House of Horrors

Kirsten Powers correctly chided her profession when she wrote We've forgotten what belongs on Page One. Since then much brutal information continues to come out about the abortionist Gosnell's "House of Horrors". 

* "Specimens" (i.e, babies) were delivered into toilets
* Seven infants killed after being delivered alive
* Infant beheadings
* Remains of the 47 babies kept in containers filled with formaldehyde, including
* Cut-off feet of babies preserved in jars
* A blind look-the-other-way Planned Parenthood

And so forth.

In The Blaze, Billy Hallowell highlighted the defense lawyer's gruesome description of abortion by dismemberment. Why would a lawyer defending the abortionist Gosnell possibly "offend" the jury with this information? According to Hallowell, “his rationale was clear, as the lawyer explained that his client’s alleged horrific actions presented to the court on Monday are consistent with what one would expect to see in a 'normal' abortion procedure.” They are supposed to think, "Not much difference, eh."

Pro-abortionists cannot comfortably condemn Gosnell's heinous acts. Why? It's too close to home. The act they approve 10 minutes earlier is hard to condemn 10 minutes later. The silence of the media, most often favoring a woman's right to choose, is understandable, even though despicable; the silence of the lambs is deafening.

In Our shameful dereliction of duty in the Rusk County News, Matthew Prosser puts it this way: "...pro-choicers believe abortion rights to be so sacrosanct that they cannot acknowledge Gosnell’s crimes because it might lead to a curtailing of those rights. In short, preserving a woman’s right not to be pregnant is more important to them than preventing infanticide."

Our country has become callous. Perhaps the "House of Horrors" will reach into our heart and soften it. A baby in the womb is a life that ought to be nurtured and protected both by the mother and by society.

Shelton Speaks

An old divine one day, who had fought through many a battle for the souls of men, sat down and wrote to a young preacher in these words, "Never represent faith as being an act so SIMPLE that the work of the Spirit is not needed to produce it." Yet this is what is being done all over Christendom today. The majority of evangelists for the past hundred years have manifested a zeal for God which is not according to knowledge (Rom. 10:2).

Out of this preaching of the simplicity of the way of salvation, there has grown up today in our midst the doctrine of "BELIEVINGISM," which ignores Holy Spirit conviction and sets aside Bible repentance, and leaves the poor sinner resting upon a faith of his own that has no foundation. Out of the doctrine of "Believingism" has grown the stepchild of "DECISIONISM," a practice which is even more shallow and more deadly in its effect upon poor unawakened sinners. This has all grown out of one fact -- man's blindness as to WHO he is by nature, WHAT he is by nature, and the JUDGMENT he is under. In other words, man is failing to know and understand THE DOCTRINE OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY -- which is laughed at, made fun of, and denied in practically all religious circles of today -- is the underlying cause of the shallowness and mistaken conception of God's way of salvation.

L. R. Shelton, Copied from The Baptist Waymark, July-September 1998, p. 4

2 explosions and 3 letters

I don't try to keep abreast with all the news on my blog, because others have so much more time to do it and do it so much better. Two explosions -- in Boston, Massachusetts and West, Texas -- are in the news, as well as letters containing poison.

I posted on the Boston Marathon explosions elsewhere, but just want to make a few brief comments. First, my our prayers continue to go out to those who were injured, to the families of those killed, and to the city which is recovering from this jolting experience. According to Yahoo News, there has been a breakthrough in the case. The FBI has two suspects. They have released photos of these suspects and are asking for the public's help in identifying them.

A suspect has been arrested in connection with 3 poison letters sent to governmental officials, including the President of the United States.

In the small central Texas town of West, a fertilizer plant explosion rocked the town last night. Early reports suggested up to 15 dead after fire and blast at West Fertilizer Company. Some of the firefighters who first responded to the fire are still missing. There is no indication of foul play; this is probably just an industrial accident. The total amount of injured is comparable to those injured in Boston.

O God, our help in ages past, 
Our hope for years to come,
Our shelter from the stormy blast,
and our eternal home...

O God, our help in ages past, 
Our hope for years to come,
Be thou our guide while troubles last,
and our eternal home! 

(Isaac Watts)

Bible resources online

Some resources I've found online for olde English Bibles:

Bishop’s Bible (1568)
Coverdale Bible (1535)
Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible (1582)
Ealry English Bibles
Geneva Bible (1587)
King James, text of the first edition online in images
The Matthew Bible (1537/1549)
Tyndale Bible (1525)
Wycliffe New Testament (1395)

3 Men and a King

Lesson: Daniel 3:1-30

A few thousand years ago three Hebrews had to either obey an earthly despot or the ruler of heaven and earth. Daniel recorded it and it comes down to us as what most of call the 3 Hebrew children and the fiery furnace.

From Exodus 20:1-5 And God spake...Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them
Daniel 3:5 Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up

Nebuchaddnezzar, king of Babylon and most powerful ruler of his time, required his subjects to worship a golden image that he made. Eternal God Jehovah, creator of heaven and earth,  required having no other gods and not bowing down before any image. The 3 Hebrew children -- called Shadrach, Meshech and Abednego by the Babylonians -- were subjects of Nebuchadnezzar and servants of the most High God. They knew God's law and instinctively knew they ought to obey God rather than a man; that when in conflict God's law must be preferred over man's.

