Translate

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Decent answers to common questions and arguements - Nine Objections to Unconditional Election Answered

Nine Objections to Unconditional Election Answered



Note:  I preached last Sunday in Lynchburg on "Unconditional Election" in our Doctrines of Grace series.   Since I didn't get that sermon recorded, today I posted a podcast that covers the same teaching material.  Below are nine objections or queries challenging the doctrine of unconditional election that I mention in the message:


1.       Does election in the Bible refer to God’s election of individuals to salvation or to something else?


This question often takes one of three forms:


First, some might ask, “Could passages that speak of God’s choosing refer to the election of nations or groups and not to individuals?”


Response:  Scripture clearly assumes God’s sovereignty extends not merely over corporate bodies but also over individuals (see Prov 16:9; Psalm 139:16; Matt 10:30).  Paul says in Ephesians 1:4 “he chose us.”  He was writing to a specific group (the saints at Ephesus in 1:1), not a generic or hypothetical audience.  We should also not forget that groups and nations consist of individuals. It seems odd that some evangelicals who stress the importance of personal evangelism or “soul-winning” will make appeal to this argument, avoiding the most natural interpretation of the texts cited above.  God chooses individuals for salvation!


Second, some might ask, “Could these passages refer to God’s election (choosing) of Christ?”


Response:  Although it is clear that Christ, as the second person of the Godhead is appointed in the secret counsel of God to the work of incarnation and redemption according to the covenant of redemption, the language of election is applied repeatedly and specifically in Scripture to the people who are to be redeemed.


Third, some might ask, “Could these passages refer to God’s election of believers to sanctification and not to salvation?”   In this regard, particular appeal is often made to Romans 8:29 which speaks of believers being “predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.”


Response:  It is agreed that full sanctification (glorification) is the final stage of salvation.  All those who are saved eventually achieve a state of final sanctification commencing either at their deaths or at the Lord’s coming and finding consummation at the final resurrection.  In places like Romans 8:29-30, Paul is addressing the entire process of salvation.  The process of sanctification, however, does not proceed until one is saved.  So, the issue of election to sanctification for the believer cannot be used to sidestep the necessary beginning point in the entire process of salvation, which is election.  


2.      Does election mean that God’s choice of those who will be saved is merely random?


Some critics have falsely described the doctrines of grace as a version of the children’s game:  “Duck, Duck, Goose!” with the God of Calvinism making it “Duck, Duck, Damned!”  Scripture affirms, however, that God’s choices are never arbitrary.  God’s election is according to his own mysterious purposes and counsels.  Indeed, these are often hidden from us, but all his decisions tend toward the end of God’s own ultimate glory.  The Lord spoke through the prophet Isaiah, saying, “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways,’ says the Lord.  ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, And my thoughts than your thoughts’” (Isa 55:8-9).  The pagan king Nebuchadnezzar, after being humbled by God, likewise affirmed, “All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth.  No one can restrain His hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?’” (Daniel 4:35).


3.      Could it be that God simply foreknows those who will freely choose Christ and then elects them?


First, note that Romans 9:11 specifies that the election of Jacob and Esau was not according to their future actions.  Romans 8:29 (“For whom he foreknew, he also predestined…”) is often cited  by those who suggest the “foreknowledge” explanation of election.  In response, the point needs to be made that “foreknowledge” does not merely refer to awareness of future factual events but to relationships.  The Bible often speaks of a man “knowing” a woman (e.g. Gen 4:1:  “Now Adam knew Eve his wife….).  This does not mean that he possesses factual information about her actions, but that he has an intimate relationship with her.  It is this understanding of “knowledge” that should guide the interpretation of Romans 8:29.

Finally, the “foreknowledge explanation” really does not solve the problem of divine responsibility.  If God foreknows that some will believe in Christ while other will reject Christ, why does he not alter circumstances so that those who reject him will instead respond in faith to Christ?  The responsibility for salvation remains firmly with God alone.


4.      What about those who are not saved?


There are at least two views on this question.

The first position is to argue that God actively elects persons both to salvation and damnation (cf. John 12:37-40; Romans 9:22-23; 2 Tim 2:20; 1 Peter 2:7-8; Jude 1:4).  God elects (chooses) both the saved and the reprobate.  This is called double predestination.

