Revenge of the Fallen

I love SciFi, and I'm usually hesitant to make a Biblical argument against a work of mainstream fiction ("The Golden Compass" and "Harry Potter" not included!). However, reading through Larkin's "The Spirit World" opened my eyes to something that I think is important for Christians to understand.

In Transformers: The Revenge of the Fallen, Megatron, the leader of the evil Decepticons, is raised from the depths of the ocean (the "Deep," anyone?) to wreak havoc once again on earth. Of course, in the end the good guys win, but the storyline is filled with hidden Masonic references (Vigilant Citizen - Transformers 2) and NWO undertones throughout.

What's so hard to understand about Eternal Security??

I just chatted with a young lady that I hadn't talked to in a couple years, and to my chagrin she has gotten involved with a "Community Church" thingamajig. You know the drill: gotta' learn Greek, no final authority but God, no eternal security, speaking in tongues, healing, the whole bit.

My question to her, which she was unable to answer (even though she's attending "Bible" school through her church), was simply "where does the Bible say that a person can rescind their salvation?" (Ok, I didn't use exactly those words, but it's the same idea.)

First thing, people that believe like she does have no clue what the New Birth of John 3 means. They don't understand that people are reborn into God's Image, the Image that Adam lost by his disobedience. Jesus, the LAST ADAM, retrieved that Image by His obedience, allowing us to again be "made in His image." Not since Adam's sin, until the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, had anyone been "reborn." Jesus hadn't paid the penalty and retrieved the crown of the Kingdom of God (spiritual) yet!

Secondly, they have no idea about Spiritual Circumcision. It's laid out so clearly in Scripture, but their belief in optional Security prove that they have no clue about predestination to the conformation of Christ or what the "operation of God" is in Colossians 2:12.

Note: every time Paul says "I would not have ye to be ignorant, brethren," the brethren are ALWAYS IGNORANT!

The danger of God's "permissive" will

Everyone loves Peter: loudmouth though he was, there's a fighting spirit about him that just doesn't quit. One of the best-loved and oft-preached stories is that of Peter walking on the water. Let's recap:

Matt. 14:22 And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.
23 And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.
24 But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.
25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
Matt. 14:28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
32 And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.

First point: Jesus told them to get in the boat. Jesus never left room for getting OUT of the boat: He said GET IN AND GO ACROSS.

Second point: Peter did NOT ask permission to go across: he said "Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water." In effect, he was QUESTIONING Christ's claim about Who He was, and giving Jesus an ultimatum about His identity! Peter was AGAIN shooting off his mouth without using his head.

Like one preacher said, Judas was a better example of FAITH and OBEDIENCE than was Peter: he (and all the others) stayed in the BOAT like Jesus told them to, and they didn't question Jesus when He declared Who He was!

This just goes to show us that God's permissive will requires faith as well, but should we really be there? Christ allowed Peter to come to Him, and all the while Peter was flat disobeying and showing off. Time and again Peter gets into trouble: before AND after Christ's resurrection! Even Paul stood him up for being out of line! How then are we going to view direct disobedience and LACK of faith as a great example for us in our Christian walk?

STAY IN THE BOAT!

Romans Road vs. Straight and Narrow

Occasionally someone shows up on the forum from whence I was last banned and starts arguing Salvation from Matthew or Hebrews or even the OT. It's hilarious, to be honest. They fall all over themselves, arguing Scriptures and trying to explain things away, while the heretic runs roughshod over them and makes them look like fools. Don't get me wrong, there are several nice, Godly people there, and I like several of them, but 98% of the people there can't answer a man like that.

The current fiasco is a "WWJD" type of guy, the kind that doesn't pay attention to mail addresses (see my earlier posts on that). He likes Jesus' message. Who doesn't? Blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are the peacemakers, etc. His message, while hard, is nice for the most part. And it's Jesus, so we should obey Him, right?

I Corinthians 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

I Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Philippians 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me,

THREE times, Paul tells the CHURCH to follow him. Yes, the final object is Christ, because Paul followed Christ, but he commanded the Church to follow HIM three times. That's an indisputable fact, unless you like to argue with the Bible (not a smart thing to do).

So let's back up a little. Why Paul and not Jesus? Well, who was Jesus speaking to? Who did Jesus preach to? Most importantly, who did Jesus NOT preach to? Remember the Cyro-phonecian woman? Jesus called her a DOG! He said that it's not right to give the childrens' bread unto DOGS!! How's that for racial equality? Jesus didn't go to the Gentiles: He didn't preach to them, He didn't waste time on their ailments, He didn't try to convert them. He said that He was sent not but to the lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL!

