 |
 |
|
 |
Welcome |
|
FeaturesChrist’s death, God’s wrath: the vital connection
Jul 30, 2009 Are you missing the point of Scripture passages? Jul 21, 2009 Modeling misjudgments: Clothing, contradictions and Miss California May 14, 2009 Exploring The Last Battle’s Emeth element May 11, 2009 MacArthur on sex and the sacredness of the Song Apr 14, 2009 Heaven and Earth, part 1 — Fixing our eyes away from the lies Apr 13, 2009 Fighting on broader battlefields of Biblical spiritual warfare Apr 11, 2009 Keeping the Cross in focus this Good Friday Apr 10, 2009 An open letter to Jennie Chancey from the Devil Mar 12, 2009 Capitalism, socialism and critics’ Rush to judgment Mar 10, 2009 |
 |
Search |
|
Updates |
|
Recently read:
|
|
Recently read:
|
Christ’s death, God’s wrath: the vital connection |
|||
 |
by
Dr Ransom
at
05:53 PM ET
,
Thursday, Jul 30, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Rebuttals, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Life Applications | |||
(This is adapted from forum discussion posts written July 27 and July 29. These were mostly in response to a member who wrote that he disagreed on that Christ on the cross suffered God’s wrath as punishment for humans’ sin — an issue that transcends “Calvinism” vs. free-willieism.) Both Biblical Calvinists and Free-Willies believe a loving God will send people (and/or allow them to go) to Hell. We also fully agree that God allows suffering for his own good reasons. And both Calvinists and Free-Willies would (or should!) disagree with the sentiment below: I fail to see how any such sin sacrifice would pacify God. Does God delight in blood and vengeance? Is he not a merciful God? The two “sides” within Christendom both believe that God is merciful, yet also just. Yes, a sin sacrifice is what is required, made evident from the entirety of the Old Testament and Christ’s fulfillment of the Law. God is love, but if He ignored a rebel sinner spitting in His eye, He would not be holy; He would be evil. As my wife said over the weekend, some think as if God were like Tinker Bell from Peter Pan, only able to have one attribute or emotion at a time. This not only cheapens and humanizes God (and we are able to have more than one emotion at once!), but worse, bypasses Scriptures that clearly present Him as both love/mercy and holy/wrathful, not just all-love-all-the-time. I believe free-willies also exaggerate God’s love to an extent, but not so much as this. My free-willie friends may believe Christ died to set up a salvation “system,” rather than as a direct substitute for His people. But at least they believe that His sacrifice was for people’s sins and did satisfy God. This is the essence of Christianity, however you think the “mechanics” work. Scripture is so clear about this — try the whole book of Hebrews just for starters! Rather than talking about Predestination versus Free Will, I think the question needs to become: why did Jesus have to die? That is much more foundational to Christianity, and what our beliefs are based upon — God’s Word, or human-limited “logic”? To be frank, what one believes about it will separate true Christians from “Churchians.” |
|||
Are you missing the point of Scripture passages? |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
05:41 PM ET
,
Tuesday, Jul 21, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Churchianity, Life Applications | |||
(Edited from the originally written version, available here.) Here is something I’ve had on my mind for a while, based on a little series of broadcasts called “Discover the Word,” by RBC Ministries. In early May, I mini-blogged this to my website: Just now I’m finishing my catchup with the most recent “Discover the Word” broadcast, by RBC Ministries. They’re doing a fantastic series about misreading of Scripture, including Matthew 18: 19-20 ... offering the true context of this passage that I hadn’t seen before ... They continued the Biblical Context series for about a month, dealing with misunderstood, misinterpreted or misapplied passages of Scripture that people take out of context all the time and may not even know it. More and more I’ve learned that many passages I’ve had up in my head that I subconsciously thought said one thing actually say nothing of the sort. And in some cases, the out-of-context idea may be Biblical — just not what the verse is talking about there. Reading random letters For instance, take Matthew 18, actually verses 15-20. The whole passage is about what steps to follow if you’re offended by a fellow Christ-follower, right? But somehow or other, folks tend to see this passage (along with other Biblical texts) as sort of a child’s summer-camp letter, as Dr. Haddon Robinson so aptly phrased it: jumping from thought to thought to thought like a kid who says, “Hi Mom. It’s hot here at camp. I captured a frog. Yesterday I went swimming. Please send money for snacks. ‘Bye.” So instead of finding that all of what Jesus said in this passage is about reconciliation between believers, and in the Church, Christians think Jesus suddenly changes his mind and starts talking instead about prayer meetings, or “binding Satan,” or the power of faith to