The second position is to argue that God is active in electing the saved but passive in allowing the wicked to persist in their sinfulness (see Rom 1:24; Eph 4:17-19).  Those who reject Christ are not actively damned by God, but they are passed over and left in their self-chosen sin.  This view is generally reflected in the major Reformation era confessions and their successors.  The Second London Baptist Confession (1689), for example, states that some are predestined to eternal life to the praise of his glorious grace while “others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation to the praise of his glorious justice.”

It is also certain that God is glorified in both the damned and the saved.  Those who are unsaved are the fit objects of God’s wrath and glorify God’s justice for eternity.  The saved, however, glorify both the justice of God, as their sins have been laid upon Christ, and his gracious mercy in saving them through no merit of their own. 


5.  Is this doctrine unfair?


Those who raise this question usually do so on the basis of two false assumptions.  On one hand, they assume that there are people who want to be saved who are not saved, simply because God did not choose them.  This view does not take seriously the damage that sin has done to the spiritual life of mankind.  No sinner wants to be saved unless God first changes his heart.  Paul notes that apart from God’s grace “there is none who seeks after God” (Romans 3:11).

On the other hand, some suggest that the doctrine of election means there are people who do not want to be saved, who are saved.  Again, such a hypothetical person does not exist.  No one is pulled kicking and screaming into the kingdom.  Once a sinner experiences the new birth he gladly trusts and follows after Christ.

The apostle Paul anticipated the charge of unfairness in Romans 9:14:  “What shall we say then?  Is there unrighteousness with God?  Certainly not!”  Paul reminds his readers that God is sovereign, having mercy and compassion on whomever he will (see Rom 9:15).  Likewise in Romans 9:19, Paul anticipates the objections of some:  “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault?  For who has resisted His will?”  Paul then silences the critics with these words:  “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?  Will the thing formed say to Him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?”’ (v. 20).  

The problem with the fairness argument is that it places a human view of justice above the revelation of God’s sovereignty.  Scripture affirms the Godhood of God.  Whatever God chooses to do is by definition the very standard of everything that is good, right, just, and true.  Once more look at the words of Nebuchadnezzar:  “No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, ‘What have you done?’” (Dan 4:35).


6.      What about human responsibility?


The doctrine of election is not inconsistent with human responsibility.  The Second London Baptist Confession notes that God decrees “whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby God is neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature….”  Those who are not saved are completely responsible for their own end.  The wicked pay the due penalty for their sin.  No one in hell will protest that God has treated him unfairly.  The sinner is responsible for his own sin and his own rejection of Christ.

On the other hand, those whom God chooses to save have their sinful will renewed.  Those who are saved must repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.  Without repentance and faith they will not be saved.  They respond in faith to Christ knowing that God alone deserves all praise for their salvation.


7.      Couldn’t God intentionally limit his will and then choose men for salvation conditioned on their free will choice of him?


First, this is essentially a philosophical argument rather than a Biblical argument.  Where in Scripture do we read of God’s self-limitation with regard to salvation?  Where in the Bible do we find the framework for this theory?


Second, this view again errs in its overly optimistic view of man’s free will.  It assumes that sinful, unregenerate man is seeking to know, trust, and worship the God of the Bible.  Scripture notes that no man, in his current sinful condition, will freely choose to bend the knee before the God of the Bible and his Christ.  As a proverb in 1 Samuel 24:13 puts it, “wickedness proceeds from the wicked.”


8.      Does this doctrine create pride and elitism in those who believe they are among the elect?


This is certainly possible.  Pride is a perennial and fundamental sin in all men.  The doctrine of election properly understood, however, does little to promote pride in those who embrace it.  The believer who affirms this doctrine understands that he was not saved because of any merit in himself, but purely through the grace of God.  He was not more intelligent, more spiritual, or more upright than other men.  He was simply the object of Christ’s affection through no merit of his own.  A right understanding of this doctrine deposes pride and develops humility in the Christian’s heart.


9.      Will this doctrine dull our zeal for evangelism?


Scripture teaches that God not only ordains the recipients of salvation in election, but he also ordains the means for their salvation.  In Romans 10:14-15 Paul gave this charge to preach the gospel:


14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!”


