have related to you.

I was hit in the face with a pie. My personality was definitely arrested and I functioned under a cloud. I was living with a personality handicap. By New Years day 2006 I was set free from this cloud and I started to live the good life. I was a man at his best, my mind went into action and my spirit soared with boldness. I am now a bold, Spirit-filled, evangelistic (High) Calvinist!

Listen, I was a victim of a silly pie throwing stunt. Yes it was silly but it did damage to me and I would have carried that damage to my grave without ever knowing why life had to be such a struggle. I have forgiven my perpetrator. If I knew who he/she was I would rush to them and hug them! I love that person dearly. What they meant for evil has served a good purpose! God has prepared me for my remaining years to attain his exclusive purpose. That half century was not wasted years but preparation for his assignment.

My God is a good God!

2008-11-16T19:06:00.002-06:00

I am filled with the Holy Spirit and I speak as the Spirit gives me utterance.

John 15:26-27 (KJV)
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

This picture of me was taken January 2, 2006 in front of the Warren County court house in McMinnville, Tennessee. Forty eight years ago in this very spot I was hit in the face with a pie. A cloud hung over my life. My personality development was arrested and on December 22, 2005 The Holy Spirit began a supernatural healing to lift that cloud that surrounded me. December 30 I had a divine visitation from the Lord. The Holy Spirit swept me back as a twelve year old to the place of John 15. At the court house I was elbowing my way between the crowds to watch the city celebs get hit with a pie. Someone picked me out of the crowd and hit me in the face with a pie. Suddenly the focus of the event was me and there was a large crowd of people laughing at me. Forty eight years later I was escorted by the Holy Spirit back in time and was allowed to elbow my way between the apostles and hear the words of my Lord in John 15! The next day, new years eve about 11:45 PM, I was on my knees in front of my wife trying to explain all this to her. When suddenly out of nowhere came the words, "honey when I was a young boy I was hit in the face with a pie!" It was hidden in my memory. I had not told anyone. The next day a lot of exciting things happened. Wonderful things! I drove new year's evening back to McMinnville, 5 hours, got there at midnight and at 5AM in a thunderstorm I was marching around that courthouse hands lifted and praising God! Later that day using a Walmart disposable camera my dad snapped this picture.

Not an impressive picture is it? If you will look close into the face you will see a twelve year old boy trapped in a 59 year old body! I am filled to overflowing with the Holy Spirit. "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Bellevue Baptist Could Learn From The Memphis GLBT

2008-11-16T18:20:00.005-06:00

In May I sent an e-mail to a representative of the Memphis GLBT Community:
"I have a question that perplexes me constantly. It concerns the situation with Bellevue Baptist's response to it's own associate sexually abusing his own young son for 12-18 months and being dismissed as just a "moral failure". Given their conservative slant they failed to act accordingly. The "moral failure" was a crime and the son did not pursue criminal charges, the Church did not treat the issue as a crime. The state investigated and we have not heard the result from them.

I have ask a diverse number of people from many walks of life and I would like to hear your response.

This was the answer ("The opinions in the GLBT community are as varied as the people therein. The above sentiments are mine and mine alone.")
"The problems of pedophilia and ephebophilia are ones that span all sexual and gender orientations. The occurrence you reference happens to be about an adult and a child of the same gender. These occurrences often do not occur within a same gender context and consequently I cannot consider these terrible incidents primarily GLBT issues. But being a human being, I cannot help but have strong feelings of disgust when I learn that the basic inequity of power that is present between an adult and a minor is exploited by the adult.

So I am conflicted. From one perspective, I do not wish to pass judgment on this denomination and this particular church's handling of this affair. From another perspective, however, I am deeply grieved by the pain of the child involved. When learning of this incident, I made a personal choice to leave it to the authorities who are, hopefully, better able to help this child in this incident and address the larger issues as well.

