Court Upholds Expulsion of Counseling Student Who Opposes Homosexuality

Here goes another example of the inconsistency of secular institutions:

Court Upholds Expulsion of Counseling Student Who Opposes Homosexuality

So why not expel university counseling students who think that pedophilia and bestiality is immoral? After all, I had several conversations with college students at UNCG that openly admitted that such practices would be moral as long as society agrees to it and legalizes it.

Pre-Wired for Atheism or Theism?

Dr. Valerie Tarico, a contributor to The Christian Delusion explores what we have learned from neuroscience about the loss of faith:

The more we learn about the hardware and operating systems of the human brain--the more we understand about human information processing--the more we glean bits of insight into the religious mind. For example:

• We humans are not rational about anything, let alone religion.
• Certainty is a feeling, not proof of knowing. It can fail to materialize even when evidence is enormous, and can manifest itself independently of any real knowledge.
• The structure of thought itself predisposes us to religious thinking. Given how our minds work, certain kinds of religious beliefs are likely and others are impossible.
• The "born again" experience is a natural phenomenon. It is triggered by specific social and emotional factors, which can occur in both religious and secular settings (p. 48).

http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/2010/04/christian-delusion-chapter-two.html

I'll take a brief look at each of these bulleted points one-by-one.

We humans are not rational about anything, let alone religion.

Well now, if we can't be rational about anything, then we can't be rational about that proposition either; thus, a self-referentially incoherent statement. This is easily reversible to, "We humans are not rational about anything let alone atheism."

Nevertheless, if naturalism and evolution were true, and given the conjunction between them, Tarico's comment about rationality would seem to hold since our cognitive faculties would be unreliable. As physicalist philosopher of mind Patricia Churchland has said in her oft quoted paragraph:

Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in . . . feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle [sic] chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism’s way of life and enhances the organism’s chances for survival. Truth, whatever that is, takes the hindmost. [Patricia S. Churchland, “Epistemology in the Age of Neuroscience,” Journal of Philosophy 84 (October 1987): 548.]

This is exactly what Alvin Plantinga was getting at when he proffered his argument known as the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. In other words, if naturalism is true, then we can't trust the deliverance of our cognitive faculties. Given this hypothetical problem for the naturalist, not only can we not be rational about atheism, but we can't be rational about anything. This is because given the conjunction between evolutionary processes and naturalism, rationality is not what is important, behaviors that produce survival value is; and the behaviors that bring about survival value aren't necessarily concerned about truth and rationality.

Certainty is a feeling, not proof of knowing. It can fail to materialize even when evidence is enormous, and can manifest itself independently of any real knowledge.

Really? Has Tarico ever heard of apodictic certainty, a logical demonstration of certainty wherein the premises are framed in such a way that the conclusion must follow? It also seems that she is totally unfamiliar with concepts like warrant and defeaters. Nevertheless, if we can't be certain of anything because certainty is based upon feeling, then we can reject everything she says since we can't be certain of any of her statements. This is another self-referentially incoherent statement.

The structure of thought itself predisposes us to religious thinking. Given how our minds work, certain kinds of religious beliefs are likely and others are impossible.

Richard Dawkins agrees with this statement in The God Delusion on pp 180-181 by quoting others who say that we have "a natural predisposition to embrace religious ideas", that "[C]hildren are native teleologists", "native dualists", and "many never grow out of it"; thus suggesting that we are naturally theistic. Of course, Dawkins intimates that this occurred as a result of evolutionary development occurring in a part of the human brain that produced these false beliefs via natural selection because they promoted survival value. However, this is just another example of the atheologians trying to suppress the truth a la Romans 1:18 by denying the truth of Romans 1:19-21.

I wonder if Dr. Tarico also thinks, like Dawkins, that religious belief is a sort of "mind virus"? (The God Delusion, 188) If so, then she believes that humans are inherently religious because our brains evolved to be that way because such false beliefs produced accompanied behaviors that promoted survival value. But because such beliefs are useless in our modern enlightened society, the vestigial mental faculty that once promoted survival value has now been reduced to a "mind virus".

However, why the push to get rid of the religious "mind virus" via rational dialogue since given the naturalist assumptions it was selected for to promote survival value? I mean, how do we know that such things won't promote survival value in our modern society? For example, a religion that encouraged its adherents to have loads of children "works" pretty well to promote survival value if most of the non-religious in the population either doesn't choose to have children, decides to abort them, or doesn't meet the replacement rate. That would qualify pretty well as religious beliefs producing survival value in the modern world. Second, since our minds are naturally wired to believe such supposed nonsense via the very evolutionary processes that gave them to us, why chide theists for what she admits is natural?
Third, why write a book exposing the so-called irrationality of Christian theism since we can't be certain of anything? If we can't be certain of anything, and Dr. Tarico is part of the "we", then she can't be certain of anything either, so why should we listen to her?