The apostle then adds:  “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom 10:17).  All those who are chosen for salvation must have the gospel preached to them, so that they might hear and believe in Christ.  The orchestration and coordination of this is in God’s hands.  We do not know who will respond to the gospel.  We do not choose who will be saved.  We discover those whom God has chosen as we watch the elect respond in faith to gospel preaching.

In the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20), Christ ordered his disciples to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the triune God, and teaching them to obey all of the Lord’s commandments. The doctrine of election, far from quenching zeal for evangelism, gives us great confidence and boldness that we will be successful in this task.  If we preach Christ, God will draw all kinds of men to himself (see John 12:32).  The greatest cross-cultural missionaries in the evangelical world have been those who held to these doctrines, starting with William Carey, the father of the modern missions movement.

The King James Bible

The History of Christianity in 25 Objects: King James Bible

In 2012 Stevenson University, located on the outskirts of Baltimore, Maryland, entered into an important partnership with the Maryland Bible Society. The Society had an extensive collection of rare and antique Bibles and related documents but no place to properly store and display them. Stevenson University offered space in its library and today houses the collection. The jewel of this collection is a rare first edition King James Bible, the next of the 25 objects through which we can trace the history of Christianity.

KJBThe Protestant Reformation was inseparable from a new and heightened commitment to the Word of God. The Bible in the people’s common tongue was the key to the growth and the influence of Protestant theology. In 1525 William Tyndale produced his great English translation of the New Testament and once it got into the hands of the general population, England would never be the same. In the decades that followed, many other translations would appear, none so prominent and none so important as the King James Bible of 1611.

In 1603 Queen Elizabeth died without an heir and Scotland’s James VI acceded to the throne of England where he was crowned James I. The following year he convened the Hampton Court Conference to enter into discussions with leaders of the Church of England, including several Puritans. Not surprisingly, the conference turned out to be something of a farce. James had a lofty view of his own intellect and was dismissive of others, especially the Puritans. However, he did give in on one crucial matter important: the commissioning of a new, authorized translation of the Bible.

The early English translations of the Bible had been the work of individuals. However, this new translation was to be the work of committees. Fifty four eminent scholars were chosen to take up the work and they were divided into six teams, each of which would translate a selection of books. Though guided by the original Hebrew and Greek text, the translators worked primarily from existing English translations. The Bishops’ Bible of 1568 would be the foundational text, but, when the translators lacked clarity, they were authorized to consult the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible. Before their work began, Richard Bancroft, Bishop of London, drafted fifteen translations principles that would govern their work.

It was not until 1607 that the labor began in earnest. Work continued until 1611 when the first editions were finally published by Robert Barker, a printer officially licensed by the king.
The early editions of the King James Bible are not without some controversy. There are two editions reputed to have been printed in 1611 and they are typically known as the “She” Bible and the “He” Bible based on two variations of the wording of Ruth 3:15: “And he went into the citie” or “And she went into the citie.” Today most scholars are confident that the “He” Bible was the very first edition and the wording of Ruth 3:15 was changed to “she” in the second.

The King James Bible would be known as the Authorized Bible because it was authorized for public reading in worship services. It would be revised many times with the most enduring version finalized in the early 19th century. Year after year it would be the world’s bestselling book. For almost 250 years this text would be the dominant translation in the English language and its impact on theology, language, and the formation of the mind, is incalculable. It has rightly been described as “the most influential version of the most influential book in the world, in what is now its most influential language.”

That volume now rests with the rest of the Maryland Bible Society’s collection in Stevenson University’s library. Encased in glass, visitors can view this treasure. It has not escaped the ravages of time. Pages have been stained, torn and repaired. The binding is in poor condition. But the print remains dark and bold. And the Word of God lives on.

“Alexamenos sebetai theon,” / “Alexamenos worships his God.”

The History of Christianity in 25 Objects: Alexamenos Graffito

In this ongoing series of articles we are tracing the history of the Christian faith by pausing to look at 25 objects, 25 historical relics that survive to our day. From the John Rylands Library at the University of Manchester we return to the city of Rome and this time we travel to the Palatine Antiquarium Museum, a museum dedicated to the history of the Palatine Hill. Rome is the city built upon seven hills and the Palatine Hill is at the center of them all, rising up above what remains of the Roman Forum on the one side and the Circus Maximus on the other. It has been the context for many of history’s most significant moments. Some of the museum’s exhibitions display models of the early villages that predate the founding of Rome while others hold relics of ancient temples and other buildings that used to adorn the hill. Among the relics, secured high on one wall, is a curious piece of graffiti.