get stuff. “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” Pretty cool so far, right? Most readers would track right along with this if they began reading the chapter — or the book of Matthew altogether — from the beginning. Jesus started talking about personal reconciliation, which may or may not require church leaders to be intermediaries, and He hasn’t left that topic. So when why — I ask myself this too, with a silly grin on my face! — do we sometimes while reading verses like this suddenly assume Jesus had some kind of ADD and then got distracted by spiritual warfare and how God is always there at prayer meetings? That’s the way many Christians have traditionally understood the following verses, at least when they’re quoted by themselves like “sound bytes,” without context. |
|||
Breaking the silence: an update from the author |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
06:40 PM ET
,
Monday, Jul 20, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: General, Media: Books | |||
Whew. It’s been a busy two months since I last posted anything to this site. Lord willing, such long delays in offering anything new here are now over. But unfortunately, a few things are still limiting my schedule: 1) Some months ago, a bug got into my site (perhaps from a flawed or old Wordpress installation) and inserted that obnoxious random-word trash into several of my pages. My theory is that this still preventing me from accessing any of my site, or even personal email accounts, from my previous commonly used internet source. Further research and repairs may be necessary … 2) I got married on May 30, and suddenly writing blogs and such seems lower-priority. Evidently that hasn’t stopped me from several interactions about Deep Doctrinal Magic on NarniaWeb, though (such as this one, posted very early Sunday morning). And recently I even posted a Speculative Faith column about Christian fiction’s bizarre obsessions with two seemingly opposite genres: Strange story spectrum — from barn-raisers to bloodsuckers. So surely I can recover even time to post small items on this site — and longer columns on occasion. 3) For the past several months, I’ve been working at least one, sometimes two (it’s complicated) part-time jobs, in addition to my full-time employment as a reporter/photographer with a small community weekly newspaper. This additional work is often fun, but even better, profitable, and it takes more time. 4) Finally I’ve re-begun novel writing, on a work in progress I haven’t much discussed here. Sometime a site revision — or even a completely new site — will pay more attention to that project. … |
|||
The game has only just begun ... |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
06:20 PM ET
,
Monday, May 18, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Deep Doctrine Magic: Life Applications, Rebuttals | |||
Today I managed to help restart long-dormant discussion in the NarniaWeb forum's “Wuv, Twue Wuv” thread, which is the fifth in an incidental series of interactions about courtship, dating, romance and all the territory in between. What I posted was the result of my thoughts yesterday — I was thinking again about one of my all-time least favorite t-shirts, which is a symptom of pop culture's devaluing of marriage and elevation of immaturity. Yes, it's meant to be a Joke, ha-ha-ha. But not only is it cliche, all of these jokes add up and, I content, collectively devalue the sacredness and wonder — though imbued with struggles and work, to be sure — that marriage is. Has anyone ever seen this t-shirt emblem/slogan?  Nyuk-nyuk. Ha, ha, ha.  What a way, even subtly, to encourage immaturity and quiet dread of God's sacred institution. ... Here is my rebuttal version. And yes, I just might have it printed on a t-shirt myself!  A side-by-side version, which I may supplement later with a Scripture reference is here. |
|||
Modeling misjudgments: Clothing, contradictions and Miss California |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
05:25 PM ET
,
Thursday, May 14, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Politics: The Left Wing, Deep Doctrine Magic: Cross Firings, Life Applications | |||
(Adapted from responses, this one and this one, posted today to the Boundless Line blog.) Perhaps the Miss California furor is finally fizzling out, after spending most of the month in national headlines. Yesterday none other than multimillionaire Donald Trump defended infamous Miss U.S.A. pageant contestant Carrie Prejean, and even got in a great zinger against Barack Obama™. Trump noted that Prejean, after being asked a rather loaded question from a homosexual activist about marriage, had given the same answer as the president of the United States — that is, it should be between a man and woman. I grinned at the rhetoric, which was so shrewdly and perfectly balanced between justifying Prejean’s honest answer yet not directly agreeing with it. And I wished so much that I could also fully rally to this young woman’s cause. Yet it seems that during conservatives’ and Christians’ haste to defend Carrie Prejean — rightfully! — from the rabid liberal factions’ intolerance of her brave stance on