The "born again" experience is a natural phenomenon. It is triggered by specific social and emotional factors, which can occur in both religious and secular settings (p. 48).

Dr. Tarico just told us that we can't be certain of anything, but she seems pretty certain of this naturalistic explanation of regeneration. She goes on to further explain per apostate Ken Pulliam,

Cognitive research does offer what is rapidly becoming a sufficient explanation for belief. More and more, we can explain Christian belief with the same set of principles that explains supernaturalism generally. This is a serious blow to orthodoxy--to a religion based on right belief. In the past, one of the arguments put forward by believers was that there simply was no explanation for the "born again" experience, the healing power of Christianity, the vast agreement among believers, or the joy and wonder of mysticism, save that these came from God Himself. We now know this not to be the case. Humans are capable of having transcendent, transformative experiences in the absence of any given dogma. We are capable of sustaining elaborate systems of false belief and transmitting them to our children. We are capable of feeling so certain about our false beliefs that we are willing to kill or die for them (pp. 62-63). [bold mine for emphasis - DSS]

Remember that Dr. Tarico has said,

• "We humans are not rational about anything, let alone religion."
• "Certainty is a feeling, not proof of knowing . . . ."

But she just said in regards to the validity of religious experiences, "We now know this not to be the case."

Dr. Tarico says she knows that these religious experiences are not what they claim to be. In other words, she claims to have psychological certainty of this. But she contradicted herself earlier since she says that certainty is only a subjective mental state, not proof that something is actually veridical. Hence, consider the following syllogisms,

P1 - Dr. Tarico knows that religious experiences have naturalistic explanations.
P2 - To know something is to have a high degree of psychological certainty about it.
P3 - Dr. Tarico is psychologically certain that religious experiences have naturalistic explanations.
P4 - Dr. Tarico equates certainty with feeling, not proof of knowing. C - Therefore, since Dr. Tarico equates certainty with feeling, not proof of knowing, then she can't know that religious experiences have only naturalistic explanations.

Or let's consider this syllogism in light of her statement that we aren't rational about anything:

P1 - Dr. Tarico says she knows via rational inquiry that religious experiences have naturalistic explanations.
P2 - Claiming to have knowledge about religious experiences is a religious proposition.
P3 - Dr. Tarico says that we can't be rational about anything, including religious propositions. C - Therefore, Dr. Tarico can't be rational about her religious propositions.

So please tell me again why I should believe in atheism?

Preaching Repentance at the Gates of Hell

The following open air preaching clip was video taped outside A Woman's Choice Abortion Clinic at 201 Pomona Drive in Greensboro, NC @ 8:30 a.m. on 7-24-10.



Interestingly, the following negative reports are consistent with the hateful behavior we have witnessed from the clinic workers we have preached to for years. The second one even reports that the woman had an incomplete abortion yet was blown off by the clinic workers.

A Woman's Choice Of N Carolina is...‎

By In Dismay A. - Sep 14, 2009

Terrible, terrible experience. Unprofessional, not confidential, women took personal phone calls THREE times in the middle of helping me. Left disgusted ...‎

www.insiderpages.com/b/3717205379

I had a really bad experience here

By kellymichellebay - Dec 18, 2008

I came with my boyfriend to this clinic to get a check-up after a procedure. The nurses were rude to me. They all told me how my boyfriend was "hot" and one of the bigger nurses even had the nerve to say, "that can't be your man". Then when i was leaving, they told me it was OK to have sex already after 3 weeks, even though i was having pain, because my boyfriend was so "hot". I have NEVER felt so disrespected. I would have NEVER expected that of an Abortion Clinic. I was so upset that i called to complain after i left. They said that i was lying, none of their nurses had said anything about me not being good enough for my boyfriend. The woman was talking saracastically to me on top of all that saying, "ok honey". Yeah, this actually happened. This is the most unprofessional place i have ever visited. I was very uncomfortable and left crying. I would NEVER recommend this place to any friend of mine. So please think twice before you choose ...‎ More »

I came with my boyfriend to this clinic to get a check-up after a procedure. The nurses were rude to me. They all told me how my boyfriend was "hot" and one of the bigger nurses even had the nerve to say, "that can't be your man". Then when i was leaving, they told me it was OK to have sex already after 3 weeks, even though i was having pain, because my boyfriend was so "hot". I have NEVER felt so disrespected. I would have NEVER expected that of an Abortion Clinic. I was so upset that i called to complain after i left. They said that i was lying, none of their nurses had said anything about me not being good enough for my boyfriend. The woman was talking saracastically to me on top of all that saying, "ok honey". Yeah, this actually happened. This is the most unprofessional place i have ever visited. I was very uncomfortable and left crying. I would NEVER recommend this place to any friend of mine. So please think twice before you choose this clinic. Sincerly, Kelly Not to mention, it turns out that the pain i was experiencing was due to a incomplete abortion. They told me the pain was from the birth control. I ended up in the emergency room passing huge blood clots. Dont make the same mistake i did. Dont go here. There are much better clinics. Trust me.