This graffiti, carved into plaster, was discovered in 1857 during archeological excavations and was soon dubbed Alexamenos graffito. It is old and faded and the original design is difficult to discern, yet a careful tracing reveals two roughly-drawn figures and a string of Greek characters. To the left is a man raising his hand in adoration, in worship or prayer. To his side, rising above him, is a second man suspended from a cross. Crucifixions were commonplace in ancient Rome and this man looks like we would expect: his arms are outstretched, pinned to a crossbar, his feet are planted upon a platform, he is wearing some kind of a garment that covers his lower body. What distinguishes him from any other crucified criminal is that while he has the body of a man, he has the head of a donkey. The inscription says, “Alexamenos sebetai theon,” “Alexamenos worships his God.”

Alexamenos Graffiti

Historians date Alexamenos’ graffiti to approximately 200 A.D., making it the earliest surviving depiction of Jesus upon the cross. Yet this is not a religious icon meant to elicit awe or worship. This graffiti is a mockery of Alexamenos, an ancient Christian, and a mockery of a God who would die the shameful death of a criminal.

The first object we looked at, Augustus of Prima Porta, reminded us that Christianity was birthed in a time when Rome was the world’s dominant power. In that statue of Caesar Augustus, Rome’s first and greatest Emperor, we saw the context for Christianity’s rapid expansion and at the same time we saw the seed of her early persecution. The relationship between Rome and the Christian faith was always complicated and often changing. There were times in which the ancient church faced systemic persecution, in which Christians were hunted down and put to death for daring to reject the gods of Rome and for daring to deny the divinity of her Emperor. There were also times of peace and freedom in which Christians were allowed to bow before Jesus.

Alexamenos GraffitiYet even in these times of freedom from systemic persecution, Christians were mocked and belittled. Even in these times they faced the shame of worshipping a God so many others denied. They faced the shame of worshipping a God who had been put to death as a common criminal.
Every Christian can attest that the call to follow Jesus is the call to bear shame and to face mockery, to be the butt of jokes, to be an object of scorn. This is a very different kind of suffering from those who faced the lions or the stake, but it is suffering still. In this ancient graffiti we see that what is true today has been true from the earliest days. Our ancient brother Alexamenos also knew the shame and foolishness of worshipping a crucified God, of raising his hands to a Savior on a cross. Though 1,800 years stand between him and us, we are very much the same.

The Cosmos - the pluses of knowledge & the minuses of idolatry

"The Cosmos"


cosmos

“The Cosmos is all that is – or ever was – or ever will be.”  With those words made famous by Carl Sagan a generation ago, “The Cosmos” is being reworked for a new generation on the Fox television network.  It was shown Sunday night on TV.  A generation ago I watched and marveled at so much of the grander of the original.  I watched this new installment by DVR on Monday in High Definition.  What I found was much the same as the original, with better graphics, newer scientific information, but the same underlying presuppositions.

The first twenty minutes were by far the best.  The show did a remarkable job showing the staggering and unimaginable immensity of the universe.  They tried to encapsulate the scientific knowledge we have gained, as many believe it to be, and take us on a journey through our solar system and beyond using the scientific method.

The scientific method is explained in simple, easy to understand terms:
1.  Test ideas by experiment and observation.
2.  Build on those ideas that pass the test and reject the ones that fail.
3.  Follow the evidence wherever it leads, and question everything.

These are the rules that the natural man follows in his quest for knowledge, and in themselves they are not bad.  The problem is, they are impossible to keep objectively and “The Cosmos” series often wanders far from these rules.  Imagination and speculation are inserted with the same certainty as what we believe are the facts.  No one is neutral.  Man is totally depraved, and without the understanding that there is an eternal Creator God, man’s search for knowledge will lead him astray.
As they show the wonder of the universe, through pictures, CGI graphics and animation, this is where we as Christians can rejoice.  Our great God created all of this.  We are discovering more and more of what He has made.  His creation far exceeds what we have known in its immensity and complexity.  We can and should expect to learn more as the years go by.  The knowledge gained, by the light of natural revelation, should humble us and cause us to worship and serve the Creator.  But natural revelation, which testifies to the Creator is never enough.  Instead, man in his depravity proves the truth again and again which is explained so well in Romans 1:18-23.