Fortunately, there are many denominations that have long decided to deal successfully with both matters ... First, they have resolved the matter of giving GLBT persons their rightful place in the church community. Second, they have resolved the entirely separate matter of child and minor sexual abuse by following a rigid adherence to a zero tolerance policy and a policy of immediate reporting to authorities. The churches, synagogues and mosques that have done both have my deepest respect.

"Woe Is Me!"

2008-11-15T18:56:00.004-06:00

"In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God." BF&M Man III

The SBC teaches the age of accountability as the age when one can accept Christ as Savior. It is the time when a person is aware of his own sinfulness and will transgress the law of God. Contrary to this is the orthodox belief of original sin. Adam's sin is transmitted to his descendants by inheritance. Romans 5:12, 18-19. We are born into a state of sin and are under condemnation at birth and not at a latter age of accountability. This is a contracted state as a result of Adam's committed act. An infant is under condemnation not because of his act but Adam's. Through Christ the regenerated have peace with God and are not under condemnation but they do live every day till death with the presence of potential sin. Through Christ's provision for Justification the believer has access to grace to stand against this daily possibility of sinning. He can be victorious against this possibility and if he fails he has an advocate before the Holy God. He has forgiveness. This is the teaching on original sin contrary to what Adrian Rogers preached.

The Church's teaching on original sin carried from the apostles was challenged in the fifth century by Pelagius. He taught that man could by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life. This teaching was declared a heresy by the Church. The Church has not followed this ruling and today in American Evangelicalism Pelagianism has reared it's ugly head. Joyce Rogers demonstrated this by her behavior.

Isaiah cried, "Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of host." Isaiah 6:5

While under duress Joyce Rogers cried, "My husband and I are clean but we dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips." "My husband should be held blameless on the word of Paul Williams who said he did not know." She cried: "I think it has to do with his integrity, and his manner of dealing with things like this. He would have dealt with it immediately." "My husband has clean lips but Steve Gaines does not! My husband has integrity but Steve Gaines does not."

Dr Rogers paid $500,000 to keep a former staff member silent so now we know what his immediate reaction would have been. Oh, he would act quickly but not with integrity.

If you gaze upon the Lord of Host you will understand original sin. When you gaze upon a sin such as Paul Williams you cry, "woe is me, for I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell in the midst of men with unclean lips." This is a Calvinistic reaction toward sin.

If you are liberal in your theology you cry: "Paul Williams is a homosexual and he has a right to alternative behavior." "I'm OK you are OK" This is a reflection of pure Pelagianism.

Joyce Rogers says: "We are OK but you are not OK" Calvinism says: "We are not OK"

Can't You See It?

2008-11-15T06:24:00.003-06:00

Yesterday at work I ask six Caucasians (I already knew how African Americans would respond) if there was a man who had f**ked his 10 year old son up the a** for 10 -12 months standing in front of you could you carry on a normal conversation with him. Without exception they answered, No! "I would not even shake his hand" "I would be repulsed" "He did what!" "I would walk away from him" "No" "No"

But not Joyce Rogers, Steve Gaines, Jamie Fish, Webb Williams, Elmer Bailey and a Bible Fellowship class. Of course they had known him for some years and there was a familiarity with him. My colleagues did not know him. This is the frog and the boiling water case. Bellevue had grown accustomed to Paul Williams and when they found out he was a "fag". . .well, being a "fag" was not so bad after all. This "fag" "fagged" his own son and still he was not so bad! Bellevue Baptist was boiling in water!

Joyce Rogers who had assumed the same temperature as the boiling water cared more about her dead husband's legacy than for Chris Williams. She did not care about Chris. Chris knew this. This hurt Chris. The wife of his childhood pastor did not care about him only the integrity of her husband. That was all! She did not rush to WMC to denounce homosexuality she went to defend her husband! Satan had his arms around her and she was doing his bidding.

I already know the response. You can read the repetitive comments. I am jealous of the Rogers and I am out to kick them. I am not. I am dealing with the result of Adrian Rogers' message.
He had chosen his beliefs and now absent and in heaven he is seeing the fruit being born. They are proud, knowing nothing. They were rich, and increased with goods and had need of nothing.
Now Mrs. Rogers is wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked. The shame of her nakedness is appearing.

