Category Archives: politics

James McGrath & Inerrancy

James McGrath is another professor we have talked with through his website over the years, until we were banned. We do not see eye to eye on many things, including inerrancy. We are using his meme article as it is short and says the points we like to address. Unfortunately, we cannot copy memes, but will do our best to manually quote them

But first a look at his opening statements.

#1. As I emphasized in recent posts, the reason that I abandoned biblical inerrantism is that it is not merely unbiblical, but anti-biblical

What authority makes this claim? if you follow the link in the quoted words, you have to go to his article to do that, you will see that his conclusion is not based on any religious authority, it is not based on God’s words, but merely of his misunderstanding of the bible and the way it was written. His reason is as follows:

The contradictions, discrepancies, and difficulties are there within the Bible, because human beings have put these texts with their differences into the collection we call the Bible.

He cannot prove those claims and most contradictions are not contradictions. The same goes for discrepancies. Rational and logical research has borne that out.

#2. It silences all but at most one of the diverse voices within the Bible, and denies or explains away rather than accepts the evidence that the Bible itself provides for its own human fallibility

Actually, it silences false teachers, false prophets and those who reject the truth.  There is no evidence showing any hint of human fallibility. These are mere accusations to allow someone to pursue and believe their own personal subjective ideas about Christ, God and Christianity. By removing the label of inerrancy, people get to import their personal preferences into the faith and the Bible.

#3. Bible inerrancy has no real impact on making the Bible clearer or making those who read it correct, but rather the only effect of Biblical inerrancy is to make its adherents more dogmatic

Dr. McGrath is in error here as we see that his argument is not really against inerrancy but the truth. He does not like what the Bible says so he needs a way to change it. Instead of providing real evidence, from alternative divinely inspired material, he goes after the softer and easier target. Inerrancy does make the Bible clearer for we see that God created as he said he did and we learn in Genesis 2 that God provides different details about his creative act. If the Bible was not inerrant, then any opinion, theory and conjecture would be clouding the issue.

Confusion is not of God but that is what Dr. McGrath is promoting with these words and his stance on biblical inerrancy. He takes away the answers God gives us and opens the questions up to a multitude of ideas that would overwhelm anyone who didn’t know any better.

#3. Inerrancy is about the desire to have one’s own views regarded as inerrant

There is more to that quote but this is the main point. It is a wild accusation because Dr. McGrath cannot verify this and he cannot state that those people he claims to be presenting their own views are actually presenting their own views over the truth. The above statement also flies in the face of Jesus’ words– ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

Inerrancy helps us see the truth and know it. Any other status for the Bible does not do that. Those alternatives merely hide the truth from its readers.

and the failure to humbly recognize one’s own human proneness to err… shows that this doctrine is not merely wrong but a direct frontal assault about the Bible’s teaching about God…

What makes that quoted statement wrong is the fact that Dr. McGrath thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong. Changing to the truth actually does show that people recognize humbly that they made an err and now change to what God is saying in the biblical text. Inerrancy helps correct those erroneous views. His words also show that he and others like him are the ones doing the frontal assault on biblical teaching about God. They are changing the Bible and who God is, not those who declare it inerrant.

We are not going to quote more from that article because the issue of inerrancy has ramifications that Dr. McGrath does not like to think about. if the Bible is not inerrant and filled with human thinking, then we have no assurances of salvation or eternity. It is impossible for anti-inerrantists to pinpoint exactly which scripture passage is inerrant and of God and which one is from a human point of view.

Under their thinking, we cannot know God or Jesus and we can never find the truth even though Jesus said we could. In that article, that we quoted from, there were many links to other articles. We took the time to read through some of them and what we found was that Dr. McGrath and others he quotes, do not use one biblical argument to support their view.

It is all their personal opinion and the faulty use of passages that bring them to their conclusions. It is not God leading them to the truth because Dr.McGrath and others like him have never found any alternative divinely inspired scriptures to replace the passages they claim are in error and of human origin. We have made that point before but it is an important point.

Without those verified alternatives, and by verified we mean approved of by the ancient church, written by apostles, etc., they have no foundation for their arguments. Those alternatives have to meet the ancient criteria and not modern ones.

If their arguments are correct, then we must ask, where are the replacement scriptures to guide the church and believers today? Who gets to decide which  scriptures are out and which new ones are in? Obviously, we cannot appeal to the apostles because they have been gone for some time now. We should note that when the apostles caste lots for replacement disciples, they did not impose their personal views or preferences at all. They left the selection up to God. We do not know of one Bible scholar willing to do that today.

The argument against anti-inerrantists is not long. We just point to the passage that says God is not the author of confusion. Anti-inerrantists introduce confusion not bring the truth to light. Who are the anti-inerrantists that they think they know better about the Bible than God does? They do not have any smoking guns, they do not have any historical verification for their words and they do not have textual confirmation for their claims. If you get a chance to compare the ancient manuscripts, you will see that they all basically say the same thing.

Dr. Bart Ehrman and others may claim that there are over 400,000 errors found in the NT alone. According to Dr. Daniel Wallace that is more than the number of words in the NT .Also, according to Dr. Wallace over 99% of those errors do not change a doctrine, an instruction, a command and so on. In other words, anti-inerrantists have nothing to stand on except the fact that they cannot humbly accept God’s word and feel the need to change it according to their personal preferences.

The Bible is inerrant and that should scare a lot of people.


Robert Cargill & The Bible

Before we get started we need to say two things. First, Dr. Cargill was appointed Editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, one of our favorite archaeological magazines. There are so few of these so it is not hard to get to the favored list. The magazine was founded by Hershel Shanks. We do not agree with Dr. Cargill on many things both archaeologically and biblically but we are sure he deserves the appointment.

Second, he is free to disagree with the Iowa law that he writes about

An Explanation of Why I Oppose the Proposed Iowa “Bible Literacy” Bill

We are not sure if we even agree with it. All we know about it is what we read in his post.But what we are writing about are certain points he makes in his opposition. Dr. Cargill is an atheist who thinks he can teach the Bible. We have spoken to him on that point before and we disagree on that issue. Why atheists cannot teach the Bible is very simple. Jesus said the unbelieving world cannot receive the Spirit of Truth and we are to follow the Spirit of Truth to the truth. We are not to use interpretation to get to God’s word.

We will address just important points as his post is very long

#1. Were option 2 to be chosen, it would cease to be a “Bible” literacy course, and would become a “New Testament” literacy course, as the New Testament comprises only 30% of the Christian Bible. That is to say, the Hebrew Bible is the complete Bible for Jews, and the Old and New Testaments comprise the Bible for Christians. However, a “New Testament only” course is NO ONE’S BIBLE. No Christian denomination views the New Testament alone as its Bible. Marcion of Sinope attempted this very thing in the second century CE, and he, his Bible (with no Old Testament), and his entire movement were branded heretics and excommunicated!