real marriage, folks have been just sort-of skipping past the whole Immodesty issue. And this isn’t just incidental immodesty, this is making a living from being intentionally immodest. First, though, a disclaimer: All of this would ordinarily not apply if Ms. Prejean did these kind of things in the past, and has now turned away from them. For that, Christians — like the Christ they follow — should be lavish in their Grace and unilateral in their defense of one of their own. However, from what I have read, Ms. Prejean has responded to the release of provocative and even naked photos of her, and said “I’m not perfect” while also defending her showing her body in provocative ways in the present tense. “I am a Christian, and I am a model,” she said. “Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos.” (Summary: It’s my job.) Unfortunately that job is not something Christians can support Biblically. However, this does not mean we leave one of “our own” to suffer at the hands of secularists. What is needed here is neither full-fledged support nor repulsed rejection — but rather, careful discernment (especially on the part of men like me who’d like to write about the issue and be informed about it, though, ahem, without actually seeing the photos). |
|||
Exploring The Last Battle’s Emeth element |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
05:38 PM ET
,
Monday, May 11, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Media: "Narnia: AWAKE", Books, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Christian Novels | |||
Every once in a while I catch myself having oddball thoughts about either The Chronicles of Narnia or their author, C.S. Lewis. Such notions as these come not from any logical basis, but a rather reflexive attitude toward something like the Chronicles or Lewis’s other works, including Mere Christianity and The Great Divorce, that have proven to be so awesome yet so popular: How could anything be so awesome and yet so popular at the same time? There must be Something Wrong with it. Something about Narnia or Lewis’s nonfiction is actually un-Biblical and that’s why people like it so much. After all, Biblical things aren’t supposed to be popular.  I think that subconscious suspicion may be behind how many people react to a certain controversial portion of Lewis’s last Chronicle of Narnia, The Last Battle. This has often come up in the Narnia and Christianity section of the NarniaWeb forum (where I’m a moderator). People worry about it: Lewis’s portrayal of a young and “pagan” Calormene man who somehow finds his way into Aslan’s (the Chronicles’ Christ-figure’s) country and the heavenly New Narnia.Just this weekend, “Rilian” (NarniaWeb’s “podcasting prince”) and I recorded an hour-long session for the site in which we discussed what I’ve come to call The Emeth Element. It was an excellent interchange; I learned a lot, and I look forward to listeners’ responses! We began with reading excerpts from The Last Battle itself, in which the character Emeth, a young man who had earlier been showed as being fully devoted to the false god — though very real and evil entity — Tash. Calling the bluff of a deception coordinated by Narnia’s false prophet Shift, and the evil Calormene, Rishda Tarkaan, Emeth enters the mysterious Stable, slays an enemy, and finds himself not in a small dirty wooden hut, but a wondrous paradise that (somehow) Aslan has set up and which can be entered by passing through the Stable door. Later, Emeth tells other humans — the Seven Friends of Narnia — how he encountered Aslan. “Then I fell at [Aslan’s] feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, ‘Son, thou art welcome.’ But I said, ‘Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash.’ He answered, ‘Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child?’ I said, ‘Lord, thou knowest how much I understand.’ But I said also (for the truth constrained me), ‘Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days.’ ‘Beloved,’ said the Glorious One, ‘unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.’ |
|||
Last week in brief |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
01:07 PM ET
,
Monday, Apr 20, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Cross Firings, Media: Film and DVD, Books, Rebuttals, Politics: The Left Wing | |||
On Thursday last week I finally looked into the infamous “Twitter,” but found it wanting for style, links and lengths. So instead I added my own mini-feed to the right side of this site, for tracking my other comments and activities around the web. It was called “What's up, 'Doc'?” but I'm considering changing it to “Quotes and notes.” Any thoughts? Coming soon: improvements to the blog's comment system and especially the too-small and -limited form. For now, here is an overview of my in-brief updates last week: Apr 16, 2009, 10:08 AM — Earlier this morning I reminded a NarniaWeb newbie of C.S. Lewis's famed “trilemma”: Christ cannot be “just a good man” ... Apr 16, 2009, 10:20 AM — (Sigh ...) The head-in-the-clouds liberalism (not the true Heaven's “clouds”) of some Boundless blog commentators following political posts like this one is continually wearying ... Apr 16, 2009, 12:17 PM — — Folks, think about what the conservatives' reaction would have been if the Obama posse had not covered up the university building's Christ symbolism as has been reported. Would they not then claim B.O. was trying to equate himself with Jesus? Let's critique and defeat the man's radical anti-American Socialism, not stupid things like this. Apr 16, 2009, 07:29 PM — My last Speculative Faith column was about C.S. Lewis and the forbidden fruits of fiction. Now, just two weeks later (that's a record, ahem) I've also assembled Following the Marcher Lord, about three new Christian-oriented spec-fiction titles. One of these, Hero, Second Class, is a novel I'm reading now ... Apr 17, 2009, 10:07 AM — For those of you recently accessing the site with Firefox who received scary-looking error messages — everything is now repaired and in working order. Apr 17, 2009, 12:00 PM — Author/pastor John MacArthur finished his blog series on “The Rape of Solomon's Song” this week — a rape committed by some pastors, no less. I wrote about part 1 on Monday; now I'm catching up on part 2, part 3 and part 4. Apr 17, 2009, 05:51 PM — First there was the Star Trek breakfast cereal I saw in the store the other day. Then this morning, while I was sorting through district-court lawsuits for my day job, I saw that none other than James T. Kirk was getting divorced. (This one is an apparently unemployed horse manager.) Quite a stretch for the film's promotion! |
|||
MacArthur on sex and the sacredness of the Song |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
12:20 PM ET
,
Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Cross Firings, Life Applications | |||
From John MacArthur’s Shepherd’s Fellowship site today (hat tip: Tim Challies), the pastor/author is ready to address both the Song of Solomon and those evangelical leader who, he says with the only “explicit” term used in his introduction, “rape” its beauty. Apparently the shortest route to relevance in church ministry right now is for the pastor to talk about sex in garishly explicit terms during the Sunday morning service. If he can shock parishioners with crude words and sophomoric humor, so much the better. I am grateful to Pastor MacArthur for addressing this issue and I look forward to reading more from him. And I am also grateful that he is not falling into the tempting trap of presenting Big Bad Examples of the sin so we can all see how bad it is, which kind of defeats the whole point. In recent years, it seems this whole outdo-in-lewd-and-crude approach has been based on immaturity and a rather gleeful attitude of libertarian antinomianism as well. (I am not as familiar with Mark Driscoll, yet unlike some others at least for him the attitude is contrary to his professed strong Reformed stance.) Why can Christ-followers not adopt a more Puritan (not less!) attitude toward intimate relations in marriage — with a balance of guarding their sacredness yet also not being ashamed? Why must church leaders jolt from one extreme to the other? Men such as MacArthur, John Piper and CJ Mahaney have done well addressing the subject of sex with the appropriate blend of restraint and yet clarity. Intimacy in marriage is a beautiful thing, but now too many churches are falling all over themselves to talk about it as if they’ve been muzzled for far too long and by golly now is the time to Show All the World That We Are Just as Crazy About Sex, too. “Hee hee hee, look what Iiiii’m doinnnng, I’m talking about se-exxx! Oh, I am such a ‘bad boy,’ I am quite the naughty evangelical, aren’t I?” Come on. Big deal. It won’t take long before the gimmick of this has worn off and all those “naughty evangelicals” will look around and see that it’s not so supposedly naughty anymore because everybody is doing it. Rumors of all these imaginary-enemy Puritan Legalists glaring in the general directions of married couples’ bedrooms have been greatly exaggerated. Furthermore, what is the deal with pretending like it’s all naughty in order to enjoy it? That’s just strange and twisted — and perhaps it demonstrates that they haven’t gotten rid of their hangups nearly as much as they say. While mindful of Christ and propriety that honors Him and His institution of marriage, can we not be simply “too cool” to fall for all this dumb cackling about it? From what I have read so far, the Puritans did not frown upon pleasure, they safeguarded it from this kind of insipidity. So if you’re making a big pretense about rebelling against “Puritanical” attitudes, sorry, you’ve got the wrong straw man. Such haw-haw nudge-nudge crude locker-room-speak about the subject is absolutely against the restrained-yet-passionate nature of Song of Solomon, and also transparently eye-rollingly absurd to those with a more Biblical balance. But worse, as Phil Johnson pointed out in his excellent March 6 sermon, it dishonors Christ, ignores the clear instructions of Titus 2 to forbid profane talk and crude joking, and fails to uphold the wonderful sacredness of intimacy in marriage. |
|||
Heaven and Earth, part 1 — Fixing our eyes away from the lies |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