The above motivates me even more to see these people converted and see this place shut down.

Christ or a College Degree?

It is a sad day in the United States when a Christian is given the ultimatum to either ditch Christ or get kicked out of grad school. See the details of Jen Keeton's story below.

Augusta State Univ. to counseling student: change your beliefs or get out

Keeton, 24, is pursuing her master’s degree in counseling at Augusta State. After her professors learned of her biblical beliefs, specifically her views on homosexual conduct, from both classroom discussions and private conversations with other students, the school imposed the re-education plan. Keeton never denigrated anyone in communicating her beliefs but merely stated factually what they were in appropriate contexts.

The plan assails Keeton’s beliefs as inconsistent with the counseling profession and expresses suspicion over “Jen’s ability to be a multiculturally competent counselor, particularly with regard to working with gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (GLBTQ) populations.” The plan requires her to take steps to change her beliefs through additional assignments and additional “diversity sensitivity training.” It also orders her to “work to increase exposure and interactions with gay populations. One such activity could be attending the Gay Pride Parade in Augusta.”

So, my 64 million dollar question for the powers that be at Augusta State University is this: Why stop with GLBTQ sensitivity training for Jen Keeton? Why not PB training too? (P = Pedophilia; B = Bestiality).

After all, I'm sure NAMBLA and the human-animal porn industry could use some counseling services too!

HT: Alpha and Omega Ministries

The Infidel Delusion

The brothers over at Triablogue have produced a book titled The Infidel Delusion. For an overview go here. Infidel is a response to The Christian Delusion, an atheological treatise of which atheist Michael Martin says, “…this book completely destroys Christianity." One of the contributors, the well-known anti-resurrection guru Richard Carrier said, “I doubt I'll ever have to write another [refutation of the resurrection].” He goes on to say, “My debunking of [Christian claims on science] is so decisive in this chapter, you won't need to refer anyone anywhere else.” Well, such a display of hubris caused the T-blog boys to write a book refuting atheism's so-called best arguments. Enjoy!

Sharia Police & "Sharia Love?"

Update: The Dearborn, MI police department has returned the cameras and video footage they confiscated from the Acts 17 Apologetics ministry at the 2010 Arab Festival. As a result, the Acts 17 Apologetics Ministry has the footage they need to demonstrate that they were unlawfully arrested at the 2010 Arab Festival.



See below to learn why the Dearborn, MI police didn't want to return the video evidence:



Below is Josh McDowell's report about the "outreach" they engaged in at the same festival by handing out free novels. While I have no problem with handing out free fictional literature, what this has to do with preaching the gospel is beyond me, but I digress too early. McDowell titles this video "Sharia Love" and remarks that they had no problems and no arguments with anyone at the Arab Festival in Dearborn, MI. But my real rub with Mr. McDowell is his coining of the phrase "Sharia Love" and his so-called evangelistic strategy. Dr. James White sums up my sentiments on that quite well,

But here is my real concern. Two times now Josh McDowell has posted a video with the phrase "Sharia love" in it. There is no such thing as sharia love. Ask the persecuted believers languishing in Islamic prisons around the world. Ask those who live in fear of death every day in lands where sharia is practiced. Ask those are beaten for proclaiming the gospel in Muslim lands. Sharia and love do not go together. Sharia is law, sharia is obedience, sharia knows no grace. It is an insult to the persecuted church to pass out fictional literature at an Arabic festival in the United States of America and call it "sharia love." True love, God's love, speaks the truth with clarity. Nabeel Qureshi was showing love to those young Muslim teenagers. May I boldly suggest that to be "nice" to those young men, while allowing them to continue in their soul-destroying deception, is anything but loving? You may well say, "Oh, but we hope to get a chance to talk to them later, in a better context." Who are you to boast about tomorrow? And what is more, please, pray tell, give me some biblical precedent for this. Where did the Apostles engage in the proclamation of the gospel in such a fashion? It seems to me that many of those criticizing Nabeel and David would have criticized Paul for going to Mars Hill, or right into the synagogues (which got Paul arrested, and even beaten, in the most civilized culture of the day, I might add).