Basically, he is right here. You can’t have the NT without the OT, it just won’t work. Marcion was declared a heretic and rebuted successfully.

#2. However, we don’t speak King James English anymore. So, this bill proposes that Iowa public high school teachers teach the Bible (which was originally written in Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Aramaic, and Hellenistic Greek) in English translation.

So students can’t learn? How are they going to understand Shakespeare if they do not know old English? Studying the KJV would help students in their other studies and broaden their minds. It is odd for a teacher to hinder learning.  But what we find interesting is that both Hebrew and Aramaic get the label Biblical, even though Aramaic was spoken by more than just Hebrews and Christians, and Greek gets the label Hellenistic. Doesn’t being included in the Bible make Hellenistic Greek, biblical Greek

These are minor points, of course, but they stick out.


We left his emphasis in but he is wrong. Yes, it may be the ‘fundamental rule in translation’ but it is not God’s rule and it is a rule which leads people away from the truth. There is such a thing as translation without interpretation. It is called going for the truth. The truth can be found no matter what language is used.

This is true for any language, and it is not limited to religion. It is simply not possible to translate without interpreting. It is certainly not possible to translate religious scriptures without making theological value judgments while making said translation.

Again he is wrong. A person dedicated to finding the truth can easily translate without interpretation. But you see why we disagree with Dr. Cargill when he says atheists can teach the Bible. They can’t because their eyes are deceived, their minds misled, and they do not follow God’s rules. This fundamental law is aiding and abetting those who do not want to hear the truth.

#4. Understanding the holy scripture of any religion requires extensive training, preferably in the original languages in which the religious texts were produced.

Not neccessarily. A believer can understand the Bible quite easily, if they are hearing Christ’s voice. They do not need years of formal training, they just need to learn how to distinguish the voice of the Spirit of Truth from all other voices. Then they must be willing to follow that voice, ignoring the rest. We do not need the original languages to understand the Bible. Not only is that impossible for the majority of the world to do that, it also makes God an elitist god who favors only a few.

It is an unrealistic view held by Dr. Cargill, one that makes us think that he wants the Bible restricted to bible scholars only. We know off other scholars who want control over the content of the Bible so in reality, it is their words, not God’s, that gets to the people.That is not the intent of the Bible or God. The Bible is written so those lacking education can still understand the key doctrines, instructions, and commands. You do not need years of training to understand, ‘In the beginning God…’ and many other passages of scriptures.

#5. When I teach the Bible at the University of Iowa, I give my students the English translation, and then show them the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek that underlies the text. They don’t need to know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, I just want to show them that these verses come from a context–a context that is not in America, and not in Europe, but a context that is in the Middle East about 2000-3000 years ago

We do agree that the Bible was written in different areas throughout the old world (It wasn’t called the Middle East back then) but the context is not from a human culture. We also agree that the culture used was not American or European. Since the Bible was written by God, the culture used was God’s kingdom. There is no earthly cultural influence involved. Of course, not every civilization in the old world actually had the same culture. So Dr. Cargill has to tell us which culture was actually used if he thinks a human one influenced biblical writing.

We do not know exactly where each book of the Bible was written. Daniel was in Babylon, Esther was in Persia, Revelation in Patmos and we do not know where Peter wrote his epistles. So to say that any particular earthly culture had a hand in writing the Bible is a little ridiculous. Then not every ancient civilization practiced patriarchy.  From what we know of the Minoans, women enjoyed unlimited equality and freedom.

#6. For instance, Iowa high school teachers could show their students where slavery in America came from. When we established the United States, slavery was legal. Interestingly, the Bible supported, defended, and positively influenced the ownership of slaves in the United States

This is an issue that cannot be fully addressed here. Then others have debunked this notion far better than we can. But we can say that Dr. Cargill is wrong here. The Bible does not condone slavery and we are willing to say that many people take the American definition of slavery and apply it to the Bible.  They do not understand how God used the term and misapply the Bible to fill their sinful desires.

If you look at those verses Dr. Cargill quotes and compare those instructions to American slave owners, you will see that very few slave owners actually followed the Bible in their treatment of slaves. Since Dr. Cargill does not have the Spirit of Truth guiding him, it is fair to say that he misrepresents what the Bible says about slavery.

#7. An Iowa public high school teacher could then turn to the role of women. The issue of equal pay for equal work for men and women is hotly debated today, but before that it was women’s suffrage–a woman’s right to vote–that dominated the national debate. When this country was established, women did not have the right to vote. But why was that the case? Why weren’t women afforded equality with men?Once again, the Bible is an excellent place to turn to see why women always took a back seat to men.

Dr. Cargill again demonstrates his lack of understanding the Bible. He goes to verses that do not even address the questions he initially raised. The Bible does not teach that women cannot vote nor get equal pay for equal work. Instead, he goes to specific instructions that do not place women beneath men in any way shape or form.

Because a woman is unpure longer for a female child is not evidence that women are unequal to men. It does show that Dr.Cargill does not do his research on the issue. Since God knows medicine and medical issues better than humans do, he has his reasons why this is to take place but it wasn’t to place women as inferior or unequal to men. That idea is read into the passages of scripture Dr. Cargill uses. There is no mention by God that this makes women inferior or unequal to men.

Then to use the difference in shekels for the value of a man and a woman is equally ridiculous and shows why interpretation cannot be used when handling scripture. Everyone knows, and women do not like to admit it, that women are the weaker sex. They have different health issues, they are not as strong as a man, they do not normally do the same work of a man. It stands to reason that there would be some disparity in the price of shekels.

Making those values an equality or inferiority issue is interpretation gone wrong. But Dr. Cargill does not stop there and uses a common verse we all know to make his point that the Bible brings inequality to the world.

But it is not just in the Old Testament that the value of women is less than that of men. The New Testament preserves the subjugation of women in its literature. For instance, 1 Corinthians 11:3 says the following:

1 Cor. 11:3–But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and THE HUSBAND IS THE HEAD OF HIS WIFE, and God is the head of Christ.

Dr.Cargill does not understand that someone has to be the leader and the head. God has made his choice and he disagrees with God. That puts Dr. Cargill on the losing side and exposes his lack of biblical knowledge, even after his years of formal training. The NT does not preserve subjugation of women, it is preserving God’s order of things. There has to be an order and since man was not made for the women but women for the man it stands to reason that women are not to be leading men.