06:37 PM ET
,
Monday, Apr 13, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Heaven | |||
Easter / Resurrection Sunday has come and gone, leaving Christ-followers around the world even more grateful for Christ’s resurrection and the hope of our own — but this weekend I realized even more that some ideas about how God will rise His people again to live everlasting need to be put to death and never brought back to life. And then we ought also to dance with joy on the graves of such myths! My thoughts came from yesterday, when I was told that a family I knew was saying goodbye to visiting relatives. Some voiced wishes that they could have more time to talk and visit. Well, at least we’ll have time in Heaven, one family member said. But then another responded with something like, Oh well, we may not remember, you know. Hearing about this expression of such a belief made me feel almost as grieved and disappointed as those who hold such ideas would feel, if they truly allowed themselves to consider. What a hopeless notion — Heaven, a world of perpetual “spiritoid” Alzheimer’s patients? Some months ago, as part of an online discussion about the true nature of Heaven — the New Heavens and New Earth that God promises to create — a friend of mine said (slightly edited): I was watching a movie the other night, with my dad, and the main character was sitting in a lovely grove of tree, and it looked so beautiful, and I looked to my dad and asked him, “Dad, do you think they’ll be places like that in heaven?”  Why is this thought of as wrong, or at least silly? Why do so many Christians believe such things about Heaven, or their resurrection bodies? Where are such notions found in Scripture? How could such a strange environment, in which it is assumed God’s people will be even less knowledgeable than they are now, be properly classified as Heaven? And how could such an existence be better without such simple gifts from God as His creation of nature?Unlike other false views contrary to Scripture, myths about Heaven are far more harmful both to how we view our own resurrection and how we view God’s glory and Christ’s resurrection. Is God truly glorified by rescuing His bride from a universe beyond repair, and turning His people into “spiritoids” floating in some kind of ethereal world? Does Scripture really tell us this? And unlike how many Christians handle some false views, I approach this with far more earnestness and heartfelt passion to show what Scripture says so clearly and in contrast. This isn’t to be right, or even to Stand on the Word just to look cool. And this is not about proving some peripheral point or “accessory” belief, either, such as end-times events or even political positions. This is vital — so vital to our hope for God’s after-world, and for our rejoicing in how He will make all things new! |
|||
Fighting on broader battlefields of Biblical spiritual warfare |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
04:08 PM ET
,
Saturday, Apr 11, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Rebuttals, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Life Applications | |||
(Originally posted today for the NarniaWeb forum’s continuing “Christianity, Religion and Philosophy” discussion; edited slightly for this site)  Well, this should be the first of a very long post — or perhaps I will actually tackle one theme at a time, so as to preserve both my own labor and others’ labor in reading through. I do hope folks will read, especially [NarniaWeb member] Fencer for Jesus, to whom this is mostly addressed. I don’t think I’ve ever done a point-by-point rebuttal to you before, Fencer. But this won’t really be a rebuttal anyway. It’s more like a clarification. You see, while reading through your post of a couple days ago, I think I’ve figured out why you’ve been bothered about others being bothered about giving demons undue attention. I see what you and a few others have been saying wisewoman. But there is a great danger to that, even if you aren’t seeing it that way or intending it. Yes, the Great War has been won. But even you must know that it is not over yet. You have given me the impression (and I hope I am wrong on this) that we only need to worry about spiritual warfare when battle come. This seems to be because you are oversimplifying the battle that indeed, Scripture says we will fight lifelong. Yes, Satan and his powers were defeated and disarmed on the Cross. [Christ] disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. Colossians 2:15 (ESV) But this is one of those “already and not yet” paradoxes of Biblical truth. Absolutely we are commanded to oppose Satan and his evil spiritual forces. That’s because we are part of the victory that has already been won, just as the truth that Christians are declared righteous, but we’re still not perfect yet in this life. But, when I say it seems you are oversimplifying the spiritual battle, I am referring to an either/or equation I think you may have — incidentally — in your mind: Spiritual warfare = directly opposing and/or casting out demons. Whereas the Bible, and particularly the New Testament, gives a much more broad emphasis in spiritual warfare: Spiritual warfare =