Pelagianism is being demonstrated for all to see. Do you see it?

How Do You Talk With A Homosexual Pedophile?

2008-11-13T19:40:00.004-06:00

Joyce Rogers told WMC-TV News "Mr. Williams told me that himself, that my husband did not know." When asked why it was important that the public knew Dr. Rogers was unaware of the situation, Joyce Rogers replied, "I think it has to do with his integrity, and his manner of dealing with things like this. He would have dealt with it immediately."

She displays no outrage that a young boy had been f**ked by his SBC ordained associate Bellevue Baptist pastor/father. You would expect that there would be outrage toward Paul Williams and she would want to address her rage on the evening news. But no, she wanted to make sure her husband's legacy was not spoiled with bad news. Her husband was a much better man than that Steve Gaines!

When Steve Gaines would not honor her request to clear her husband then like a spoiled child she rushes out of her Bellevue mansion and leads an entourage to Germantown Baptist Church and not being happy there she goes to Faith Baptist Church.

But she is not alone in this lack of outrage. Bellevue Baptist seems to lack the quality of Christian community that causes outrage against the sin of homosexuality.

Early on it has been alleged that Elmer Bailey failed to make this sin (crime) known to Dr Rogers or the staff of Bellevue. Webb Williams and Jamie Fish failed to notify Steve Gaines or the other staff. Steve Gaines himself kept it confidential for six months. And when it became public some of Paul Williams' Bible Fellow class would keep him as their teacher.

Listen, Paul Williams f**ked his own son and there is no outrage, at least made known publicly.

Twenty six people have voted on my poll so far and my vote stands alone. Joyce Rogers exercised bad judgment in asking Steve Gaines to say her husband did not know about Paul Williams' crime. Probably NASS" sheep have gained up on me and organized an effort to sabotaged the poll. Perhaps the sentiment is so strongly in Joyce Rogers' favor that no one will address this issue.

Tell me this, she talked with Paul Williams, how does a respectable Christian lady talk with a man who so cruelly f**ked his own son. He is a pedophile! How do you talk to a known pedophile? "Paul, how is the family? It sure looks like rain today, we need it badly. Oh, by the way did my husband know about the stuff you did?" Paul: "no, Joyce, he didn't." "Thank goodness Paul, I was afraid you might have told him. I am relieved! Tell ______ I said hello."

When I tell people at work about Paul Williams and what he did to his son they say, "I would kick his a**!" "He is a monster." But what do they know, they are not "Bellevue elites!"

"These people use such bad language. Isn't it awful how they talk?" Oh by the way these people think that homosexuality is really bad! They call them "fags."

You know what I would do if I was to stand in front of Paul Williams. I would want to kick his sorry ass! I wouldn't of course but I would struggle with words. I've never talked with a known homosexual pedophile.

Bad theology produces bad behavior! Bellevue has it's share!

An Awful Insult!

2008-11-13T05:35:00.004-06:00

I was raised on good preaching. I assume that most of you reading are of the Baptist faith. My prior Pentecostal colleagues won't read this since I am Calvinist.

I heard good preaching in an open air tabernacle in Chattanooga on old Lee highway. The floor was strewn with sawdust shavings and seating for several thousands was old fashion angle iron and wood pews. The main service was the evening services with nationally recognized speakers. This was pentecostal preaching but with a strong Wesleyan-holiness emphasis. We fought "Jesus only" Independent "free holiness" people and of course the Baptist. Often the preaching was energized and emotional but deeper was a good message of holiness of life and commitment to Christ. There was exuberant praise, with occasional shouting , leaping and one man who ran around the tabernacle. Those were good old days.

The day was devoted to good Bible teaching by some of the best teachers the denomination had to offer. Attendance was lower but that was our favorite service. I was raised on what I hear many crying for today.