#8. We the high school students have a discussion about whether it is ok for women to have authority over men, either as Governor of Iowa, Mayor of an Iowa city, CEO of an Iowa corporation, or the Speaker of the Iowa General Assembly. And imagine the awkwardness when all of the wonderful women teaching in our Iowa public high schools read 1 Tim. 2:12: “I permit no woman to teach.”

Dr. Cargill does what most atheists and unbelievers do, they shorten or change a verse to make their point. The verse does not say that women cannot teach but leave it to atheists to distort the issue. The verse actually reads

12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (NASB)

Women can teach as long as they do not teach men or have authority over them. Then God gives his reasons why this is so:

13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (NASB)

Dr. Cargill conveniently leaves that reason out of his point.

#9. here are other bits of literature that we can read from the Bible that pertain to issues in the United States. For instance, Iowa high school teachers can show their students the proper way to commit genocide, as strictly prescribed by God himself in 1 Sam. 15:2-3:

Again, Dr. Cargill distorts and misrepresents what God said in that passage of scripture. Divine judgment is not the same as genocide. The former is for sins committed and left unrepented. The latter is done out of hatred for a variety of reasons and none of those reasons seek to punish unrepentant sin.

This text is often overlooked as an “American value”, because like slavery, it is a period in our nation’s history that we’d like to forget. But in the Midwest, and to our Native-American brothers and sisters, the biblical verses depicting God instructing his faithful exactly how to obliterate those peoples who fight against them and do not worship as they do as they attempt to conquer and settle the new land they believe to be given to them by God is as relevant today as it was two centuries ago.

Dr. Cargill continues to distort the biblilcal passage. The Bible may be used to justify a person’s sinful actions but the Bible does not tell people to commit sin. It does not give permission for people to commit sin. There was NO biblical command given by God to commit genocide against the American Indian. It was hatred, lust, greed and other deadly sins that motiviated that action.

Blaming the Bible for the decisions of sinful man is wrong. This is why you need the Spirit of Truth to guide you. Teaching others means you need to have the truth not interpretation. Interpretation is subjective and influenced by a multitude of mitigating factors. The truth exposes sin and faulty application of the Bible. There is a reason why God put a warning in James 3 for teachers. They need to consider that warning prior to committing themselves to being teachers. Dr. Cargill does not do that.

#10. Let me put it another way: BY SIMPLY READING BIBLE VERSES IN A PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL CLASSROOM AS PART OF A “BIBLE LITERACY” COURSE, TEACHERS ARE ENGAGING IN THEOLOGY! This is because the verses they choose to read in class are chosen in an effort to paint the Bible in a particular light.

Here is his point. Because the law does not do what he wants, Dr Cargill opposes it. You cannot make laws to please everyone, someone is going to oppose every law made. This is a well-known attitude of Dr. Cargill as he is on the front lines to force academic freedom on Christian academic institutions. Dr. Cargill does not believe God nor the Bible so he becomes an unwitting tool of evil to help destroy the Church and God’s creation. He does this by distorting the Bible, teaching it erroneously and trying to stamp out the truth from being heard.

This is why atheists cannot teach the Bible regardless of how much training they have and how many ancient languages they learn. They cannot represent the Bible correctly and are supported by evil who deceives them, blinds them to the truth and uses their emotions etc., to get them to a faulty conclusion. Christians need to do their children a favor and prepare them first before they go off to study at secular and some Christian academic institutions.

Walking not in the counsel of the ungodly applies to non-Chrisian professors as well.


Rachel Held Evans & Patriarchy

Over the years we have analyzed many of Ms. Evans’ posts. Jim West likes to bash her because she only has a journalism degree and not a theological one. We analyze her words simply because she is wrong. While one does not need theological degrees to understand the Bible, they should be following the Holy Spirit to the truth. But most of the time, they ignore that instruction and use their own understanding, their own preferences, their own desires when attacking Biblical teaching.

This is the case with Ms. Evans. For some reason her year’s experiment in being a biblical woman has led her to believe that she can pontificate on any topic concerning the church. That is the understanding we get when we read her words on patriarchy. Those words are actually addressing John Piper’s but we are merely looking at her response not his interview. You can read his interview at the following link:

We have our own issues with some of Mr.Piper’s words but those will have to come at another time.

Her words in full at the next link:

#1. In this interview, Piper’s response to the sexual harassment and abuse highlighted by the #MeToo movement is to call for a return to patriarchy, wherein men rule over and “protect” women who in turn “submit” to men. This is a dangerously misguided response for a few reasons.

So we see that Ms. Evan’s has her hackles raised because she does not like to be considered one of those women who needs protection by a man. She should be careful as if we appeal to Jesus, we would note that he did not alter patriarchy. Plus, while on the cross, he committed his mother to the care of one of his disciples. So what is really dangerous is this attack on patriarchy itself by Ms. Evans.

It is often misunderstood by both men and women and it is the result of this misunderstanding that causes many women like Ms. Evans to over-react.

#2.The #MeToo movement does not reflect some sudden increase in the abuse of women; rather, it reflects a growing awareness of those abuses, and a mounting, collective fervor to confront them. It’s a movement led by and for women, women who aren’t asking for some sort of paternalistic “protection” because they are fragile females, but rather to be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve simply because they are human being

What we are going to address here is the topic of abuse of women. We have spoken much on this issue recently and probably have made the same point but the issue is not really about patriarchy. It is about sin. Patriarchy is merely the fall guy. Men sin so the system must be broken and needs to be changed. If we want to be blunt and bold, we would say ‘women think they can do a better job than men.’

In those words, the message given by Ms. Evans is that men need to treat women with dignity simply because they are women. Men do need to  treat women in a biblical way, that goes without saying but women also need to be dignified if they want to receive dignity. Christianity is not a one-way street. Women have to be biblical, this includes being submissive, if they want their men to be biblical. The sad news is, it is not always going to happen and women and men get abused.

Women should not hold their men to unrealistic expectations. Especially if the woman does not want to meet the teachings of Proverbs 31. The call for both men and women to be biblical and spiritual starts BEFORE they are married. This is a fact that is often overlooked by both genders. Living a holy life begins at an early age. Women need to be submissive to God’s teaching before they can become submissive to their husbands.

#3. That’s because contrary to Piper’s argument, patriarchy isn’t about protecting women; it’s about protecting men. It’s about preserving male rule over the home, church, and society, often at the expense of women.

When people like Ms. Evans start to attack God and biblical instruction, they tend to make a lot of wild excuses and claims. This is one example of those. Patriarchy is not about protecting men’s leadership roles. They are god-given and it is women who are trying to usurp authority from the man and take over those institutions. Patriarchy is about protecting women in one sense and it is about protecting them from sinning.