|
|||
Keeping the Cross in focus this Good Friday |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
12:00 AM ET
,
Friday, Apr 10, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology | |||
Christianity moves on — not only the cause of Christ but the topic including the name, in the NarniaWeb forum. There the discussion had recently shifted to demons and spiritual warfare, which is highly interesting especially when people begin posting about their Paranormal Experiences. I’m particularly fond of the demonoid-shape seen under the street light. Ugh. But it’s not Halloween, it’s Good Friday, and recently others — myself included — showed inclinations of moving on to other topics. That began after one relative newcomer to the forum, named “Light in the Dark,” recently said this: How could a Demon just work its’ [sic] way into you, without your permission, if God, a much more powerful Being, can’t? Apparently this is a very reasonable and understandable point, given the default view of many evangelicals that God does not reach out to sinners until sinners first reach out to God. In response, The Black Glove (who has posted here as Roccondil) very briefly asked: What do you mean “can’t”? Later, TBG posted a summary of the “Five Points of Calvinism,” also known as the Doctrines of Grace. It’s here that I would like to pick up, followed by my own remarks, edited from a lengthy post yesterday, about the centrality of the Gospel and seeking the Bible’s big picture of Christ and Him crucified — above all other issues that may relate to the Gospel but are not as vital. |
|||
‘New Calvinism’: predestined to be popular? |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
03:36 PM ET
,
Thursday, Mar 19, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology | |||
Informed Reformed Christ-following bloggers and others are all abuzz after Time magazine has listed, among its “Top Ten Ideas Changing the World Right Now,” this little item: 3. The New Calvinism A summary follows, with a breezy style that at first seems mocking yet is actually respectful and accurate. (Link active at time of writing.) However, I certainly hope this does not make “Calvinism” merely cool to people — whether those who believe it or those who don't. My thoughts, just posted as a comment to another Boundless blog item, are as follows: For those “excited” about Reformation fervor — and I'm one of them — I think Thabiti Anyabwile reminded us well in this blog page to which [Boundless contributor Motte Brown] linked: The potential for making biblical truth a fad seems quite high. All fads die. If the resurgence of robust biblical theology rides an emotional crest until that superficial, emotional wave dies, so too will interest in robust biblical truth. We're all familiar enough with church history to have seen this several times over. Wouldn't it be just absolutely hilarious for the Devil to see all the Reformed fervor, supposedly anti-man-centered and hoping to point toward the Cross and God's glory, turn back on itself? I daresay this would certainly please the Church's true human enemies as well — Churchians, compromisers and liberal divergents posing as Christians, along with well-intended yet “free willie” semi-Pelagian malcontents in the true Church. That, along with the fact that such an anti-“establishment” movement becoming itself the establishment, would be bad. (I was just thinking earlier today, remember when “The Simpsons” used to be so edgy and “anti-establishment”? Now it's everywhere and constantly imitated.) But worse would be the truth that God's glory and the centrality of the Cross and Christ's Grace would be exchanged for even trace amounts of mere emotional fervor about a “movement.” Thus the Church's enemies would chuckle softly to themselves — the Devil, especially — he's turned even non-man-centered doctrines back around to worshiping man all over again. And so the cycle toward yet another mini-Reformation begins anew. I should have written this: let us hope that instead, God has begun truly re-focusing those who are truly His people for the rest of their lives and until He returns — whether they fully regard His sovereignty in salvation yet or not! |
|||
Comment on film violence versus movie nudity |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
11:51 AM ET
,
Friday, Mar 13, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Rebuttals, Deep Doctrine Magic: Life Applications | |||
Recently I've listened to and read Phil Johnson's excellent March 6 sermon/rebuke about evangelicals' fascination with crass language, vulgar topics and compromise with corruption. That, along with recent discussion on the Boundless blog, has been much on my mind lately — not just as interesting doctrine discussion but renewed conviction. After a thought occurred to me last night, I posted the following as my response. After reading through [Boundless webzine editor Ted Slater's] excellent evaluation [“Nudity in Art,” March 12] and the responses above, I certainly agree that the don’t-tempt-the-eyes arguments are solidly Scriptural and based in common sense and men’s honest admissions of what causes stumbling.