The Cosmos IS the “god” of this new series and evolution is their authoritative bible.  The means whereby everything comes to pass are accident, chaos, and time.   Theories and imagination become realities, and their own rules are broken when they asked to “question everything”.  It appears they only want us to question the existence of God Himself, and give a natural explanation for all that there has been, is and will be.  The sun, moon and stars were the gods of ancient civilizations.  Not much has changed, but “the god” is now much larger.  The Cosmos is the god of this series, and Carl Sagan is the prophet.

Is there value in the series?  Everyone needs to judge for themselves and their family.  This type of program does fascinate me, and I expect to tape and watch them all, just as I saw all of the original series done by Sagan himself.  Do understand the series is not pure science and you will be bombarded by the things our society bombards us with daily.  Take a tour of the Grand Canyon, read the explanatory signs that are posted, and you will find much the same thing.

But this series goes even further.  It is a mixture of science, pseudo-science, imagination, pop psychology, philosophy and religion.  They are trying to answer the great questions of existence while denying the existence of God.  They pit science against religion and by implication take their shots at those who would believe in God today.  With the matter of fact presentation given, one wonders if they even understand where they have taken their own “leap of faith”.

They mock the foolish men who once thought the earth to be the center of the universe.  What they willfully forget is our “cosmic address” does not matter.  Our physical place in the universe is not what ultimately matters nor is this what God speaks about in the Scriptures.

God made all things for His own glory.  While the majesty and immensity of the universe overwhelms us, do not forget that His providence rules over all.  This is true from the macro to the micro.  And do not forget, God has His eye on this earth specifically and man in particular.  It should overwhelm us to think that God made all that is, in the beginning, and we only see a speck of it.  There is the vastness of what is still unseen, of the material and spiritual and much of it is unimaginable to our finite minds.  Yet His watch care is here.  God made man in His own image from the dust of the ground.  The God-man came into this world.  The cosmos is not God.  The cosmos is the creation, and man is the crowning glory of that creation.  That should not cause us to be arrogant, but humble in the sight of a God who is more glorious than we truly comprehend.

Pastor Steve Marquedant
Sovereign Grace Reformed Baptist Church
Ontario, California

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Just Relax, A Little Liquid Drano Won’t Hurt Anyone


Just Relax, A Little Liquid Drano Won’t Hurt Anyone
March 7th, 2014 Post by Pastor Matt Richard – from the Steadfast Lutherans