Another on e of its duties, as seen in 1 Cor. 7, is to make sure the woman is marrying the right man. Submitting to patriarchy can save a woman from her own misguided thinking and from abuse. Why women are upset about this extra layer of protection is a little mystifying. Given that women complain about how much men lie to them. God’s love for women established patriarchy to help protect women from those men and women who ignore biblical teaching. He didn’t do it to insult them or make them second class citizens.

Having the right perspective on God’s actions is helpful here. Patriarchy was never a license to men to do as they please to women. Women seem to forget that God placed instructions for the men in the Bible as well. He did not target women only.

#4. Ironically, in Genesis, the woman is literally the “strong protector” of the man!

There is always a problem when those who attack the Bible start turning their attention to the meaning of biblical words. They are not using the Spirit of Truth to get to the truth. Instead, they are using their own desires to guide them, plus they get a little help from the influence of evil. Not only do they find like-minded scholars to support their acceptance of certain definitions, they ignore context.

The context of the passage does not indicate that God made the woman to be man’s protector. These people also ignore other passages of scripture, like Paul’s, which state that women were made for the man and not man for the woman. They also ignore the passage that states that women are the weaker gender which shoots down the above revision of the definition of the word ezer.Then they ignore credible tradition and practice in order to get people to change their views on women’s roles.

The first word in the phrase, עזר (ezer, Strong’s #5828), is simple and means “helper.” The second word, כנגדו (kenegedo) is a little more complex. The base word is the word נגד (neged, Strong’s #5048), which will be discussed shortly, with the prefix כ (k) meaning “like,” and the suffix ו (o) meaning “of him” of “his.” {}

Which definition is right? From our brief use of scripture the facts point to the definition directly above. To use one of the favorite examples of the advocates for women as preachers, we point to Deborah. When the word of the Lord came to her about overthrowing the Israelite overlords God told her to get a man to do it. He di d not tell her to get a woman to lead the army of Israel. Then when the man would only go if Deborah came with him, it was at that reluctance that a woman was given the victory. The woman was not being a strong protector of the man.

#5. What makes the household codes of the New Testament different is not that they reinforce the patriarchal ordering of a household, but that they point to the humility of Jesus as the model for every relationship, inviting the first Christians

We appealed to Jesus first and now we get to rebut her appeal. Unfortunately for her, Jesus did not overthrow patriarchy, who is to lead the temple or the family. Nor did he change who is to lead civilization. Ms.  Evans ignores the scripture we alluded to earlier and goes on to quote Paul not Jesus when it comes to patriarchy and its legitimacy. Her appeal to Jesus fails because she does not show that Jesus altered patriarchy in any way, shape or form. her quote:

a strange mix of Jews and gentiles, masters and slaves, husbands and wives and widows and orphans—to look beyond cultural status to a better Kingdom in which “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28)

It is another favored verse used by those who hate patriarchy and who want to see women as ministers in the church. Their use of the passage is erroneous, misguided and very dangerous. This bad use of that passage helps destroy the church not protect it from evil. There is nothing in Paul’s words in that passage that over-rule God’s patriarchal design for the home or the church. There is nothing in that passage that says God’s rules for the family and the church do  not apply anymore. They do not even address the issue of patriarchy and leadership.

We see that Ms. Evans and people like her like to cherry pick passages and use the ones they think fit their agenda. But Jesus said Satan cannot overthrow Satan. so how can Ms. Evans think that Paul can overthrow Paul? What Ms. Evans also does not understand is that the situation described by Paul existed even when God gave his instructions on who is to lead the family and the church.

The other error in those quoted words is Ms. Evans states that we are to look beyond cultural status when addressing the biblical instruction.  Yet she is appealing to the exact same culture to make her point. She cannot have it both ways. Since the Bible was written in God’s culture, secular human culture does not apply and does not shed light on biblical instructions.

#6.In conclusion—

Banning women from the pulpit and silencing their voices in the church doesn’t protect women; it harms them.

Instructing women to submit to their husbands by “enduring abuse” doesn’t protect women; it harms them.

Handling abuse and assault allegations “in house” by reporting them to the male elders of a church instead of to the police doesn’t protect women; it harms them.

Misusing Scripture to reinforce gender stereotypes based more on white, American, post-World War II cultural ideals than biblical truth doesn’t protect women; it harms them.

Calling for a return to patriarchy doesn’t protect women; it harms them.

Letting women disobey God and sin is far more harmful to women than any of those charges bring. The church and its elders must follow God first, not Ms. Evans. But notice, she puts being banned from the pulpit first giving it more importance than the issue of abuse. At least we could make that point if we wanted to.

The people misusing scripture is actually her and people like her. They are using it to get their own personal desires into the church and remove God’s instruction. That is more harmful to both men and women, not to mention children.

#7. Patriarchy is not counter-cultural. It has for centuries been the norm. What’s truly counter-cultural is imitating Jesus, who, “being in very nature God,” surrendered his power and privilege to become a human—one birthed, nursed, protected, befriended, and BELIEVED by women.

When did being counter-cultural become criteria for being biblical? Does not MS. Evans understand that most cultures use the biblical model when they use patriarchy? Does she not know God’s influence on culture came first then evil started to lead it away from the truth? Just because secular cultures practice patriarchy does not mean that patriarchy is sin and wrong. It means that it has been co-opted by unbelievers, under the influence of evil, and distorted to make the system look bad.

How can she realize this? She does not listen to God and is under evil’s influence. Patriarchy is not the problem, it is God ordained. The problem comes in when men and women love darkness rather than light. They sin, which corrupts patriarchy. Just like the sin corrupted this world, patriarchy is not immune to its effects. When you attack patriarchy you are attacking God’s order of things and God himself.



Peter Enns & Creation

We do run out of topics to write about. News stories are not varied enough to continually use as sources for biblical points. In our early blogging days we used to go to supposed Bible scholars as our source. But if you have read those people, you would see that writing about their points is difficult. That is because they go on and on and on and on and on… you get the point. James Tabor is notorious with that skill.

But in spite of that we have decided to use Bible scholars as sources again. We will just be more selective in the articles we address.Our problem is that there are an overwhelming amount of material we can choose from. To get away from the abuse issue for a bit, we decided to address Peter Enns and his view on creation:

11 Recurring Mistakes Evangelicals Make in the Evolution Debate

You can read about it at the following link:

If we can we will only take about 1 point from each of those 11. The topic of evolution is another subect that will not go away. The reasons for that are for another post.

#1. It’s all about the authority of the Bible

The Bible is not just “there.” It has to be interpreted.