Who was Paul sent to? Who did he preach and write to? God said that Paul was to be a witness to the Gentiles. He was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and also the messenger to the Church (9 books addressed to churches?).

So, are you going to take a Jewish gospel, from a Jewish preacher, to a Jewish nation, and believe that, when God Himself said that Paul was the preacher to the Gentiles, and in turn the church? So, Romans or the Sermon on the Mount? Chop off your hand or live peaceably as much as lieth in you? Endure to the end or He'll keep us from falling?

Your choice. God, however, is right and true, and His word never faileth.

Looked for a City

For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

I just love the Bible. It pops out and gets you sometimes! The other night, I was laying in bed with my wife just chatting about stuff (we couldn't get to sleep) and I was thinking about a discussion I've had in the past with certain people about Abraham and his Sanctification and Justification. I've dealt with that quite a few times, though those who fight with me about it never seem to get it, but that's fine: I can go over it again sometime.

Anyhow, I was thinking about Hebrews 11 and its relationship to Romans 4, and I couldn't remember whether Hebrews 11 said "foundation" or "foundations." Now, to the average Christian, that wouldn't make a bit of difference. However, to the avid Bible Believer, that changes everything! That single "s" means that Abraham wasn't looking for any old city: he was looking for the New Jerusalem!! I got really excited when I saw that: here's Abraham, in 1200+ BC, looking for the New Jerusalem that STILL hasn't shown up!

You might be thinking, "doesn't that create a big problem for you Dispensationalists that don't think Abraham was saved by grace through faith plus nothing else?" Well...nope. See, WE know that that is what Abraham was looking for. After the fact, when Hebrews was written, God revealed it to the author of that book and in turn to us. But, where does it say that Abraham knew what he was looking for? Hmm, good question! If you look through the Old Testament, almost every passage deals with physical blessing and curses; only Psalms and the Prophets really get deep into spiritual stuff. Why? Because the jews look for a sign! The Jews have ALWAYS been a sight-oriented people. They want to SEE something before they believe it. (sounds like Missouri!)

Basically, Abraham was just following God around, going where He said to go, doing what He said to do. He never found anything, and according to Hebrews 11, what he was looking for (whether he knew it or not) wasn't even around to be found!! God gave the promises to Abraham then, which he took as physical blessing, but in fact God was looking toward the day when the Jews will be given an enormous inheritance among the people of the earth! In fact, it's not Abraham's physical descendants that will inherit the New Jerusalem: it's the Church, the SPIRITUAL children of Abraham that will live in the New Jerusalem!

It never ceases to amaze me how deep and complex the Bible is! I can't wait to get to Heaven and know the mind of God....that thought is almost enough to fry your brain!!

Advanced Revelation, Double Inspiration, and People who lie about the Bible

Like always, the last forum that banned me (*cough*OB*cough) is embroiled in the TR vs. KJB debate again. The site claims to be "King James Version Only," and while the Administrator doesn't post enough for me to know for sure how he stands, the vast majority of the members there are "fair-weather KJB-onlyists," or they only believe the King James Bible because nothing better has come along to replace it.

Of course, this would only happen (the KJB being replaced) if it was a "faithful translation," though of course that very statement is insanely subjective, as anyone who uses his brain could figure. Someone who believes this is no better than Westcott and Hort, Nestle, Aland, Bob Jones II and III, or Arlin Horton. The only difference is the text that they use to prop up their own ego and opinion. The first batch uses the Textus Receptus, while the other uses anything and everything except the TR. But in the end it's all the same thing: self-important, self-righteous men deciding for themselves what is right and wrong. "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

Now I know as well as anyone that the King James arose mostly from the manuscripts that were compiled into the TR. That's a fact, and an indisputable one. However, what those TR-lovers neglect to mention is that there are many passages in the KJB that don't come from any Majority text manuscript or text. For instance the Johannine Comma: the only text at the time that had that passage in it was the corrupt Latin Vulgate! However, those "godly men" put that phrase in there, and were later vindicated by the rise of many Antioch manuscripts that included the passage.

Another fun topic that they love to rant against on that forum is what has been called "double inspiration," or "advanced revelation." Now double inspiration is their description of the Biblical teaching of Scriptural peservation and inspiration: that al Scripture is given by inspiration of God, so anything that claims to be Scripture must be given by inspiration of God. Simple, no? Then we have advanced revelation, which they tout as adding to God's word, when in fact it is simply things that showed up in the English LANGUAGE as a result of the translation from Greek and Hebrew. It wasn't something added in by the translators, it was something that was evidenced through the translation of Scripture that had been in the passage all along: it just wasn't evident in Greek or Hebrew!

Ok I'm tired of typing now, so I'll get into more down the road if I feel like it. Comments=more rant, so if you want more, comment! :D