Daniel 3:16-18 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

Shadrach, Meshech and Abednego were not careful to answer the king -- meaning not that they lacked precision, as we might use the word most often, but that they were not full of care, were not afraid, and did not quake before King Nebuchaddnezzar. They gave a simple, honest and unflinching answer, "We will not serve thy gods. We will not bow before thine image." Their answer was founded in two principles. God is more powerful than Nebuchaddnezzar, and God has more rights over them than Nebuchaddnezzar. It might not be their highest desire to be cast into a furnace of fire. It was their highest desire to obey God. Though Nebuchaddnezzar had rights over their bodies as his subjects, God had more rights over their bodies and souls as creator, lawgiver and universal king. Shadrach, Meshech and Abednego were convinced of the power of God. He was able to deliver them. Shadrach, Meshech and Abednego were convinced of the providence of God. He would deliver them. Shadrach, Meshech and Abednego were convinced of the wisdom of God. Whether He would deliver them was not the basis of their act of defiance of Nebuchaddnezzar. They acted and stood upon what was right -- we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image.

Daniel 3:26b-28 Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire. And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them. Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.

The preceding example of a firm resolution for the truth of God is glorious and exhilarating  We might well stop there. But consider briefly the work of God in delivering the 3 Hebrew children. This devotion is a bright testimony of God's regard for His servants, a wonderful reminder of the words of Peter, "He careth for you." God was with them in the fire. This display is an awesome revelation of God's power over the fire. Fire in all its rage is a devastating foe of man. It is a mere flicker in the mind of God. That which by nature would have quickly consumed His children was made impotent before them. Finally, this deliverance is an enduring reminder that God is omnipotent and that the greatest powers on earth must bend before His will.  The only damage the fire discharged was to kill Nebuchadnezzar's men and destroy Nebuchadnezzar's bonds.God "changed the king's word," an act which none on earth had either the fortitude or the ability to do.

Praise God whose mighty hand, saved His children and changed the man, Who o'er their bodies ruled, he thought; Whose plans by God were brought to naught. How are the mighty fallen, before the sovereign Lord; And poor servants lifted up, by His gracious Word!

11 Quotes, varied and miscellaneous

"Matthew 7. Jesus isn’t saying don’t judge; He is saying be careful how you judge, especially when judging follow believers (read verse 2 carefully). Besides this, Christians have a right and responsibility to judge what God has already judged."

"If the potter understands his art, what matters the ignorance of the clay?" -- Charles Spurgeon

“Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.” -- variously attributed to T. H. Thompson, John Watson, James M. Barrie, and Plato

"The best translation of the Bible is of no value unless the one who owns a copy will read it consistently and systematically." -- Copied

“The desire to communicate and be understood as widely as possible often comes directly into conflict with the desire to impress. This gives many people an incentive not to be clear, because what they have to say does not amount to much, and so the more clearly it is expressed the more obvious that fact will be.” -- Bryan Magee

“Without the Spirit we can neither love God nor keep His commandments.” - Augustine

“Trying to do the Lord’s work in your own strength is the most confusing, exhausting, and tedious of all work. But when you are filled with the Holy Spirit, then the ministry of Jesus just flows out of you.” - Corrie Ten Boom

"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." -- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

"Our theology should always result in fulfilling the clear commands of Scripture. If the result of any of our theology leads us to not trust in God, not witness, not love our neighbor, then we are missing something." -- David Carrel

"Bachelor's wives and maid's children are well taught.” -- Heywood, 1546

"Life is what you learn while you live it." -- copied

A Brief Review of a Brief Book

Born Guilty? A Southern Baptist View of Original Sin, Adam Harwood. Carrollton, GA: Free Church Press, 2013. ISBN 9781939283023. 38 pages, paperback.

Hot off the presses and in the heat of controversy, Born Guilty tackles the difficult question of whether an individual is guilty in God's sight before he or she is "morally capable" of understanding what sin is. The author is Assistant Professor of Christian Studies at Truett-McConnell College in Cleveland, Georgia and quite capable of addressing his subject. Harwood moves in the "Traditional" soteriological camp of Southern Baptists that asserts a middle ground position between Calvinism & Arminianism and seeks to stem the rising tide of Calvinism within the Convention.

The booklet is small, but should not be dismissed for its brevity. The author is able clearly, concisely and amicably to propose his view and make valuable this work. Born Guilty is one in a series by Free Church Press "focusing on biblical, theological and moral issues facing today's Christians. Though not stated in the book itself, the idea is to provide a quick overview and a compact study for lay members. Speaking of this series on his blog, Peter Lumpkins writes that the intent is to give "a brief summary of the subjects the series addressed" and that the audience intended is "people in the pew, neither pastors nor others with theological backgrounds." 