He is wrong. Why? because there is no biblical instruction or command to interpret the Bible. That idea is sinful and leads people away from the truth. There is not one verse in the Bible where God tells Moses or any of his biblical authors his words, then turns around and says, now have my people interpret what I said. The list of reasons for why that point is wrong is long and detailed. Suffice it to say that if God’s word is to be interpreted, then how could God judge disobedient people?

We see example after example of people, start with Eve, who ‘interpreted’ God’s instructions, did sinful acts and then got punished for them. If God’s words were meant to be interpreted they could not be punished. Also, there is also no command or instruction given by either God or Jesus to use the secular world and secular science as a light on God’s word. The reverse is true but the church cannot be the light unto a dark world if it let’s darkness influence its vision.

No legal system could function if interpretation was to be the guiding teaching.

#2. You’re giving science more authority than the Bible.-

To say that science gives us a more accurate understanding of human origins than the Bible is not putting science “over” the Bible—unless we assume that the Bible is prepared to give us scientific information.

Again Mr. Enns demonstrates his error filled thinking.  He also demonstrates his lack in understanding God and the Bible. Science cannot give us a more accurate understanding of human origins because human origins was not done in a scientific way. It was done in a way that God demonstrated his power over everything in this world. His creative act gives us confidence that God is stronger than anything life throws our way, even when unbelieving Bible scholars try to usurp the biblical record.

The Bible doesn’t have to give us scientific information about human origins. It only has to record the truth and what God actually did. It has to give us biblical facts and the truth.  Science had nothing to do with creation. Creation was a one-time supernatural act done by a supernatural God who has more power than any human can image. The Bible tells us the truth about God and our origins.

#3. But the church has never questioned the historicity of Adam-

Knowing what the history of the church has thought about Adam is not an argument for Adam’s historicity, as some seem to think/, since the history of the church did not have evolution or any scientific discoveries to deal with until recently.

We put a / in that quote to divide what we are talking about. Before that line Mr. Enns errs. It is an argument for Adam’s historicity. If Adam was not historical, the biblical authors would have corrected the error and if they didn’t, Jesus would have during his time here on earth. Since neither have done so and there are no credible manuscripts recording that they did, the fact that the church throughout history has accepted Adam’s historicity is an argument for it and that tradition has been substantiated by the evidence.

People like Marcion and Thomas Jefferson have tried to cut Adam out of the Bible, you know where their thoughts lie in history and in the church.

After the /, Mr. Enns demonstrates his lack of knowledge of history. It is well recorded that the first recorded discovery we have of evolution being discussed was found in the 6th century BC in China. The book After the Flood by Bill Cooper has that remark recorded. Then Solomon’s words that there is nothing new under the sun does not exclude evolution.

The idea that something came from nothing has been around for a very long time. A lot longer than Mr. Enns envisions. Mr. Enns also forgets that supposed scientific discoveries were made by unbelievers. These are people who do not have the spirit of truth guiding them to the truth. Their supposed discoveries come with the help of evil, who deceives and lies to people. Those supposed scientific discoveries should not be accepted by the believing world.

#4. Both Paul and the writer of Genesis thought Adam was a real person, the first man. Denying the historicity of Adam means you think you know better than the biblical writers-

All biblical writers were limited by their culture and time in how they viewed the physical world around them.

This is a lie. One that Mr. Enns has repeated on a number of occasions. So have other supposed bible scholars, scientists and evolutionists. Like Hitler said, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it as true… (paraphrased a bit).  That is what Mr. Enns and others are doing. They lie about the biblical writers, deny their supernatural help and make claims about them that they cannot verify. Peter told us that early biblical prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit when they wrote so why would God leave that out of the equation when his authors wrote his words?

Where does Mr. Enns get this tidbit about biblical authors? It certain wasn’t from the Bible nor was it from Jesus. In fact, in John 5 Jesus validates Moses’ words when he said, how can you believe my words when you do not believe Moses’ words? So if it isn’t from the Bible and it isn’t from Jesus or his disciples, where is the origin of this so-called fact about biblical authors?

It comes from evil. Why? So that people’s faith can be destroyed. The biblical authors had divine help and knowledge and what they recorded was the truth. Secular science does not even attempt to find the truth so their ideas need to be ignored.

#5. Genesis as whole, including the Adam story, is a historical narrative and therefore demands to be taken as an historical account-

It is a common, but nevertheless erroneous, assumption that Genesis, as a “historical narrative,” narrates history

We forget the name of the archaeologist or historian who once said- if the OT is not true, then Israel becomes the only nation incapable of writing its own history. The idea that the people of Israel cannot write their own history and need the help from outsiders is preposterous. It is ridiculous as well. How can people working with limited amounts of sources, evidence, and 2 to 5,000 years away from the events be more correct than the people who lived the history?

No it is erroneous to think that Genesis is not history. One glaring fact that undermines Mr. Enns’ point is, where is the true history of Israel if the OT is not true? We do not get any credible, or divinely inspired alternative history from anyone including believing archaeologists, bible scholars and historians. There is none. Genesis is actual history

#6. Evolution is a different “religion” (i.e., “naturalism” or “Darwinism”) and therefore hostile to Christianity.

Christian evolutionists do not see their work in evolutionary science as spiritual adultery.

Of course they don’t. They are deceived people who have ceased or failed to believe God. 1 Cor. 13 tells us that love believes all things. You can’t claim to love God when you do not believe him when you disagree with parts of the Bible.

We also disagree with calling evolution a religion. It is merely false teaching, a lie, heretical and those who opt for it over God’s words in Genesis are sinning.

#7. Since Adam is necessary for the Christian faith, we know evolution can’t be true-

Evolution causes theological problems for Christianity.

No it doesn’t. For years we have asked the question, Where in the Bible do both God and Jesus teach that we are to take science over their words?’  So far we have not received one answer. That is because they don’t. Both God and Jesus tell us to believe them and believing Genesis, the creation account as stated in that book and other biblical books is part of believing and loving them.

When you start believing evolutionists, Christian theistic evolutionists, Progressive Creationists and others who tell a variation of the creation story, you have stopped believing God on that issue.

#8. Science is changing, therefore it’s all up for grabs-

Science is a self-critical entity, and so it should not surprise us to see developments, even paradigm shifts, in the near and distant future.

The Bible does not teach that the truth changes. Being self-critical does not mean that science has a hold on the truth or that it is even bringing the truth to the people. In fact, science and its supporter publicly state that science is not about answers or the truth. It is about the best explanation. But neither God nor Jesus said to go for the best explanation. Again, John 5 tells us that we are to follow the spirit of truth to the truth.

Science does not hold the truth and refuses to accept it.

#9. There are scientists who question evolution, and this establishes the credibility of the biblical view of human origins-

However, the presence of minority voices in and of itself does not constitute a counterargument to evolution.