Muslims are lost and on their way to the Lake of Fire, lest they repent and embrace Christ as Creator (John 8:24). They don't need gushy, warm, sentimentality grounded in a "seeker-friendly" approach that avoids calling them to lay down their arms and submit to the true Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. There is no question that we must be friendly and respectful to them; but above all, they need to hear about the truth of the gospel and the person of Jesus Christ in no uncertain terms. This requires Biblical, bold, passionate, intelligent, and loving proclamation; proclamation that takes Muslim claims seriously and just as seriously responds to them with the crystal-clear truth about the Biblical Jesus so as to challenge their foundational beliefs about the Qu'ranic picture of Him. As Dr. White says, "There is everything good about pursuing relationships with Muslims. But do not confuse that process with evangelism and proclamation."



HT: Answering Muslims and Alpha and Omega Ministries

Sovereign Grace Baptist Association

We're attending the Sovereign Grace Baptist Association annual conference in Lima, Ohio this week. Several seminars on New Covenant Theology and the Doctrines of Grace are greatly beneficial for our pastoral leadership.

The testimony of the attendees from several church members demonstrate the maturity of the association's churches. In addition to wonderful support for their elders, these men and women demonstrate spiritual maturity.

Why mention this basic observation in the shadow of great doctrine? Simple: Sovereign Grace Association members feed their members and regular attendees well. They preach expository messages, shun topics that prevent a linear progression that forces the Christian to deal with the text and not whims, social concerns, political issues or personal whipping posts.

These folks are well grounded and kind.

The Ergun Caner Debacle and the Gullibility of Evangelicals

Phil Johnson over at Pyromaniacs has written a timely piece on the Ergun Caner scandal titled, "Evangelical Bunko Artists: How I learned the Hard Way that Pious Gullibility is No Virtue."

Given what has occurred with the ongoing saga surrounding Dr. Ergun Caner, former president of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, I, as an elder of a small church in Greensboro, NC am weary of hearing about the lies and deception that occur in broader Evangelicalism. For the uninitiated, I'll recap Dr. Ergun Caner's scandal in one sentence: it involves fabricating an entire portion of his life that never happened and repeating that lie over and over and over again behind dozens of pulpits and in other apologetic contexts in order to give chutzpah to his current apologetic "ministry". Scandals, cover-ups, and perpetual liars like this are one of the many reasons why I and other pastors like me have no desire to be associated with present-day broader evangelicalism. Reformed and Sovereign Grace Baptists might be a small group, but at least we strive to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth and if we do have a habitual, unrepentant liar in our midst, we follow Scripture in dealing with him or her. But of course, disciplining unrepentant, habitual liars doesn't do well in building huge congregations; which explains why our churches typically average less than 100 congregants (including children and visitors) on any given Sunday. When you follow Biblical protocols for handling unrepentant sin, it doesn't leave much room in the congregation for professing Christians living in habitual, unrepentant sin.

As Johnson points out in his article, evangelicalism and fundamentalism has a sordid history of "snake oil peddlers" including Linda Davidson Stafford, John Todd, Mike Warnke, Alberto Rivera, Bob Larson, and Ted Haggard and even though these folks have been publicly discredited as deceivers, people still follow them. But why do people continue to follow them? 2 Timothy 4:3-4 answers this question:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Timothy says that for whatever reason, some people want to turn aside to myth-makers because it fits with their own desires. Men that ought to know better will even go so far as to"exhonerate" liars and even post an endorsement sheet that further confirms the liar in his sin and undermines the credibility of the person(s) "exonerating" them. After all, if acclaimed apologists are willing to conveniently ignore critical information in order to protect a "brother's" reputation, yet they would be quick to condemn the same behavior in an opponent of Christianity and possibly even use it to further support their apologetic arguments against an unbeliever, why then should an unbeliever take seriously anything they have to say in defense of the faith?

I've seen this kind of thing many times while explaining the false prophecies of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to a Jehovah's Witness. Many of them have admitted when showing them photocopies of their own documents that they have studied the same documents in their Kingdom Hall libraries. They come up with every rescuing device in the world to explain how such blatant false prophecies don't undermine "the organization". It's a shame when evangelical apologists do the same thing. We ought to do more for the truth than what the cults are willing to do for a lie.

Sadly, the gullible and self-deceived follow liars that arise "from among our own selves" (Acts 20:30) because they want the myth-makers to tell them something exciting, sensational, and mysterious, especially if the deceiver can play a tune on their heart strings. Worse, they'd rather have an unrepentant sinner for a spiritual leader rather than a godly man because the sinner makes them feel justified in their own sin. After all, if Ted Haggard can have a homosexual affair and he's been "exhonerated" in some sense, then why can't I? I'm sad to say that Ergun Caner is simply another snake-oil myth maker and people are buying and promoting his "goods" in spite of the fact that he has been publicly discredited.