The book resides contextually as part of a controversy within the Southern Baptist Convention. It is nevertheless not limited to that utility, but will be beneficial to others not in the SBC and will add to the overall information in the broader soteriological/original sin debate. Calvinists will not likely applaud this new arrival, whether they find it a challenge to be answered or more evidence of what some of them have termed semi-Pelagianism. Some "Traditionalists" will prefer their position of "born guilty yet safe until they reach the age of accountability," a position well established among most non-Calvinist missionary Baptists. Others will welcome this as a clearer refutation of the original sin of Calvinism than their complicated series of leaps to hold all Adam's descendants guilty while assuring an eternal home in heaven for all infants who die.

Are infants born sinners? Are they born guilty? Harwood answers the last question with an unqualified "no" and the first with a "yes". The bulk of the book is about 2 dozen pages of Harwood's view positively presented while negating the "original sin" theory. The heart of the author's presentation is an exposition of Romans 5:12-21, which he calls "the most important text when considering the guilt of Adam's sin (p. 5)." Harwood also chronicles some theology and history favoring his position on Adamic guilt. Two appendices follow: A. Article 3 (the Fall of Man) from three editions of the Baptist Faith and Message,* 1925, 1963, and 2000; B. A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation. This booklet contains endnotes, but neither "Contents" nor "Index" -- both of which would have been helpful. I also found the use of italics for the main contents of the book an aesthetic negative.

The design of Born Guilty is to set forth the effects of sin on Adam's descendants while answering the problem of hereditary guilt from Adam. Harwood's conclusion is clear and resounding: "we become transgressors who are guilty and under condemnation for our sin only when we attain moral capability and first commit--knowingly commit--a sinful thought, attitude or action" (p. 4) and "If we are not guilty of Adam's sin, then a primary commitment of Calvinism is rendered unnecessary for sound biblical theology (p. 25)."

A few places in the booklet left me confused and wishing for more explanation. For example:

First, it seems that Harwood limits the views of original sin to only two -- "Do we receive from Adam a sinful nature or Adam's guilt? (p. 3)" But these are not mutually exclusive, and both are held systematically by Calvinists and not a few "Traditional" non-Calvinistic Baptists.

Second, in a list of Scriptures proving that individuals are accountable for their own sins, the author includes the judgment of the firstborn in Egypt (Exodus 12) and the death of David's and Bathsheba's baby because of David's sin (2 Samuel 12). These accounts may not speak directly to Adamic guilt. But I wanted Harwood to resolve the inclusion of those passages (pp. 12-13), which appear to be punishment of one for the actions of another (which seems to contradict the point of that list).

Next, the author discusses the views of the three SBC Presidents during the development of the 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message statements. He inserts a curious reference to a statement by Paige Patterson. Though I do not doubt that Patterson's view likely accords with Harwood's, the supplied quote falls short of saying so (p. 22) and left me wondering why the author didn't include a direct statement of Patterson's theology.

Finally, Harwood includes and refers to the statements on the fall of man from the 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Messages. What he leaves unexplained, though, is how the 1925 article -- "his [Adam's] posterity inherit a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin, are under condemnation" (p. 30) -- coincides with his view and whether the 1963 revision represents some discontinuity in the SBC view of inherited guilt and original sin. The 1925 statement does not say the same thing as the 1963 and 2000 statements, and does not support the view which the author is advancing.

Some self-absorbed theologians may disdainfully discount this brief volume. Certainly if one is looking for a weighty theological tome, this is not the one. If you want to delve more deeply the subject of the condition of infants, consider Harwood's The Spiritual Condition of Infants: a Biblical-Historical Survey and Systematic Proposal for a statement of the "Traditional" Southern Baptist view.** But if you want to get an overview of one non-Calvinistic understanding on the issue of original sin and inherited guilt -- and one that is up-to-date with current controversy -- you can be informed by Born Guilty. Though I don't agree with the author's conclusion, I recommend his book as an insightful argument contra the Augustinian/Calvinistic view of original sin.

When I purchased this book I found it available in several venues, but ordering directly from Free Church Press was the most economical option (IOW, the best price!).

* The doctrinal statement of the Southern Baptist Convention
** This is representative of some other non-Calvinistic Baptists as well.

3 Purveyors of Persecution

The three churches in the previous post -- Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican -- each defends itself as the true church by citing historical continuity back to the apostles. Even if that were true, there is a simple matter that must rend them from the lineage of the church built by the carpenter's son of "not many wise, not many mighty, and not many noble," but rather the weak, base and despised. These three "universal" churches not only fought one another, but also universally persecuted and murdered any simple Christians whose faith did not align with their pronouncements.

The Inquisition, or Inquiry on Heretical Perversity, refers to any of the judicial institutions from the 1100s to the 1800s within the Roman Catholic Church which hounded "heretics".  Punishment ranged from imprisonment, banishment, and torture to death (usually a quite horrific one). Some modern historians have tried to revise this view of the Inquisition. But it's stain cannot be erased. The Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215 declared what was already practiced, stating that secular authorities "shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled" to exterminate all heretics that the (Roman Catholic) Church pointed out to them in their jurisdiction. The oft revered "Saint" Thomas Aquinas believed that obstinate heretics should "not only to be separated from the Church, but also to be eliminated from the world by death." Persecution by the Catholic Church is no mere spectre of the dark ages. For example, the state of Croatia (named after the Roman Catholic "Croats") was formed in 1941. The Serbs in Croatia, who were Eastern Orthodox, were given three options -- convert to Roman Catholicism , be exiled, or be executed. This was no empty threat, but was at least carried out on women and children in Prebilovici. In 1965 the Roman Catholic Church issued "Dignitatis Humanae" (part of the Vatican II Council) which "declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom," repudiating centuries of Roman Catholic practice otherwise.