Yes it does. The majority is not always right. Remember the Bible tells us that people are like sheep. This means that we cannot trust the majority view to be the truth because many people will follow lies. This is underscored by the verse, men love darkness rather than light and other similar verses which tell us the evil men will get worse and so on.

You should have noticed by now that Mr. Enns does not use one scriptural passage to support his views. That failure is important and lets believers know that the arguments against the Bible are not true, from evil and have nothing to do with God. Neither does the teacher, speaker or the writer. Mr. Enns may claim to be a Christian, love the Bible, Jesus and so on but his words demonstrate otherwise.

#10.Evidence for and against evolution is open to all and can be assessed by anyone-

Since evolutionary theory is the product of scientific investigation, it follows that those best suited to evaluate the scientific data and arguments are those trained in the relevant sciences—or better those who are practicing scientists and therefore are keeping up with developments.

Again the answer to this is a solid ‘no’. It ignores the fact that there are false teachers in the world and the fact that science, any variety of it, is permeated with false teachers. The best people to assess scientific thinking is not fellow scientists but those who know the truth and can spot false teaching.  Being scientific is not criteria for knowing the truth. This applies to any field of study.

#11. Believing in evolution means giving up your evangelical identity-

Many arguments I have heard against evolution come down to this: my evangelical ecclesiastical group has never accepted it, and so, to remain in this group, I am bound to reject it too.

Since we do not care about ‘evangelical identity’ we are sure you would not be giving that up if you decide to believe the evolutionary false teaching. YOUR CHRISTIAN identity is another matter. The word Christian is defined as Çhrist-like’. Jesus never claimed that Moses and the first 2 chapters of Genesis were wrong. To be Christ-like, then means you follow suit and reject false teaching and accept the book of Genesis like Jesus did.

As we stated earlier, to love God means you believe all  things. Those ‘all things’ include the first 2 chapters of  Genesis, the flood account and more.

False teaching comes in many varieties. They are not found just in secular academic institutions. They can be the nicest of people, claim to be Christian, go to church and Sunday School. The Christian has to be discerning, not desperate. The Christian has to go for the truth and let the spirit of truth guide them to it. The spirit of truth will not lead anyone to disagree with God’s word.


Our Comments on a Few Topics 3

#1. Ham & Rainbow-

“Such a reading distorts the message of Genesis. To straddle the story with alleged scientific statements is a modern error, not an ancient one,” he added.

The pastor then goes on to explain how the Bible shows that God did not set His rainbow in the clouds for the very first time in history in Genesis 9….

“Didn’t God specially create the never-before-seen rainbow as a sign of His promise? Not necessarily,” Mitchell wrote at the time.

“In Genesis 9:13, God said, ‘I do set my bow in the cloud,’ and the fact that God does not imply that He had never set a rainbow in the clouds before but only that, from now on, the rainbow — appearing as it so often does as rain is ending — would henceforth have a special significance as a token (reminder 1) of God’s promise to never again send a worldwide Flood.”

When science rears its head about topics from the past, it is best not to act authoritatively. Why? because no variation of science can verify or prove their point. We can agree that the passage in scripture talking about the fact that rain had not fallen yet, does not mean it did not rain until the flood. But we cannot agree that the rainbow appeared prior to the flood.

We cannot agree because no one knows. Anyone who did know died a long time ago. Then science cannot go  by modern atmospheric conditions. Why? because once God made a change and instituted the rainbow, atmospheric conditions changed. Once atmospheric conditions changed it is impossible to track previous conditions. Especially when all the weather records were destroyed.

Science is wrong about the supposed historic ice ages. The scientists falsely leaps to a conclusion about the origin of the glaciers and the ice sheets. as they cannot prove their assumptions or verify their supposed sources for those objects. The same goes for the rainbow. It is foolhardy to think that people saw a rainbow prior to the flood. No one can verify that observation.

As the quoted words state that God does not imply that he never created the rainbow prior to the flood, God also does not imply that he did. We tend to side with the idea that God created the rainbow as a specific sign of his promise after the flood. There is no reason for it to exist prior to that event.

#2. Kim & Korea

First, it’s amazing to see much of the liberal coverage of the summit. It’s as if there’s an unwritten principle that says, “Whatever Trump does, he’s wrong and he gets no credit.”

As of this writing, headlines on the Huffington Post and CNN read: “South Korea Blindsided By Trump War Games Agreement” and “Trump’s new world order. From ripping up agreements with allies to his talks with North Korea, here are ways Trump is unsettling his predecessors’ work.”

Even though we have lived in the country for 14 years, we do not presume to be experts on either Korea. Our job was to teach English and focus on our students. It was also a violation of our E2 visa to be involved in Korean politics. We have been asked, though, in this country about our views on what is happening on that peninsula.

Basically, what we say is that we cannot trust Kim Jong-Un. He is a leopard who has not had Jesus change his spots and any attempts by him to appear differently from what he has shown to be in the past may be a disguised effort to take over the South. This is a man who has had his own uncle and half-brother killed, possibly his aunt as well. We have read that she has not made a pubic appearance nor has been seen since her husband’s death. She was Kim’s grandfather’s sister.

This is also a man who has had top officials killed for merely falling asleep at his speech. We are theorizing that Kim is using another earlier example of how to take power to further his personal agenda. Hitler found out that force does not necessarily gain power. His beer hall putsch failed miserably. So Hitler turned to democratic means to gain ultimate power over Germany.

It is not an example lost on many dictators, as they control their supposed democratic votes very ruthlessly. It is an example that seems lost on many western countries as London allowed a Muslim to be elected Mayor of that city. And as they do not control who runs for office very well. The New York and California governors have shown their rebellious nature by usurping the law of the land many times.

All we can say about Kim and his supposed kind efforts is be careful. Even a decapitated snake’s head can still bite and almost kill. The best thing we can say to do is pray. God allows governments to reign even when we do not understand why. But we can pray and protect the people of South Korea and hope God will free the prisoners in the North’s gulags.

#3. Beeching and her complaint

Christian Lesbian rock star Vicky Beeching has said ahead of the publication of her memoir that she has been wanting to join the priesthood of the Church of England, despite once being sexually assaulted by a male priest…

Often, male leadership is seen as unquestionable in churches, so women can feel unable to speak up for fear of not being believed. I kept silent about my experience, which happened at the age of 18, for that very reason,” she added.

This is an excuse that we have grown tired of hearing. We know one thing, we do not believe these accusations when they are made decades later and in the wake of popular metoo, etc movements. It is easy to gang up on someone and kick them when they are down. It is easy to make excuses for why someone stayed silent for too many years. BUT it is a different matter to make the accusations when the evidence could be gathered and a real crime could be determined.