I can recall hearing, as a first year seminarian, one of my professors criticize Pastor Rick Warren’s book The Purpose Driven Life. Upon hearing this critical assessment, I was deeply angered. I thought that his actions were severely inappropriate and that it was not proper to disparage another fellow Christian who was simply attempting to promote the Christian faith. From my reasoning, the presence of a Christian voice was better than the absence of a Christian voice and it was certainly better than a voice speaking contrary to Christian truths. Even though my professor took the time to show me the countless errors in Warren’s book, I still concluded that a faulty Christian voice was better than no Christian voice at all. Besides, I felt that is was rude, insincere, and un-ecumenical to criticize those within the Christian sphere; we are all on the same team after all trying to do our best for God.
The problem with my rationalization was that I believed that a Christian voice with small and subtle doctrinal errors was more advantageous and less of a concern than a voice that was obviously unchristian or a message that lacked a Christian message altogether. To me, subtle and small errors were less of a concern than obvious and blatant errors. I said to myself, “Why sweat the small stuff; why fuss over small errors that might upset the unity of a Christian community? Why quibble over every pixel of God’s excellent picture?”
It was not until several years later that my faulty view was finally exposed and reversed. I can remember it so vividly. I had graduated from seminary and had taken several church youth to a conference. At the conference, the speaker gave a lesson while he baked a batch of chocolate chip cookies. In his presentation he had several youth add flour, vanilla, chocolate, and eggs into a mixing bowl. Right before they were going to mix the ingredients together, the speaker subtly announced that he was going to add a teaspoon of drain cleaning Liquid Drano to the ingredients in the bowl. He said it quietly, did it quickly, and kept talking. Surprisingly, several of the youth sitting in the pews really did not even catch it. At the end of his session, he wrapped up his teaching from Paul’s Letter to the Galatians and invited all the youth to partake of freshly baked cookies. Some revolted! Others were enticed! The point had been made. The point being, what is worse than Liquid Drano in a batch of cookies? Answer, a ‘little’ Liquid Drano in a batch of cookies. Otherwise stated, it is the trivial comma placed after Jesus that should concern us; it is the small footnote attached to the doctrine of justification that should alarm us. Yes, there is tremendous subtle corrupting power in small errors.
Martin Luther captures this theme in his book, Bondage of the Will. To summarize his thoughts on this subject, let me phrase his assessment in the form of a question and answer.[1]
Question: What is worse than Pelagianism?
Answer:
Semi-Pelagianism.
In other words, what is worse than a heretic? Answer, a subtle or crafty heretic. Indeed this is true. The reason why? A Pelagian, one holding to the heresy of Pelagius, generally tends to confess and assert their beliefs candidly. They call a spade a spade. They teach openly what they believe. However, a Semi-Pelagian is a bit trickier. A Semi-Pelagian is indeed heretical; however, the emphasis of Pelagian theology is less candid, which results in people being more easily conned. Otherwise stated, Semi-Pelagianism is toned down Pelagianism, which results in the same theological ethos being purported, but it tends to be more palatable because of the de-emphasis of the outright heresy.
Is this not the same tactic of the evil one that we see in the scriptures? Keep in mind that the scriptures say that the devil disguises himself as an angel of light (See: 2 Corinthians 11:14). Furthermore, in Luke chapter 4 and Genesis chapter 3 we clearly see that the devil’s scheme is not to entirely eliminate scripture (i.e., God’s Word), but to twist it ever so slightly. Did God really say?
What we learn from Luther and the scriptures is that It is not the blatant lies that are of extreme danger, though they are dangerous, rather, it is the subtle lies that should be of great concern.
Looking back to my old professor from seminary, I now realize that this professor was not being divisive, insincere, or inappropriate. Rather, he was demonstrating love and pastoral care by attempting to protect me from elements of false truth. While I was ignorant to these errors, he was not. While I was metaphorically eating cookies with Liquid Drano, he was fighting to keep me from ingesting poison. You see, my old professor knew that these false truths would act like yeast and would spread through the whole batch of dough. He knew the danger of a small teaspoon of heresy; that a small error can corrupt and erode a Christian’s theological framework.

I now regret how I branded this professor as an unloving, divisive, anti-chocolate chip cookie grouch. This could not be further from the truth. Metaphorically speaking, my professor did enjoy chocolate chip cookies, but he hated Liquid Drano and he hated the adverse effects of the poison upon the church. Frankly, he loved me enough to disrupt my enjoyment of Liquid Drano cookies and he was courageous enough to criticize those who baked these corrupted cookies for me, even though these actions would earn him the stigma as being unloving, nitpicky, and an anti-cookie grouch.
Honestly, I believe that what we need most in the church today is more anti-chocolate chip cookie grouches, for there are indeed a lot of individuals cooking up and distributing Liquid Drano cookies in our post-modern pluralistic context. Furthermore, I believe that it is truly dangerous and foolish when we rationalize in our minds that a little poison won’t hurt anyone and when we attempt to preserve tranquility within a community by applying ad hominem stigmas to those who are attempting to expose stealthy poison.
Rather than naïvely consuming the plethora of ideologies in our world, may we hold steadfast to sound doctrine as Paul instructs Timothy and Titus in the Pastoral Epistles (See 2 Timothy 1:13 and Titus 2:1). May we also recognize that it is truly good, right, and salutary when false doctrines are refuted, exposed, and laid bare (See Titus 1:9). Indeed, it is good when poison is exposed; it is good when yeast is prevented from fermenting the whole dough; it is good when the twisted-ness of the evil one is uncovered; it is good when God’s people are not tossed to and fro, blown about by every wind of doctrine; it is good when the church recognizes the trickery and deceitful scheming of man; and it is good for Baptized Saints to know what they believe and why, so that they are not a reed shaken by the wind.
_______________________
[1] Martin Luther. Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation. ed. E. Gordon Rupp and Philip S. Watson (Philadelphia, PA; The Westminster Press, 1969), 311.