In spite of the documented fabrication about his past Jihadi training as a child in his own words, Ergun Caner, has been "exhonerated" by the likes of apologists Dr. Norman Geisler and Dr. John Ankerberg even though he was asked to step down from his position as Dean of Liberty Seminary. I'm not up for crucifying anyone, but given his blatant lies, it is my opinion that Dr. Caner should have been fired on the spot and his church should publicly call for his repentance per Matthew 18:15-17. All Drs. Geisler and Ankerberg are doing is further confirming and enabling Caner in his sin and discrediting their own work by supporting an unrepentant liar.

With its emphasis on decisional regeneration combined with a shopping mall/market-driven pragmatism of "doing church", modern evangelicalism has created this mess because it has filled the pews and pulpits with false converts. Yes, I just clearly suggested what other men have been cautious to say, Dr. Ergun Caner's lack of repentance is the mark of a false convert. If any reader of this blog wants to challenge me on that statement, then go ahead. However, if you want to contend that he's a Christian brother given his perpetual lying combined with his lack of repentance in light of his unwillingness to answer clear, unambiguous questions that have been asked of him, then I leave you to your opinion. It's not as if he hasn't been given space to repent after the issues have been clearly laid out before him. So go ahead; defend the defenseless. And yes, I do hope that I'm wrong about Caner's spiritual condition. Believe me, I do not enjoy writing about such things; but given the current state of this scandal, what am I left to think, especially light of what God says about men that continually behave this way? (1 John 3:8-10)

So, when you see the debacles, scandals, scams, and snake-oil peddlers; just remember that pseudo-Christian cults aren't the only unpaid bills of the church.

The ATP Synthase Enzyme - a Testimony to Design

True Professors Receive Jesus As . . . .

In early 2008, I wrote a post titled "False Professors Receive Jesus As . . . .", wherein I identified some of the major characteristics of those who are deceived and are deceiving others into thinking that they are born-again Christians. I noted that it was my humble opinion that many of the problems that plague our modern evangelical churches are simply due to the fact that they are absolutely full of false converts who want their felt-needs met.

On a positive note, it is my humble opinion that those who truly possess Christ only need to be lovingly and patiently pointed in the right direction with the word of God. They will, without fail, grow spiritually, even in spite of their struggles with the flesh because God causes them to persevere (Phil. 2:13). After spending a hefty amount of time dealing with people stuck in sin, I have noticed that there are always two fundamental things that are apparent in a person's life that helps me determine if that person is a regenerate believer:

1. Born-Again Christians are "repenting repenters" - Regenerated people notice a natural repulsion of their own sin the more they grow in Christ. They seek to find ways to kill their sin and are willing to subject themselves (sometimes reluctantly) to loving accountability.

2. Born-Again Christians are not idolaters.

Those who possess the new heart (Ezekiel 36:25-27) have lives that show it. While not sinless, their lives are continually patterned by the following characteristics as listed in the first Appendix of the MacArthur Study Bible:

• Love for God (Psalm 42:1; 73:25; Lk. 10:27; Rom. 8:7).
• Repentance from Sin (Ps. 32:5; Pr. 28:13; Rom. 7:14-25; 2 Cor. 7:10; 1 John 1:8-10).
• Genuine Humility (Psa. 51:17; Mt. 5:1-12; Jas 4:6-9, 9ff.).
• Devotion to God's Glory (Psa. 105:3; 115:1; Isa. 43:7; 48:10ff.; Jer. 9:23-24; 1 Cor. 10:31).
• Habitual Prayer (Lk. 18:1; Eph. 6:18ff.; Phil. 4:6ff.; 1 Tim. 2:1-4; Jas. 5:16-18).
• Selfless Love (1 John 2:9ff.; 3:14; 4:7ff.).
• Separation from the World (1 Cor. 2:12; Jas. 4:4ff.; 1 John 2:15-17; 5:5).
• Spiritual Growth (Lk. 8:15; Jn. 15:1-6; Eph. 4:12-16).
• Obedient Living (Mt. 7:21; Jn. 15:14ff.; Rom. 16:26; 1 Pet. 1:2, 22; 1 Jn. 2:3-5).
• Hunger for God's Word (1 Pet. 2:1-3).
• Transformation of Life (2 Cor. 5:17).

Life in Christ is life transforming. Such transformation is evident initially and is also ongoing throughout the life of the believer. This continual "renewing" occurs through exposure to the teaching and preaching of the Word of God as the believer is more and more enabled to die to sin and live to righteousness (Rom. 12:1-2). The things listed above will supernaturally happen to the believer as part of being given a new heart by the King of Kings. What's even better is this: God grants joy in the assurance of our salvation. This joy comes from meditating on the beauty and comfort that comes in knowing that God has elected, called, regenerated, and given to you, an undeserving wretch, the gifts of faith and repentance. This joy stimulates further obedience since satisfaction in doing God's will breeds a further desire to glorify Christ. The unbeliever simply cannot fathom any of this. This is all gobbledygook to their stopped up ears. But thanks be to God who gives us the victory through Jesus Christ our savior that we have had our eyes opened and our ears made attentive. Glory to the God of Christ for this!