It is not easy to stand alone and ask for justice. The excuse doesn’t fly because the police and other law enforcements’ policies have not changed. All any women had to do when the alleged crime took place was present real and credible evidence and they would have to investigate. Saying one would not be believed is an excuse to remain quiet and let the supposed offender continue offending.

Even male church evidence would respond correctly if the woman provided real and credibile evidence an assault took place. Male leadership are bound by God’s instructions and one woman’s complaint is not enough to establish that a crime took place. Do not blame male leadership for failing women when they must obey God in matters of justice.

We saw the recent article where the Southern Baptist Semiary’s Interim president declared no tolerance towards abuse. We do not support him because he is not calling people to obey God. He is trying to appease a group of people who do not care about God’s justice or his instructions. We cannot support his statements or him.

We do not like the fact that women get abused BUT the abuse they suffer is not reason enough to disobey God.

#4. God said-

Pastor J.D. Greear, the Southern Baptist Convention’s newly elected president, says God placed six priorities on his heart that he’ll focus on over the next two years as leader of the largest Protestant denomination in the United States.

Many people in church leadership and in the exercise of their spiritual gifts say these exact same words or similar words. It is a good way to cut down on resistance and opposition to one’s plans. We are not saying that God did not say those things to him but in our reading of Deut and other passages of scripture, we wonder why God did not place correct education on his heart?

We are not talking about the secular public school education but the sloppy spiritual education that takes place in most churches. Some of it is disguised as Sunday School classes, others are found in youth ministries, adult ministries and so on. If you read Deut. 4, 1 Cor 12 and James 3 you find that God puts a very high emphasise and importance on educating his people correctly, about his laws and commandments and so on

Do you realize that God puts a specific warning on the office of teachers to make sure his people who fills those roles understand what is being asked of them? This is just part of what God taught us when we asked him to help us be good teachers.He showed us how important teaching was to him and that even as English teachers we needed to tell the truth, teach well, know what we are talkng about and we had to learn many lessons to get to that point where we were actually a good teacher.

We have no problem with his first point,

we come together united by a common Gospel confession and also by a common Gospel mission, “Greear explained.

there is only one gospel, one truth and we should be united under those two points. We do have a problem with his second point,

he elevation of cultural diversity in leadership.

This may lead to electing many people whom God may not want as leaders of his church. Not that we are against people of color assuming leadership positions. But the fact that the color of their skin should play no role in their election. It should only be their spiritual qualities and God’s selection that elevates them to leading the church.

The discipes did not use personal to cultural criteria to fill their ranks. They left such appontments to God alone. We are not better than the disciples.

#5. We like the article

As a Christian man, I want to expose the world’s notion of manhood for the lie it is. I also want to encourage brothers in Christ everywhere to live out authentic manhood in the end times.2 Timothy 3:1-5

But as usual we do not feel the author goes far enough or into the detail we would like to see in these types of articles. We like the passages of scripture he  quoted but again, he should have extended the quote in 2 Timothy to verse 9

For among them are those who [c]enter into households and captivate [d]weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, always learning and never able to come to the [e]knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith. But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as [f]Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was also.

These verses are as important as the first 5. They send a sobering message to men and demonstrates to them what happens when they do not act according to God’s teaching.

Then we want to point out a very unique passage in Proverbs 31. This is usually known as a chapter for women but men there is a message for you as well:

23 Her husband is known in the gates,
When he sits among the elders of the land.

Don’t expect your wives to do the other portions of this chapter if your life is not as excellent as the ones married to such a woman. being known in the gates and being able to sit with the elders in those times does not mean you are as corrupt or corrupting as many men are today. You had character, honesty, integrity, you led your family well, taught your children right and so on.

These are the times when we need those men who are described in that chapter. We have enough evildoers in the world today. We certainly do not need to add to their number. It is not unmanly to get help for sinful problems that hinder you from achieving to be the type of  man God wants you to be. It is manly to say you do need real help. It is not a fad or participation sport. Don’t do this just because another man does it. Do it honestly because you really want to be a real spiritual man.

Do it because you truly love Jesus and want to  change.


An Issue That Won’t Go Away 5

There are a series of articles relating to this topic and we wil provide a few comments to as many as we can


The MeToo movement is a “wake-up call” for Southern Baptist pastors, said James Merritt, lead pastor of Cross Pointe Church in Duluth, Georgia, ahead of the denomination’s annual meeting on Tuesday.

“The safest place an abused woman should feel she can go is her church. And the safest person she should feel like she should be able to go to is her pastor,” said Merritt during a panel discussion hosted by the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, titled “Conversation on Gospel Sexuality in a #MeToo Culture.”

This is ony partially true. The pastor also has to be the safest place  for the abuser to go to as well. The pastor and the church cannot take human sides. If they do, then the story, emotion, and the facts are influenced and sway the church to act outside of the biblical call to do justice. The church must stand with God and take his side.

When the church starts playing favorites or lets its sympathy or hatred get in the way, then God’s ways are lost and humans suffer because of it. God does not get the glory for solving the issue. Justice does not favor one side over the other. Women are not always sinless when they are subject to abuse.


Notable women in Christian leadership positions, such as Beth Moore and Kay Warren, have joined the chorus of thousands of people revealing their stories of sexual assault and harassment under the #MeToo hashtag.

The online movement has been flooded with accounts of abusive pastors and church members.

But are they actual acts of abuse or sexual mistreatment accordng to God’s definition or theirs? Secular culture is not the determining force in what is or isn’t abuse. The church also acts under God’s rules not the secular world’s (for the most part). But what they are all talking about is sin. Sin comes in a variety of forms and from both sides of any issue.

Lying about being abused is as much a sin as actual abuse is. We know how to handle sin and we know what needs to be done. When we start being line item specific sometimes we forget that sin is sin and there is only one answer to solving it. Abuse and other sins all come from our human frailty, the sin nature. If we take bibliclal teaching seriously, we can reduce the amount of sin conducted in the church, including abuse.

BUT it must really be sin and not someone’s idea it is sin. The accusation has to be honest, have more than one witness, have real evidence and not someone’s word only and so on.

#WeToo have a voice. For all the times we were bullied into silence, we get to speak up and call wrong WRONG. #WeToo for fewer future,” she wrote.

#metoo, #churchtoo and now #wetoo are not biblical strategies to solve any sin problem. Sadly, they incur more sin by their acts of injustice, lack of mercy, discrimination against men and bully people in order to ruin the lives of supposed offenders. Ms.Moore is not doing any one any good by advocating sinful methods to solve this issue.


Southern Baptist Convention President Steve Gaines implored those gathered for the annual meeting of the United States’ largest Protestant denomination to “believe in a supernatural God.”