How come Forbes is more moral than Mars Hill church, they can see a problem with this...



Jeff Bercovici, Forbes Staff
(I cover technology with an emphasis on social and digital media)
|2/22/2013 @ 4:33PM |62,624 views
Here's How You Buy Your Way Onto The New York Times Bestsellers List

Delivering Happiness (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
An endorsement from Oprah Winfrey. A film deal from Steven Spielberg. A debut at the top of The New York Times bestsellers list. These are the things every author craves most, and while the first two require the favor of a benevolent God, the third can be had by anyone with the ability to write a check — a pretty big one.
ResultSource, a San Diego-based marketing consultancy, specializes in getting books onto bestseller lists, according to The Wall Street Journal. For clients willing to pay enough, it will even guarantee a No. 1 spot. It does this by taking bulk sales and breaking them up into more organic-looking individual purchases, defeating safeguards that are supposed to make it impossible to “buy” bestseller status.
And it’s not cheap. Soren Kaplan, a business consultant and speaker, hired ResultSource to promote his book “Leapfrogging.” Responding to the WSJ article on his website, Kaplan breaks out the economics of making the list.
With a $27.95 list price, I was told that the cost of each book would total about $23.50 after various retail discounts and including $3.99 for tax, handling and shipping.  To ensure a spot on The Wall Street Journal’s bestseller list, I needed to obtain commitments from my clients for a minimum of 3000 books at about $23.50, a total of about $70,500.  I would need to multiply these numbers by a factor of about three to hit The New York Times list.
So it would’ve cost more than $211,000, and that’s before ResultSource’s fee, which is typically more than $20,000. Kaplan settled for making the Journal’s list, reaching the pre-sale figure of 3,000 by securing commitments from corporate clients, who agreed to buy copies as part of his speaking fees, and by buying copies for himself to resell at public appearances.
Kaplan expresses significant reservations about taking part in what is essentially a laundering operation aimed at deceiving the book-buying public into believing a title is more in-demand than it is.
“It’s no wonder few people in the industry want to talk about bestseller campaigns,” he writes “Put bluntly, they allow people with enough money, contacts, and know-how to buy their way onto bestseller lists.”
Yet ResultSource’s methods aren’t exactly secret. The  company’s website features an endorsement from Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh and a breakdown of the campaign it mounted behind his book “Delivering Happiness,” which included a Groupon offering of 1,600 copies. Via a spokeswoman, Hsieh confirmed that he hired the firm and detailed the services it provided. (You can read Hsieh’s full statement at the bottom of this post.)
Still, Amazon disapproves strongly enough of ResultSource’s methods that it told WSJ it will no longer do business with the company. What about the publishers of the various bestsellers lists — particularly the all-important New York Times list?
The Times’s methodology (which you can find at the bottom of this page) samples sales from a diverse range of retail outlets, a measure specifically intended to weed out books whose sales surge is a product of artificial demand. Books that benefited from bulk sales are supposed to have a dagger icon next to them to denote that fact. Yet when Hsieh’s book debuted on the list in 2009, it had no such symbol.
I called and emailed the Times with several questions, including whether it was aware before today of ResultSource’s activities. Here’s the reply I got from a spokeswoman: “The New York Times comprehensively tracks and tabulates the weekly unit sales of all titles reported by book retailers as their general interest bestsellers.  We will not comment beyond our methodology on the other questions.
ResultSource CEO Kevin Small did not reply to a voicemail.
Here’s Tony Hsieh’s full message:
ResultSource booked us for various speaking events in many of our cities during our 2010 book tour, where we went to 23 cities over 3.5 months on the Delivering Happiness bus.
For part one of our trip, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtiIXo9Id-s
At many of those events, people paid to come watch me speak and receive an autographed copy of my book. ResultSource managed the speaking, book ordering, and distribution of the books for us during the tour. We’re excited that the book has continued to do well over the years since the launch, and are also excited that the paperback version of the book will be coming out next month!
Since the book launch, “Delivering Happiness” has spun off into a company, and now has its own apparel line as part of its mission to help spread the Delivering Happiness message:
http://deliveringhappiness.com/

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Charismatics are not taught the Bible, so they have no idea how DAMNING this idolotry is. Charismatics, go ahead and consider yourselves Catholic and share the same fate as the Anti-Christ of Rome.