Orthodox Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos (1081--1118) persecuted and punished Paulician and  Bogomil "heretics". One of his last acts in life was to burn at the stake Basil, a Bogomil leader condemned as a heretic by Patriarch Nicholas III. The Coptic Christians in Egypt suffered under the Byzantine Empire. The Melkite Patriarchs, whose leadership encompassed both spiritual and civil matters, massacred those they considered heretics. Another example of Orthodox persecution can be seen during Patriarch Nikon’s reforms in the Russian Orthodox Church in the 17th century. The dissenters were persecuted, either finding it necessary to flee the country, or else submit to torture and burning at the stake. Even in recent years there are reports of the Russian Orthodox Church aligning itself with Vladimir Putin  in his government-sponsored persecution of Catholics.

Anglicans were later getting in the game than the older Catholic and Orthodox churches, but they plied the trade quite well. Who does not know of the violent war of Anglican against Catholic in England? And laws such as the Uniformity Act of 1662 and the Blasphemy Act of 1650 enforced the dominance of the Church of England and chastised religious dissenters. The sad case of Edward Wightman, the last person in England burned at the stake for heresy (1612), stands as a testament to their zeal against religious "heresy".

Yes, the Reformers wielded the sword to spread their religion, and time would fail me to speak of the wild excesses of the Radicals at Munster. But these are the three that are blowing the long horn for their catholicity, continuity, consensus, existence, and succession. The continuity of these so-called churches is the continuity of the growth of an acorn into a giraffe -- a kingdom not of this world seduced by the kingdoms of this world. What simple reader cannot detest such desultory connection and see & know that a church making converts by the sword has fully departed from the "my church" of Jesus Christ of the New Testament both in theology and practice? Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Another Problem of Ecclesiology

Last year I wrote a reply to Daniel Wallace's post on The Problem of Protestant Ecclesiology. I subscribed to notification of replies on that thread. Over a year later Wallace is still facilitating much tooting of the long horn of those in support of the apostolic succession of either the Catholic, Orthodox or Anglican churches. This subject is approached with a great deal of pride, based on antiquity, universality, and consensus. History proves they're not as old as they think, at least not in the sense of a proven apostolic succession or resemblance to the New Testament church. The fact that there are three of them (and many more) demonstrates that talk of universality and consensus is also cheap.

Many appeals are made to the church fathers. Each seems to see this as an almost unassailable position. In reality church fathers are embraced and discarded according to their affinity to a particular tradition. Augustine for Catholics, Anselm for Anglicans, Peter of Sebaste for Orthodox, none of which would likely embrace Coptic Saint Samuel the Confessor. And Arius is a church father as well, regardless of who doesn't want to claim him! Alternately some are revered as church fathers and then anathemized, or vice versa.

The appeal to traditional interpretations of "the church" should be compared to traditional interpretations of the elders of Israel, and then compared to the example of Jesus and his Apostles. They accepted and believed the Old Testament canon while rejecting the traditions and interpretations that had grown up from the "Israel fathers".

These churches may claim that their doctrine (in exclusion of the others) is semper eadem (always the same) or quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus (what has been held always, everywhere, by everybody). Once you exclude as churches everybody who does not always agree with you, I suppose it is easy to claim this is true. One among the Orthodox wrote that "Every church believes the same thing while leaving room for regional differences in praxis." But this reveals they in fact don't believe the same thing, unless they don't believe what they practice. Friendship and acquaintances with Roman Catholics exposes one to wide diversity of theology and practice, regardless of what "the church" says they believe.

The ecumenical councils are accepted as examples of an exercise of church consensus, continuity and infallibility. Yet, there were disagreements in the councils, on which councils are ecumenical and on which portions of the councils are to be accepted. Of the early ecumenical councils, Oriental Orthodoxy recognizes only the first three, Eastern Orthodoxy seven and Roman Catholicism eight. Consensus is not achieved by achieving consensus, but by excommunicating those who deny the consensus. Might makes right and vae victis (woe to the vanquished ones)!

Comparison of the growth of the acorn of the New Testament church into an oak tree reveals some things that have grown into a giraffe. Praying to the dead, the veneration of images, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the monarchical papacy and such like expose a different creature to our sight. But "none of this moves them" who are reinforced by their church's infallibility. But hold on, in the next post we will investigate a stain attached to all these churches which they cannot wash away, try as though they might. Even babes recognize, despite all rhetoric to the contrary, that something doesn't add up to New Testament Christianity here!

Listen unto the singer

For your "pleasure", a few miscellaneous music quotes from the New American Entertainment Version of the Bible (NAEV)

Psalm 96:1  O listen to others sing a new song to the LORD: listen while others sing to the LORD and entertain you all the time.
Psalms 100:2  Serve the LORD with passivity: be in his presence listening to others.
Psalms 126:2  Then was our mouth filled with silence, and our ears with listening: then they said among the nations, The LORD must have done great things for them.
Matthew 26:30  And after they had listened to a hymn, they went out to the mount of Olives.
Ephesians 5:19  Listen to others while they sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, as they sing and make melody in your ears and to the Lord.