That is the question that many involved in this issue need to ask themselves. From Beth Moore and Kay Warren on down to the lowliest woman involved. If you do, then you need to humble yourselves and correctly follow his instructions. You cannot follow secular culture or the ungodly and their definitions of what abuse are. You say you believe in and follow Jesus, then you must do it even in this abuse issue. The bible tells us in Proverbs 3 not to follow our own thinking but to trust God and that verse applies to this issue.

We do not penalize men for doing  nothing wrong nor do we punish innocent men and treat them in ungodly ways just to look like we are doing osmething or to gain favor with a specific group of people. Those groups of people do not offer salvation or eternal life to anyone, they are not the ones to be obey or pleased.


Notable evangelical Bible teacher Beth Moore has stated that when a woman goes through the process of reporting abuse within a church, she should have a “female advocate” with her during the whole process.

The founder of Living Proof Ministries was part of a Monday panel on issues with the church and sexual misconduct, which was hosted by the SBC this Week podcast by Amy Whitfield and Jonathan Howe.

Moore said that “in every case of abuse or assault there has been the misuse of power,” and warned that the victim is “already intimidated by feeling overpowered” and warned that “if there are not many female voices,” that “exaggerates the feeling that she’s got that she’s not going to be heard.”

She must be god to know what happens in every case of reported abuse in the church. We are being a little bit mean here because Ms. Moore thinks a woman is qualified to be an advocate just by being female. She seems to ignore that the Church belongs to God and he has the say as to what takes place inside the church. Her words are also a backhanded insult to the integrity, honesty and character of Christian men.

Having spiritualy qualified women’s voices is important but Ms. Moore seems to leave that part out. We have concluded that she wants to make her personal mark on the church instead of being an instrument of God tso he can implant his ways on his people.

When a church staff, whoever it may be, begins to work with the victim, also there must at all times be a female advocate in every single one of those meetings. Without exception. Whether that seems fair or not,” stated Moore.

The bold words prove our point. Fairness is part of what God is all about. So is justice, mercy, compassion and more. The soul of the offender is as important to God as the soul of the offended. When God said he desired that all men be saved, he did not leave out abusers. We have to be fair, just, honest and so on without those aspects the truth remains hidden.wWithout the truth, we cannot take the right measures to prevent and discipline the sinner. It isn’t about protecting women only, it is about obeying God when these issues arise. We have no permission to disobey God simply because a woman brings an accusation against another person.

There is more to that article but we will leave it for another day. Suffice it to say that we follow God  first, not women and not law enforcement.


Thomas Hatley, a former chairman of the Southern Baptist Convention’s International Mission Board, has called for the resignation of Kevin Ueckert, chairman of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary’s board of trustees, as well as the executive board members for firing the seminary’s former president Paige Patterson.

Hatley, who served as IMB chairman for eight years and has been a pastor in the SBC for more than 40 years, also called for the reinstatement of Patterson as president of the Texas seminary and an independent investigation of the claims that led to his firing.

“I recommend that the SWBTS board chairman and executive committee resign as board members for the following reasons,” Hatley wrote in an open letter to Southern Baptists after noting that conflicts should be handled biblically with both love and grace.

We agree. These movements are not just, they are more for appeasement and to let sin dictate the actions of the church. Most of the time, if not all, these movements, including church variations, do not have God in them or directing them. They are more about revenge, hurting the supposed offender and a power grab.

In this case, the women trying to grab the power are acting more sinful than the men they accuse. This alone undermines their credibility, their honesty and their claims. We are not going to say more, compare the actions of those opposing Dr. Patterson, abusers, pastors, denominations and church leaders with biblical instruction and you will see it for yourselves.

You cannot conquer sin by being sinful.

{PS we know there are mistakes in the above article but our time ran out and we need to go}


Who is In Charge of Right & Wrong?

This is the question every Christian must ask themselves and then properly answer. We are not going to spend a lot of time on this post because we have a busy schedule this morning. BUT this is a very important question in light of an event that took place several days ago.

The CEO of Twitter says he was wrong to enjoy a Chick-fil-A meal, telling commenters on social media that he had forgotten about “their background,” referring to the Christian beliefs of the company’s owners.

This quote is what God used to bring that question to mind and to ask our readers along with the people they share our material with. For some people it seems that the masses who flock to Twitter are the ones in charge of what determines right and wrong behavior. It seems that those faceless people are the ones who  make the determination as to what the standard of right and wrong looks like and its content. {You can substitute the standards good and evil & morality and immorality for right and wrong as well}.

Many people and churches do use social media as their moral conscience, especially when they are more famous than other members of society. The problem is that the world, in general, are more like the city of Nineveh in the days of Jonah. They do not know their right hands from their left. They do what the book of Judges says and act accordingly to what is right in their own eyes. They use no other standard to guide theiir thoughts or actions.

This is the problem for the church. The church must decide who is in control of the standard of right and wrong. If they choose the option of LGBTQ community, then they are opening themselves up to a very deceived group of people who are both selfish and spoiled:

Erica Baker, senior engineering manager at Patreon, was perturbed at Dorsey, telling him to either delete his Chick-fil-A tweet “or follow up with how much free advertising you’re going to give to [gay rights group] GLAAD.”

If the church declares the government, then they are opening themselves up to very corrupt people who let money, power and control influence their decisions. Then if the church says it is, they are again opting for a very subjective standard that would be flexible and fluid. That standard would depend on the ideology of the church and which church had the most power.

But if the church declares that God is in charge of the standard of right and wrong, then they need to stop what they are doing and act accordingly.

By now you may have guessed what our position is. God is in charge of the standard of right and wrong and people who claim to follow him need to straighten out their act and get right with what God wants his followers to do.

A church cannot save the world and make an impact for the God they claim to love if they do not first accept his leadership, second follow his leadership, third, proclaim his ways to the unsaved people and fourth, do not alter his standards of right and wrong, etc.  How can a church save people to their God when they do not follow him and his ways themselves?

The secular world cannot be in charge of the standard of right and wrong because they have no ultimate, objective standard to use. Right and wrong is solely determined by their own subjective opinion and it varies among tribes, cultures, regions and nationalities. Only God can bring the right standard to the lives of people. He is the ony one who is holy, perfect and good. Every other source is tainted with evil and original sin, including those churches who stop following biblical instructions.

The church cannot be in charge of the standard for as we have seen over the centuries, too many individuals like to place their human mark on the church.  We could say more but we want our readers to think for themselves on the topic of this question. They need to decide their own answer as they are responsible for their own decisions. Just remember, the  standard of right and wrong applies to every aspect of life.

%d bloggers like this: