Tag Archives: Bible

Humor

This evil satire of Calvinism is not funny at all!!!

2 Comments

I don’t even think you should read it. It’s so evil!

Excerpt:

In this post I would like to look at the extent of the atonement. By using proper exegesis of scripture it can be proven with certainty that Jesus died to effectually secure salvation for Paul of Tarsus. And for Paul alone.

First, let’s take a look at Galatians 2:20. This is the most important verse in the Bible, because it explicitly states the extent of the atonement (bold mine):

“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

This verse is key. It indisputably proves that Jesus loved and gave himself only for Paul.

And:

In Matthew 18:12 we learn that the shepherd only wanted to save one sheep. In fact he abandoned 99 sheep to save the one (bold mine):

“What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?”

This passage is so clear. It proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the shepherd found and saved only one sheep (Paul). The shepherd left the 99 other sheep on the hills. By doing this the shepherd maximized his glory. Moreover, he increased the appreciation and adoration of Paul, whom was effectually retrieved. If other sheep could have been retrieved, it would have diluted the value of the shepherd’s act.

This is so awful, that I have no words to describe how awful! Awful!

Here’s another thing that you shouldn’t read!

All kidding aside, I do believe in definite atonement. Sufficient for all, efficient for some, based on God’s foreknowledge of who would respond to his taking the initiative to draw a specific group of people toward him, who did not want him at all, but who he knew would freely responding to his loving them FIRST.

I apologize to all of my Calvinist readers for posting this. Please forgive me. You have to allow me my fun once in a while. Isn’t that what friendship is all about?

Commentary

Do you all agree with Wes Widner about the doctrine of original sin?

54 Comments

His post at Reason to Stand is here.

Excerpt:

When dealing with the doctrine of “original sin” it is important to understand what this doctrine does and does not mean. Simply put, it does mean that because of the sin of Adam and Eve (though, Biblically, the full weight of responsibility for this sin falls on Adam’s shoulders) sinful proclivities have entered into the hearts of men.

[…]What the doctrine of original sin does not mean is that we are all borne owing the debt of sins Adam incurred.

[…]“Original sin”, if understood in the sense that we are guilty of sin from birth logically leads to the untenable conclusion that all children go to hell (unless one holds to the unbiblical stretch known as covenantal theology) for sins they did not freely choose to commit.

Romans 3:23, which tells us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God“, is not a prescriptive phrase, that we will by necessity sin, but rather a descriptive phrase about what we all freely choose to do. Given long enough, after reaching the age of accountability, we will come to know the difference between good and evil and we will freely choose to sin of our own accord.

The fact is that we are actually borne innocent and freely choose to sin thereby breaking ourselves and disqualifying ourselves from participating in a relationship with a holy God.

Do any of my readers have a different understanding of original sin than this one?

Commentary

Who is right about social justice: Glenn Beck or Jim Wallis?

5 Comments

Here is a Washington post editorial by the executive producer of the Glenn Beck show. (H/T Michelle Malkin)

Social justice is often used as a code word by the left to promote government-controlled redistribution of wealth to favored special interest groups at the expense of other unfavored groups in order to keep the party in power in power. It’s vote buying, essentially, but with the illusion of helping others. And the goal is the equalization of material wealth regardless of personal choices, including moral choices.

Recently, Glenn Beck warned his viewers to beware of churches that push social justice as though it were sanctioned by Christianity somehow.

This is part of the information Glenn revealed in a special TV show about American extremism of the 20th century. In the context of promoting that special, he began talking about how the far left was once again using this terminology to politicize churches. The specific example he named was Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

He told his listeners that if they were in a church that preaches Jeremiah Wright-style social justice, they should leave–or at least get educated on what exactly that means. It took him all of eight seconds to clarify the type of church he was speaking of, but that was long enough for most in the media to end the transcript.

Suddenly, Glenn was accused of attacking the central tenants of the bible, because he supposedly believed that any church that wants to help the poor should be immediately evacuated. This absurd narrative is mainly the product of Rev. Jim Wallis.

To restate the obvious, some simply use the term “social justice” as a substitute for “outreach to the poor.” This is not the kind of “social justice” Glenn was talking about. The fact that this term has been utilized for purposes other than good Christian charity is well documented.

[…]But for Wallis to continue getting attention, he must act as if he believes Glenn is against churches helping the poor. Any honest observer would realize that isn’t the case. Is anyone on earth against charitable outreach to the poor?

Certainly not Glenn.

In his book Arguing With Idiots, Glenn describes helping those less fortunate as an “obligation.” He wrote that capitalism “will inevitably fail if individuals stop caring about the welfare of others.” He just believes the bulk of the help should come from people like you and me, not government bureaucracy. When is the last time you felt charitable on April 15?

[…]Wallis is just as revealing when speaking of his current economic views: “I’m not a liberal, I’m a radical.” Asked if he was calling for the redistribution of wealth across society, he responded: “Absolutely. Without any hesitation. That’s what the gospel is all about.” This is a man that believes an affluent church is no less than “an affront to the gospel” and he’s talking about Glenn being divisive?

I think it’s important to understand just how radical people are when they pass themselves off as Christians, yet have no place for individual charity or the notion of private property, both of which are central in the Bible. I think that Jesus expects us to work in order to have things to share with others, because in that sharing, we can imitate him. The money I earn by the sweat of my brow should not be used by popular people in government to buy votes by subsidizing destructive behaviors, all while blaming me for the behaviors of others.

So I favor capitalism, free markets, private property, the rule of law and voluntary charity by individuals and private organizations – like CHURCHES! To understand what capitalism is, you can watch this lecture entitled “Money, Greed and God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and Not the Problem” by Jay W. Richards, delivered at the Heritage Foundation think tank, and televised by C-SPAN2.

If you can’t see the Richards video, here is an audio lecture by Jay Richards on the “Myths Christians Believe about Wealth and Poverty“. Also, why not check out this series of 4 sermons by Wayne Grudem on the relationship between Christianity and economics? (a PDF outline is here). Here’s a lecture featuring Jay Richards from the libertarian Cato Institute. And you can listen to Ron Nash’s course on Christianity and economics.

More posts from Neil Simpson on Jim Wallis and his Sojourners group:

Related posts