Convenience Christianity

Note: The following blog article was written by Dr. Eric Svendsen on 10-25-2004. In light of the some of the comments brother Svendsen makes below, I question whether those who show a lack of commitment over the long haul are truly saved. How can they be? (Luke 9:62). It is true that we all stumble in many ways (James 3:2), but overall, the life of a believer, is one of keeping his or her eye fixed on the cross even in their darkest hour. This is because they know that they have nowhere else to go for eternal life (John 6:68).

Yesterday I entered my SS classroom to continue my series on the letters of John. As I entered I noticed that three of the participants (a married couple and a widowed mutual friend) were absent--again. They were absent not only from my SS class, but from church as well--again. These were the same people who virtually begged me to start the class in the first place. They were the ones who talked me out of taking a hiatus from teaching a class after the previous study was finished.

As I've already intimated, this was not the first time they decided not to show up with no notice. In fact, this is their pattern. They attend for two or three weeks in a row, then they fail to show up for two or three weeks in a row. This pattern has been true of them since they started attended my Bible studies several years ago, but has gotten progressively worse. To them, church and Bible study is a wonderful place to go on Sunday mornings--and they "just get soooo much out of the study" (their words)--so long as there isn't "something better to do" (not their words, but clearly their sentiment). Over the years I have made a special point of teaching them the significance of meeting together as a church, of getting involved with the ministry of the church, and of viewing the church not as something that serves them but as something to be served. When I taught through Hebrews, I hit especially hard on chapter 11, which contains some of the most inspiring examples of shunning the world and dedicating one's life completely to Christ and his kingdom:

[Some] were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated--the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

I have taken them through a study of Philippians--no clearer example of the kingdom-based mindset of a spiritually mature Christian, in which I am in this world only at the good pleasure of Christ and the sole purpose of my life is to be used up and disposed of by Christ as he sees fit, exists in the entire New Testament. I have taken the time to read to them the words and the actions of persecuted Christians from the annuls of history, in the pages of the apostolic fathers and Foxe's Book of Martyrs. I have shared with them news of persecuted Christians in the underground church of China and elsewhere, where Christians are regularly beaten, imprisoned and/or killed for simply meeting together . . . . . . all of which were beautiful words to them; words they will never take to heart. Why? Because, sadly, they are products of "Convenience Christianity."

I have even connected the dots for them and have asked rhetorically how comparatively shallow "our" Christianity is when we decide not to meet together with the church because "it's such a nice day out, and I thought how wonderful it would be to go horseback riding," or "we spontaneously decided just to go for a drive," or "well, we promised our unbelieving acquaintances that we would help them with a secular community benefit that they decided to put on right smack dab in the middle of when we would otherwise be attending church," or "It's Mother's Day, and of course instead of offering to take mom to church with us to show her how committed we are to our church, how committed we are to meeting with the body of Christ, and how committed we are to Christ and his cause in this world, we have decided that the only way we can honor her properly is to take her to breakfast (no other meal honors a mother so much as breakfast, after all), and doggone it, we must have breakfast right at the time the church meets together--which is not our fault, mind you; it's the fault of society, who decided breakfast should happen right in the middle of the time we should be meeting with the saints to honor the Lord of the universe and to meet with his bride."

Upon hearing all this, they look at me blankly: "We just looooved the study today. It was soooo powerful. Oh, by the way, we won't be here next week. We're having hay delivered for our horses right at the time church starts."

Well, at least they gave me some notice that time. Usually, I find out they won't be there only after I get there--you know, after I have arisen at 4am (as I do everyday) to study for the next several hours and to put together the Scripture passages from which I have planned to teach that morning.

Too many Christians too easily decide not to attend a local church, or to attend sporadically, or hop from church to church looking for what they can "get out of it" rather than what they can put into it. They look for a church that can "meet their needs" rather than a church they can serve best. Worst of all, there is no shortage of churches out there that encourage that self-absorbed mindset. They want to become "relevant" to lazy-minded, self-willed Christians who are the product of the instantly gratifying fast-food industry rather than the apostolic deposit. I have in the past called this "Christianity lite--it's less filling and it tastes great!"

Meanwhile . . .

On the same day when three Chinese Christians were sentenced to jail terms of between one and three years in the Zhejiang Province (See Chinese Court Jails Three Christians), more than 100 house church leaders were arrested in Kaifeng City, Henan Province on 6th August. More than a hundred house church leaders were beginning a two week retreat, held at the home of MrsXiang Zi, the wife of one of the retreat organisers. Suddenly more than 200 military police, Public Security Bureau (PSB) and other officers surrounded the venue, without providing any arrest warrants or official identification papers. Mrs Xiang Zi was arrested along with their three children, aged between eight and eleven years. . . . This is the most recent in a series of mass arrests of unregistered Protestant Christians in China and is yet further proof of the increased crackdown on the house churches. The last time such an incident occurred was when more than 100 house church leaders were arrested one month ago in Xinjiang Autonomous Region. >>More

Convenience Christianity is exceedingly draining on those of us who have committed our lives to the spiritual well-being of the church, because we put so much into it only to see this kind of result. There have been many times which, out of sheer frustration, I have just wanted to call it quits. And I often wonder whether men like Paul experienced much the same frustration with that kind of mindset in his own day. The frequent frustration levels that I detect in his writings indicate he may have. But he never quite reached the point where he forgot that God is faithful.

There's nothing you can do about Convenience Christians--take my word for it, I've tried everything. But here's some consolation in the midst of the frustration:

"God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them." (Heb 6:10).

The Servant's Independence

"This is the first weekend of July, and today is the day we celebrate the birth of our country, the United States of America. It is Independence Day! Two hundred thirty-four years ago today, men put their lives on the line and determined to declare their independence from the oppressive rule of Britain. Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? Do you remember it, even a little? I didn’t. Do you know who signed it? Do you know who from NC signed it? William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, and John Penn were the NC representatives who signed the Declaration of Independence.

Listen to the last paragraph; it follows the listing of 27 grievances against Great Britain and is a summary of the declaration:

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Now you might ask, “What does this have to do with the deacon minute?” That is a fair question, so I will tell you, but first can anyone tell me what happened on the second Sunday of August, 2009? It too was a day of independence. We the church of Shepherd’s Fellowship declared our independence from a motel meeting room and began to meet here at 12-J Wendy Court. And with that move we assumed responsibility for this facility.

If you are a part of this fellowship, have you considered your part? Have you actively participated in the responsibility for this facility? I can say with confidence that if you have not participated willing, joyfully and regularly in giving of your time, your talents and your treasure for this facility, then you probably aren’t doing it for the body either. You see, maintaining a facility is EASY compared to serving others in the body. The building doesn’t grumble, or behave poorly, or even disappoint you like people will. But these things should have NO impact or influence in our decision to serve this body, because we don’t serve for any of those reasons. We serve because Jesus has set the example of service, as seen in Phil. 2, and He has explained to us that service to God’s children is service to Him in Matthew 25.

Ask yourself these questions and think about the answers.

Am I thankful to live in a country where we are free? Do I ever consider the cost of that freedom or my responsibility as a citizen of this country?

Am I thankful to be a part of a church that is free from the silliness of today’s culture? Do I ever consider the cost, the ongoing responsibility or the part I should take? Am I serving this body or am I even willing to serve this body? Am I giving as I should, as 2 Corinthians 8 says, first of myself, then financially?

Remember Jesus’ example and the price he paid to set His children free from the wrath of God, the penalty for sin.

Philippians 1 and 2 - 27 Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I will hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel; in no way alarmed by your opponents—which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you, and that too, from God. For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, experiencing the same conflict which you saw in me, and now hear to be in me.

Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father!"

John MacArthur doing "Holy Hip Hop"

This is dedicated to my fellow elder, a man who appreciates John MacArthur's ministry but doesn't care for "Holy Hip Hop." Enjoy.

"JUMPING" - John MacArthur Rap from Nathan W. Bingham on Vimeo.

More from the Religion of Pieces

While our dear brothers over at Answering Muslims continue to press forward with litigation after being arrested in Dearborn, Michigan, U.S.A., for handing out copies of the gospel of John on a public sidewalk, it looks like Muslims are doing a successful job of duping the Brits into allowing them to engage in angry protests, and the aggressive, threatening speech, and violence that you see below; all of course under the banner of "free speech".

It looks like "sweet sharia" isn't too far away for people in the U.K., should the government continue to allow for such nonsense in the name of pluralism. Worse yet, private citizens cannot own firearms and British police don't carry them on their person. In light of that fact, one wonders what means of protection many people will have when blood begins to run in the streets of Great Britain. As the foundations of cultural Christianity have long since crumbled in the U.K. and secularism has left a gaping void in English culture, it is high time we pay attention. Dear Christians, take a good look at the video below and remind yourself that this is the judgment of God on a nation that ditched Biblical truth for secular ideals (Rom. 1:18ff). After all, when the void of secularism has ravaged people of any desire to live for anything but themselves and those same people have aborted their own children multiple times, the Qu'ranic Muslims will be more than happy to take their place with 4-6 children per family combined with a robust religious and community tradition that shows secularism up for the folly that it is.