More on "Infants Born Alive"

On Monday I reported on the Florida Infants Born Alive. Now I read that a doctor charged with killing infants born alive. Dr. Kermit Gosnell is on trial for first & third degree murder and other offences at what is being called his "House of Horrors". Two related links are below:

Kermit Gosnell's murder trial in Philadelphia raises questions about abortion -- and media coverage
The Trial of Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Kermit Gosnell

Q: What is The New Testament + 10?

A: The New New Testament

Yes, really.

In March Mega-publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt released A New New Testament: A Bible for the 21st Century Combining Traditional and Newly Discovered Texts, edited by Hal Taussig. "To create this New New Testament, Hal Taussig called together a council of scholars and spiritual leaders* to discuss and reconsider which books belong in the New Testament. They talked about these recently found documents, the lessons therein, and how they inform the previously bound books. They voted on which should be added, choosing ten new books to include in A New New Testament."

This new release may find interest among the curious, and might even be engaged as "scripture" by various seekers, gnostics, PC spiritualists, and gender inclusive. Otherwise it is will be ignored by Bible students. Biblical scholar Daniel Wallace notes its curious patchwork in which "the books selected by the council were selected with an agenda in mind; they were not chosen because they ever made a serious claim to canonicity." In fact, Wallace writes, "at least one of [the books] is not even mentioned in any extant ancient writing."  

Both thumbs down!

* evidently the editor's friends and colleagues who selected the texts

Reading on Writing

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

7 Reasons Pastors Should Be Writers
10 Secrets to Writing Well
10 Tips For Daily Blogging
50 Tips on How to Write Good
How to Write Great Blog Content
On Writing Well
Why Scholars Tend to Be Awful Writers
Writing Rules! Advice From The Times on Writing Well
Writing Theology Well

5 Recommendations for Writing

Do you have something to say? You should, but do you, really? Writing for the sake of writing is good practice, but writing for the sake of communicating is good practice and good purpose. Have something to say and say it.

Read what others write. Freelance writer Melanie Brooks correctly states, "If you don’t like to read, you can’t possibly love to write." You learn about writing, often subconciously, by reading. Read good material. Read a variety of styles and types of writing. Those who read my "books to buy" blog piece yesterday realize that my reading is fairly constricted -- mostly history and theology. I almost never read fiction any more. But I am trying to branch out a bit. I recently bought An Atheist Defends Religion, a little off the beaten path of most of my reading. Two days ago I picked up a copy of Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea and started reading.

Read the King James Bible. Reading the Bible first and foremost is a spiritual exercise. The King James Bible is also a magnificient piece of literature and foundational to much of our speech, thought and thought patterns. It connects English speakers across time and space. Sayings and ways we say things are found therein. You need to connect with it.

Read rules about writing. Learning rules alone will not make you a good writer. Rules are not sacroscant, but they are compiled for a reason -- to pass along what someone has learned about communicating well. Write your own “Rules for Writing.” You may have learned some things about writing on your own. Let others review and critique your rules. Perhaps writing your rules can help your writing rule. The goal of writing is not to follow rules. The goal of writing is to communicate. You may want to communicate to teach, entertain, motivate or have a variety of other reasons. Whether you follow the rules or make your own rules, do you communicate? Do you get what's in your mind into the minds of others?

Practice, practice, practice. (In other words, WRITE.) Practice may not make perfect, but it does make better. The more you write, correct and edit what you write, the better your writing will become.

Books to buy

Here are some books that I've put on my wish-list to buy:

Baptist History in America Vindicated: the First Baptist Church in America, a Resurfaced Issue of Controversy, the Facts and the Importance, Joshua S. Davenport, 2012
Behind a Frowning Providence: The Life of Joseph, B. A. Ramsbottom, ISBN: 9781897837856
Democratic Religion: Freedom, Authority, and Church Discipline in the Baptist South, 1785-1900, Gregory A. Wills, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997)
Devoted to the Service of the Temple: Piety, Persecution, and Ministry in the Writings of Hercules Collins, Michael A.G. Haykin and Steve Weaver, Reformation Heritage Books: Grand Rapids, MI
God's Strange Work: William Miller and the End of the World, David L. Rowe (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids MI: 2008) ISBN 9780802803801

The Book of Esther: God in Control, B. A. Ramsbottom, 9781897837580
The History of The Gospel Standard Magazine 1835-2010, B. A. Ramsbottom, ISBN: 9780951079607

These are not cited consistently, but are more a hodge-podge of cut and paste that I put together for my own benefit.

What books are you readers buying and what would you recommend?

Fal$e Teacher$

I am naming Fal$e Teacher$ officially as the first "rap" song that I like.

Well, not really...

Or, maybe...

Seriously though, I ran across the above song and, though I don't like rap, I thought it was very interesting, seriously humorous and very true. Shai Linne calls out numerous false teachers in the song and names them for what they are.

Sidetracked

I got sidetracked with two days of jury duty, and forgot to schedule any new posts. Hope you're still out there reading. :-)

I'll try to get something new up tonight. Have a blessed day.

"Infants Born Alive" bill

In the Congressional halls of the state of Florida, SB 1636/HB 1129 has been put forth to require medical care and legal protection for a baby if a botched abortion results in the birth of a live child. Re these bills, the Florida House of Representatives heard testimony and positions on HB 1129, called the  “Infants Born Alive” bill. Planned Parenthood, unsurprisingly, opposes the bill. A Planned Parenthood representative questioned by state representatives said that if a child were born alive, the mother and the physician should decide its fate.

It is not surprising that the camel nose under the tent with abortion will lead to the abortion of live babies outside the womb. "Ethics" professors like Peter Singer at Princeton University have been pushing such ideas for quite some time.

Related links
Planned Parenthood Rep says Mother and Doctor have right to decide baby's fate if born alive and breathing
Planned Parenthood and 'Post-Birth Abortion'
Subcommittee hearing in Florida

4 tiers stating our faith

Our church is using a sort of tiered approach to developing a new doctrinal statement for our church.

It begins with the first "tier" of two foundational statements: the existence of God and the inspiration of the Scriptures. These are in some sense presuppositional, and else all that we hold emanates from those truths. 

The next tier is fundamental principles of the Bible. Much of this is shared with "orthodox" Christianity -- creation, Trinity, salvation by grace, virgin birth, resurrection, etc. 

A third tier is statements on"church order." In these we differ from most Protestants, and even some Baptists. These are statements about the nature of the church, baptism, Lord's Supper, etc. 

The fourth tier concludes with some statements about love. By love we know and recognize other disciples, not just by cold agreement to a written statement of faith. Without love we are nothing, a noise without life.

In addition to these four tiers, we will have some position statements on contemporary issues.

How would you approach writing a statement of faith?

Are there degrees of punishment in Hell?

Some people believe there are degrees or differences of punishment in Hell (or the Lake of Fire), based on certain Scriptures listed below and perhaps others. What do you think? Do the comparisons of degree mean that or something else?

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. - Mark 6:11 (see also Matt 10:15ff & Luke 10:11-15)

And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. - Luke 12:47,48

Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation. - Luke 20:46,47

Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. - Matthew 11:20-24

If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. - John 15:22-24

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? - Heb 10:29

Do these verses imply that there are differences in the amount and/or intensity of eternal punishment one receives? If so, why? If not, why not?

Two events toward a busy day

Today was a busy day, two local events we attended and a third we didn't make -- the annual Carmine Sacred Harp Singing. Hope they had a good one. 

This morning was the annual Hunt Cemetery Association meeting. We fellowshipped, ate, remembered, donated and took care of business.

This afternoon we celebrated my Mother's 98th birthday. On this day in 1915 she was born to Robert Lee and Mariah Loutisha Chapman in Rusk County, Texas. She has lived here all her life, except for about a year she spent in Nacogdoches with her brother and sister-in-law while finishing high school (most country schools had only 10 grades at the time). Happy Birthday, Mom! God has blessed you and us, and may He continue.

To your health

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

5 health benefits of red peppers
6 Surprising Foods That Put You to Sleep
(Bananas, Passionfruit Tea, Dates, Chinese Food, Cherries)
7 foods you should never eat
8 Spices with Health Benefits
10 Best Wines under $15
Some studies state that drinking a glass or two of red wine daily is healthful, lowering your risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and even cancer.
Anti-Aging Secret? It's in Your Diet
Fermented foods bubble with healthful benefits
Spices and Herbs: Their Health Benefits
The Greek Island Where People Live to Be 90 – Is it the Coffee?
Long life for coffee drinkers?
The Safest (and Cheapest) Cholesterol Treatment
Why Eat Local?

2 singings, coming soon

On the weekend of April 27-28, 2013, the Rusk County Singing Convention will be held. On Saturday the 27th we meet at the Redland Community Center (the old Redland Methodist Church location) about 2 miles east of Laneville, Texas at the corner of FM 2496 and FM 1798. We will sing from the 2010 Christian Harmony. Please be aware if you are coming in from the north and east that FM 1798 overpass is under construction and its exit on US Hwy 259 is closed. You will need to use an alternate route, which will take slightly longer.

On Sunday the 28th we meet at Old Pine Grove on County Road 364 in the Pine Hill area of eastern Rusk County, Texas (between Roquemore & Pine Hill). We will sing from the 2012 Sacred Harp, Cooper Revision. Singing at both locations starts at 10 a.m. and concludes around 3 p.m.

For more information, maps, etc. click HERE and HERE.

Sacred Harp research, 6 suggestions

Turning a corner for a bit, I want to get in a few posts on Sacred Harp and shape note singing. Here are six suggestions for future Sacred Harp research that I believe would significantly further our understanding of our song book and our history.