When I visited Bellevue Baptist ten or so years ago I went to observe Rogers preaching. I recognized good preaching and anointed preaching. Dr Rogers was a good preacher. The fact that this was a large beautiful sanctuary filled nearly to capacity and the preacher had a national broadcast, Love Worth Finding, did not effect my judgment. There was no awe in my sight. I did not worship the man. I do not mean this in a mean spirited way. I recognized the qualities of good speaking, subjective conviction and excellent voice control. But I didn't recognize an anointing. There is a difference between "spirited" preaching and "Anointed" preaching. Now a seasoned Pentecostal recognizes the difference. A "good" Pentecostal has to be able to hear the Word in the midst of murky emotional exuberance. This is a good thing!

A "good" Baptist has to just trust that his preacher is preaching the Word. There is little cultivation of hearing the Word in the murky splendor of a good speech. You confuse the Word with good speech. An old fashion classical Pentecostal would not be swayed by good speech nor a loud screaming message. Good hearing comes not from the flesh but the Holy Spirit. He gives the ear the hearing.

What is the difference you might ask? The Baptist is taught that right doctrine must be mastered to know the difference and there is a truth in that. A Pentecostal looks to a witness of the Spirit that bears a witness to his spirit. This witness cooperates with the witness of the Bible.

One of the things that interested me about Dr Rogers was his altar calls. He had a pattern and never strayed away from it. He always left the platform and came to the floor and stood below the pulpit. There he gave the invitation.

I found myself many times thinking, "why is he walking that way?" Over and over I heard myself think that. He walked strange , flatfooted and cautious. "Why" is he walking that way?
"Why am I thinking this?" "What does it matter that he is walking that way?"

When the Paul Williams crisis surfaced it occurred to me that the Spirit was providing the utterance for this thought. He was getting my attention, "what do you see here?" "He is walking funny!" "Why is he walking this way?"

The floor was covered in blood, the blood of the Son of God! The blood wherewith he was sanctified was being trampled. It was treated as an unholy thing! A great insult to the Spirit was taking place in that Church. This sin was not an isolated sin of one man but a corporate sin flowing from a false gospel. It was the result of a semi-Pelagian gospel.

Fiery Indignation

2008-11-11T17:54:00.006-06:00

At the very core of the narrative of Bellevue is an egregious and perverse homosexual sin. Rather than being an isolated incident it seems to be an intelligent effort to warn us of coming doom. One gets the feeling that something is very wrong with American Christianity.

There is a connection of the subject of homosexuality to the presentation of the gospel in Paul's book of Romans. His proposition is set forth in 1:16,17 followed by the ground work of the need of salvation. Sin left to it's own course ends in egregious and perverse sexual activity. "God gave them up to vile affections." Paul is making a distinction between heterosexual sins and homosexual sins. The latter are given over to vile affections, unnatural, unseemly, reprobate and "none convenient" passions. Literally they break through a barrier. Heterosexual sinners know that there are things so taboo that they should be avoided. There is a natural inhibition built into the human psyche to avoid such activity. Physically the human body has provision for natural sexual activity. The body is designed to progress along a developmental path. Central to this development is a gland that guides this development beginning at the earliest years.

This barrier is a law written on all hearts, without exception. The breaking of this barrier is not just a psychological block but a spiritual "changing of the truth of God into a lie." It is an intentional "worship of the creature over the creator." It strikes close to the sin of blasphemy.

It is a generational sin in that the children of the homosexual are usually forced to have this barrier broken, psychologically and physically. It destroys the fabric of families; father/ wife and son /daughter.

All this said; there is a universal need of the saving message of God in Christ Jesus delivering us from this sinful condition.

Paul Williams' father abused him, his father broke his barrier, the father willfully and the son unwillingly. Paul went on to serve the Lord, became a father and a preacher. Willfully he broke his son's barrier, also his son was unwilling. For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. Hebrews 10:26,27 God has turned Paul Williams over to a reprobate condition.

Adrian Rogers failed to preach the gospel effectively for Paul's Williams' complete salvation and God has taken Dr Rogers on to heaven for discipline.