But let’s consider this also from the perspective of making “art,” such as a movie, not just viewing it. And I will be more aggressive than usual in trying to get my questions actually answered by the “sex acts onscreen have artistic merit” proponents who’ve posted here. For all you people who think watching naked people and portrayals of sex is acceptable, and not much different from watching portrayals of violence:
Finally ...
Again, I look forward to reading any responses to these questions, especially from “but-it’s-art” proponents. |
|||
An open letter to Jennie Chancey from the Devil |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
01:01 PM ET
,
Thursday, Mar 12, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Cross Firings, Legalism | |||
(Note: for best results, read in the voice of Heath Ledger’s The Joker, from The Dark Knight.) TO: Jennie Chancey, “Ladies Against Feminism” web-site FROM: The Devil SUBJ.: “Don’t Believe Everything You Read…”, posted March 4 Hi. Bilious greetings. From roaming to and fro on the Earth, and going back and forth in it, I have come across your recent article about avoiding internet “gossip.” In the article, you quote from a Crosswalk website column “about the proliferation of ‘attack’ sites on the Internet that target individual Christians and ministries.” The columnist says that the internet is leading to way too much misinformation about other Christians’ beliefs. These “so-called ‘Christians’” are turning cult-like, a “Cult of Online Discernment Ministries,” he says. And real Christians need to be careful about what they read. So after that, you offer your own personal thoughts. After all, as you said, you have yourself “been on the receiving end of some of the most laughable misinformation campaigns.” People out there — they haven’t been very nice to you, have they? They’ve been disagreeing with your views. Oh yes, you’ll find many disagreeing views on the internet. So what’s your response? “Publicly airing disagreements online or off is not only unbiblical, it is just plain crass and rude,” you wrote. “Far better to pursue private communication and reconciliation, which is the true way to purify and unify the Church.” Then you go on to suggest people quit trolling around the internet to find the latest gossip. I’m guessing that means gossip about you and the other ladies who oppose feminism and support “patriarchy,” with women knowing their proper place according to the un-Holy Bible. And you write about that on the “Ladies Against Feminism” site. On that site, women try to encourage other women to be “keepers at home” and obedient to their husbands. I know you want husbands to lead your families, so much so that a daughter is considered her father’s “help-meet” until he gives her away. Your writers also discourage daughters from leaving home to attend college. You encourage them to be part of their father’s goals for not only himself, but the family. And you uphold the ideas of the vile “Vision Forum” organization (oh, I hate to name it here) that wants to spread the notion of true Christian families bringing forth God’s kingdom on Earth with the authority roles of fathers and men. Anything can be a cultMrs. Chancey, you know I don’t like you very much. And I don’t like very much the “Vision Forum” organization and all its strong male leaders who want to return to that un-Holy Bible’s direct prescription for patriarchal families. It’s for that reason that all these online ministries have been set against you. They don’t want you to succeed. I don’t, either. I can’t stand that father-rule idea. It’s been causing more trouble for my army of evil than the creationists, the Calvinists, Dave Hunt, Jack Chick, the Navigators, and the late Jerry Falwell combined. So I’m writing today to tell you — stop repeating this. It’s damaging the cause of Hell, and really, really sticking in my personal craw. We can’t advance the kingdom of darkness in this world with Christians calling out and attacking other Christians for being cultic, because they are also calling out and attacking other Christians for being cultic. It just won’t do. Understand? Whenever people begin to realize that really anything, anywhere, can be called a “cult” — well, that is when the legions of Hell and I really begin to lose ground. Whether a cult has un-Biblical beliefs, a centralized leadership, its own literature, jargon, and pious followers, doesn’t matter. In actuality, anything can be called a “cult.” And I do not want more of my worst enemies like you to figure that out. That is why I am so angry with you, Mrs. Chancey, so angry that I just grind my hooves together in rage. |
|||