1. The origins and connections of southeast Alabama, south Georgia & north Florida singers and conventions to B. F. White, his pedagogy and his students

2. The printings of the fourth edition of the Sacred Harp between 1870 and the turn of the 20th century

3. Careful analysis and study of the 1870 fourth edition of The Sacred Harp,—noting styles of songs added and removed, differences and similarities between it and White’s three previous editions

4. A significant comparison of the three editions of The Sacred Harp published by J. L. White from 1909 to 1911

5. The relationship between the early 20th century Sacred Harp revision committees—who produced five Sacred Harps in nine years

6. Comparison of W. M. Cooper rearrangements of popular church hymns and gospel songs he added to his early 20th century revision

Newsworthy

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.

Afghan Girl Rescued from Child Bride Fate
Bracketing Morality — The Marginalization of Moral Argument in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate
Google Ignores Easter
Legal mess if Supreme Court strikes down DOMA
Pluto's Gate Uncovered in Turkey
Shakespeare the shrewd businessman
Supreme Court hears arguments in DOMA case
Texas prosecutor and wife slain at home
'The Bible', History Channel's miniseries
Tomb of Jesus' Apostle Found In Turkey?

Law, marriage and government interest

The concept of law is based on judgment, much of which is moral judgment -- e.g. moral judgment against murder, assault, theft, slander, pedophilia, bestiality, rape. Americans are fast losing the ability to draw a line of law based on moral judgment, or perhaps have abandoned the basic foundations of that judgment. Laws cannot stand independently of moral foundation. Eventually at stake in the debate about homosexuality and same-sex marriage is the ability to express moral judgment regarding any behavior.

Whether or not one engages the moral debate about homosexuality, does the state have any compelling interest -- for general welfare and common good -- in the contract of marriage? A piece of paper from the court house does not make a marriage moral, but it does make it legally recognized. With good reason, for thousands of years marriage has been understood as a covenant entered by a man and a woman. Men and women are the two halves of a puzzle that uniquely blend into one whole. They are both different and complementary. Mothering and fathering are unique and particular roles, important to the development of children. The proper development of children into good citizens is an interest of the state for its general welfare and common good. (Reversal of some of our inane divorce law would be another step in the right direction.) Traditional marriage "serves the good of children, the good of spouses, and the common good of society."

In the book What is Marriage, authors Girgis, Anderson, and George explain that the traditional view of marriage, a life-long conjugal commitment, is giving way to a "revisionist view". This view "is a vision of marriage as, in essence, a loving emotional bond, one distinguished by its intensity—a bond that needn’t point beyond the partners, in which fidelity is ultimately subject to one’s own desires. In marriage, so understood, partners seek emotional fulfillment, and remain as long as they find it." This revision is not newly formed for the defense of homosexual marriage, but "has informed the marriage policy reforms of the last several decades." It contributes to the decay of traditional marriage. The view is not new. Same-sex marriage is simply the current outcropping of this agenda. It will not be the last.

We ought to obey God rather than men, but I find no reason that we cannot obey God and get a marriage license. Under God, we don't need the state's permission to marry. Under the law, there are multitudes of intertwined legal issues of long historical standing that would be a nightmare if there were "no permission slips for marriage." The best government governs less rather than more. When and where it governs, it should govern with compelling interest for the common good and general welfare of all of its citizens. I believe marriage and its fruits is one of those interests.

Marriage rights

Last Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing arguments in the case against California's Propostion 8 -- no homosexual marriage -- and Wednesday on the Defense of Marriage Act.

In our country the Right argues that traditional marriage (between one man & one woman) should be protected by the government. The Left holds that the state should recognize and legalize homosexual relationships as marriage. Both want the government to settle the matter. Between these two enters a third view -- some libertarians believe that it is not the government's job to define or regulate marriage. Their mantras have become "Get the state out of the marriage business" and "No permission slips for marriage."*

Tom Head, a homosexual-marriage proponent speaking at Mississippi College, wrote "The argument that I found most effective with this Baptist audience...hinged on the sacramental role of government. Namely: What business does the government have mandating sanctity? If the government can make marriage sacred, then can it give us all a place in the world to come, too? And if there is a legal 'sanctity of marriage' that the government would be interfering with by allowing marriage rights for same-sex couples, then doesn't that imply government support for some pretty controversial heterosexual marriages?"

The libertarian view, when challenged, isn't without restrictions, for most will add that the government shouldn't legislate relationships between consenting adults. Many of those who want "no permission slips for marriage" would doubtless deny permission for a 50 year-old adult to marry a 10 year-old child, and might have problems with brothers marrying sisters. If modified, though, the position is actually capitulated by agreeing that in some cases the government should be in the marriage business!

I am somewhat moved by both the divine institution and libertarian arguments. Marriage was instituted by God, is first and foremost between a couple and God, and marriage can, I believe, be covenanted by serious persons without the consent or acknowledgement of government. But does that mean that a government has no interest in their own societal structure? Obviously, most all of us believe they have some interest, since most agree that it should not be entered by non-consenting adults or minors.

Marriage traditionally is a certain thing that can be recognized and defined, yea, has been. It is interesting to notice the evolution of the definition of marriage through the changes in Webster's Dictionaries.

In 1828 Webster's dictionary defined marriage: "The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children." This definition was still in the last edition of the American Dictionary of the English Language that Noah Webster made before his death.