Pope to Copeland: Catholics and Charismatics must spiritually unite


Screen shot 2014-02-21 at 3.47.50 PM

We are galloping toward a one-world melding of religions, and the ramifications are staggering. Pope Francis has now sent a video message to Word of Faith father Kenneth Copeland, urging a reconciliation between Catholics and Charismatics.

“The Catholic and Charismatic Renewal is the hope of the Church,” exclaims Anglican Episcopal Bishop Tony Palmer, before a group of cheering followers at the Kenneth Copeland Ministries.   Palmer said those words are from the Vatican. Before playing the video message from Pope Francis to Kenneth Copeland, Palmer told the crowd,  “When my wife saw that she could be Catholic, and Charismatic, and Evangelical, and Pentecostal, and it was absolutely accepted in the Catholic Church, she said that she would like to reconnect her roots with the Catholic culture. So she did.”

The crowd cheered, as he continued, “Brothers and sisters, Luther’s protest is over. Is yours?”
Even Kenneth Copeland finds this development incredible: Said Copeland, “Heaven is thrilled over this…You know what is so thrilling to me? When we went into the ministry 47 years ago, this was impossible.”

How can this impossibility be? Could the ears of those once aware of the evils of ecumenicism suddenly be sealing shut? What is even more gobsmackingly painful is the reaction from evangelicals, who seem quite thrilled with this unholy alliance.

Here is the longer version of what Copeland and Palmer said. Note that at about 40 minutes in, Copeland and the congregants join in prayer for the “Holy Father,” then watch as Anthony Palmer videotapes a return message to Pope Francis from Kenneth Copeland himself.

Copland submits to the Pope! - the full video

Just the Pope's message to lead charismatics astray! - partial video

Here is just the Pope’s message, at about 30 minutes in:


Here is the transcript:
“Two rules: Love God above all, and love the other (neighbor), because he is your brother and sister. With these two rules we can go ahead. I am here with my brother, my bishop brother, Tony Palmer. We’ve been friends for years.
He told me about your conference, about your meeting. And it’s my pleasure to greet you. A greeting both joyful and nostalgic (yearning). Joyful because it gives me joy that you have come together to worship Jesus Christ the only Lord. And to pray to the Father and to receive the Holy Spirit. This brings me joy because we can see that God is working all over the world. Nostalgic (yearning) because but…it happens, as within our suburbs. In the suburbs there are families that love each other and families that don’t love each other. Families that come together and families who separate themselves. We are kind of…permit me to say, separated.

Separated because, it’s sin that has separated us, all our sins. The misunderstandings throughout history. It has been a long road of sins that we all shared in. Who is to blame? We all share the blame. We have all sinned. There is only one blameless, the Lord. I am nostalgic (yearning), that this separation comes to an end and gives us communion. I am nostalgic (yearning), of that embrace that the Holy Scripture speaks of when Joseph’s brothers began to starve from hunger, they went to Egypt, to buy, so that they could eat.
They went to buy. They had money. But they couldn’t eat the money. But there they found something more than food, they found their brother. All of us have currency. The currency of our culture. The currency of our history. We have lot of cultural riches, and religious riches. And we have diverse traditions. But we have to encounter one another as brothers. We must cry together like Joseph did. These tears will unite us. The tears of love.

I am speaking to you as a brother. I speak to you in a simple way. With joy and nostalgia (yearning). Let us allow our nostalgia (yearning) to grow, because this will propel us to find each other, to embrace one another. And together to worship Jesus Christ as the only Lord of History.

I thank you profoundly for listening to me. I thank you profoundly for allowing me to speak the language of the heart. And I also ask you a favor. Please pray for me, because I need your prayers. And I will pray for you, I will do it, but I need your prayers. And let us pray to the Lord that He unites us all. Come on, we are brothers. Let’s give each other a spiritual hug and let God complete the work that he has begun. And this is a miracle; the miracle of unity has begun.

A famous Italian author named Manzoni, once wrote in his novel, of a simle man amongst the people, who once said this, “I’ve never seen God begin a miracle without Him finishing it well.” He will complete this miracle of unity. I ask you to bless me, and I bless you. From brother to brother, I embrace you. Thank you.”