Here's another video wherein Anjem Choudary, a leading Muslim, clearly states that Islamic teachings inform his pro-jihad message. Listen to him explain in his own words that Islam is not a "religion of peace", but rather a religion of "pieces" that glories in jihad. We would do well to do as President Reagan did, and study those who want our blood. We must know what these folks believe, why the believe it, what they plan to do about it, how we as Christians can minister the gospel to them, and how we must protect ourselves from them should that ever be necessary.



HT: Answering Muslims

The Problem of the Criterion

Whether theist, atheist or whatever, everybody brings a particular view of reality (metaphysic) to the table when it comes to informing their theory of knowledge (epistemology) and asking questions related to what they know and how they know it. In other words, everybody first assumes things about the world in order to answer questions about what they think they know about the world. This is a subject that is worth reminding yourself of, especially when engaged in apologetical discussions; especially since its important for you to be aware of your own precommitments as well as those of whom you are speaking with.

Some basic questions I ask to determine a person's precommitments are:

"Do you believe that absolute truth exists?"

"What is your view of reality?"

"Do you believe that people can have certain knowledge of any proposition?"

Some questions we all ask ourselves are:

"What is the nature and scope of reality?

"What do we know?"

"What do we have a justification or warrant for believing?"

"How do we decide whether whether a proposition, p, is justifiably believed and true?"

"What will count as justification for believing some proposition, p?"

"What means do we utilize to determine whether p accurately represents reality?"

A problem that some philosophers have been reluctant to admit is that to ground any statement, proposition, or argument, we answer the above questions with an already assumed criterion for determining the scope and nature of reality and the scope and limits of what we can know. Again, everybody begins with metaphysical assumptions about the world that inform their epistemology. R. M. Chisholm had the courage to admit such, even though most philosophers in his day were wont to do so,

What few philosophers have had the courage to recognize is this: we can deal with the problem only by begging the question. It seems to me that, if we do recognize this fact, as we should, then it is unseemly for us to try to pretend that it isn't so. [R. M. Chisholm, The Problem of the Criterion, 37 as quoted in Greg L. Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended, (Powder Springs, GA & Nacogdoches, TX: American Vision & Covenant Media, 2008), 84.]

This brings us to a meaty philosophical issue: Since we, as finite creatures determine our own criterion to answer the above questions, how do we know that our starting assumptions about reality actually correspond to reality? That's what Chisholm defined as "the problem of the criterion", and it demonstrates the absolute interdependence of one's epistemology upon one's metaphysic. The two inform the other and are interdependent upon one another, and there is simply no way around this. This problem has lead to the many debates and disagreements in the world of secular philosophy and there appears to be no solution on the horizon; at least not a secular one.

Bahnsen rightly noted,

Common epistemological ground between disputants of different metaphysical positions cannot in principle be found, for answers to the questions of epistemology assume answers to the questions of metaphysics. [Bahnsen, 84. Italics his.]

And so, given what we've considered thus far, the really meaty philosophical issues are these: If humans are left to choose their own criterion because metaphysics and epistemology are circularly interdependent, (a) how do we avoid utter subjectivism in doing so and worse, (b) how do we avoid utter skepticism as to what we can truly know since our ultimate assumptions about reality are not subject to external or empirical verification?

Starting with the Triune Starter

To avoid a subjectivist guessing game and/or utter skepticism, we must appeal to an ultimate locus of authority that is comprehensive in knowledge. This is what Christians call the Triune God, and I proclaim to you in Pauline fashion (Acts 17:23) that He is the only actual Criterion that humans can appeal to in order to justify knowledge. However, according to Scripture, while all men have some knowledge of the divine Criterion (Romans 1:18-32; 10:9ff), apart from regeneration, men will not submit to Him as the necessary grounding for their metaphysic and epistemology although they will necessarily assume things about the world that they can't otherwise account for on their secular program. Their failure to submit is rooted in hard hearts that are at enmity with their Creator and as such, they are darkened in their minds, their thoughts are futile (Ephesians 4:17-18), and they go about as Strato of Lampsacus, answering the world's questions using the world's principles, contra Colossians 2:3-8. Thus, this is not an intellectual problem, it is a moral problem that manifests itself in intellectual outward symptoms.

In conclusion, God's revelation of Himself in the 66 books of the Bible is the only valid escape from the skepticism that would otherwise logically result from the necessary, interdependence of metaphysics with epistemology. God's revelation of Himself in Scripture provides not only ultimate epistemic grounding, but also gives the necessary metaphysical content for the foundation of all of man's intellectual and spiritual pursuits. A Christian's apologetical presentation will be circular too since we have God and His revelation as our ultimate Criterion. However, what a Christian knows and how he knows it are both tied up with God's revelation and since God is infallible and comprehensive as to His knowledge, we can be certain that we have a "more sure word of prophecy" than that of worldly philosophy (2 Peter 1:19-21).