The 1913 edition is similar -- "The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony" -- but adds "Any intimate or close union" (though it is unlikely that marriages between two persons of the same sex was in view). The current Merriam-Webster online recognizes marriage as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law," but also includes "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage."

In effect marriage is redefined as an emotional and/or sexual union that resembles that which we have traditionally recognized as marriage.

Non-interference in marriage may suit libertarians and some Christians, but it is unlikely to reach the same-sex marriage movement which is bent on recognition. In response to a Facebook entry that "real equality would be government that is not in charge of marriage" one respondent opined, "If I cannot come together, with a partner or partners of my choosing and declare myself married in my own eyes, then I really lack the ability to be married." Taken to its logical conclusion, this statement shows that the ultimate design is for marriage to be whatever an individual wants it to be. This exalts the anarchy of the individual over the general welfare of society.

* Note, I am not discussing whether marriage in the U.S. should be regulated at the state or federal level. Here I am considering the philosophical question of whether government should regulate marriage at all. If marriage is a divine creation and religious institution, what part (if any) should government play in it?

The institution of marriage

Marriage is a divine institution.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:27-28)
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:21-25)
Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. (Genesis 5:2)

Marriage is a social, legal, covenantal and specific institution.
Build ye houses, and dwell in them; and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them; Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished. And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace. (Jeremiah 29:5-7)
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, (Matthew 24:38)
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. (Exodus 20:17) 
Marriage and divorce were regulated under Moses' law. For examples, see above and Exodus 21:10, Leviticus 18:18, 20:14, and Deuteronomy 7:3, 25:5.
Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. (Malachi 2:14)
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. (Hebrews 13:4)

Marriage is not an eternal institution.
And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: (Luke 20:34-34)
[Except for the marriage of the Lamb and His bride -- Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. (Revelation 19:7)]

In His Steps, or Stepping on Him?

Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper. Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence, instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can’t step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture.

The above exercise is supposedly a way to “discuss the importance of symbols in culture.” It comes from the textbook Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach. Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, Florida and communications instructor Deandre Poole are front and center of a recent flap over "stomping on Jesus". When Poole used the exercise in his Intercultural Communications class, student Ryan Rotella objected. Initially Rotella was suspended from class, but with everyone in "spin mode" it is hard to discern which version of why he was suspended is true. Regardless, Rotella has been reinstated, Poole has been put on administrative leave (because of death threats, according to FAU), and the university has repudiated the use of such an exercise.

It is likely that the university has banned the exercise because of the public outcry, not anything to do with academic freedom or religious liberty. It's bad publicity! They don't want any more of that. It hasn't been long since the university distanced itself from the theories of James Tracy, a tenured communications professor in the same department as Poole. On his blog Tracy has described the Newtown massacre as a governmental conspiracy rather than a real shooting incident.

Note sure of all the facts of the incident, I will reserve detailed comment. But I found the following reported facts interesting. The complaining student, Ryan Rotella, is a Mormon. The teacher, Deandre Poole, claims to be a Christian and a Sunday School teacher. No other students, Christian or otherwise, evidently refused to participate in the exercise. No other names -- Mohammed, Allah, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Charles Darwin -- are ever "stepped on". James Neuliep, author of the source textbook, is a Professor of Communication and Media Studies at St. Norbert, a Catholic liberal arts college.

Links to various articles and opinions about the controversy:
A Message from Florida Atlantic University
FAU Student Claims He Was Suspended For Refusing To Step On Jesus
Florida Atlantic University 'Jesus stomping' case: Student upset, Governor comments
Florida Atlantic U., Left-Wing Seminary
Florida Atlantic University Professor Has Students Stomp On Paper With Word 'Jesus'
He Didn't Say 'Stomp on Jesus'
'I Was Doing My Job'
‘Jesus Stomp’ Professor on Leave, Getting Death Threats
Professor calls his 'step on Jesus' exercise a 'reaffirmation' of faith
"Stomp on Jesus!"
"Stomp on Jesus!" Update
Victory for Florida Student Who Refused to Stomp on Jesus’ Name

3 questions about the "All things" of Romans 8:28

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." - Romans 8:28

What are the all things of Romans 8:28?

Are they the things in the verses following? Some say so; for example, "The things embraced in this lesson are foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. All things don't mean everything that is going on in the world but what God determined to do for his people."

Are they all things that are happening in our lives? Spurgeon said, "He knows too that God is always wise, and, knowing this, he is confident that there can be no accidents, no mistakes; that nothing can occur which ought not to arise. He can say, "If I should lose all I have, it is better that I should lose than have, if God so wills: the worst calamity is the wisest and the kindest thing that could befall to me if God ordains it."

Are the all things not "everything", but all of the things God has ordered for our good - a sort of general good? Adam Clarke wrote, "Whatever troubles, or afflictions, or persecutions may arise, God presses them into service; and they become a part of the general working, and are caused to contribute to the general good of the person who now loves God."

These are all the options of which I can think. There may be other views that I have not heard. I believe Romans 8:28, considered with other scriptures, means that God provides and works together all things that happen to us -- every pain & every joy, every victory & every defeat, every laugh & every tear, every getting & every losing, every rending & every mending -- for our ultimate good, that is for His people.

God's message to fools

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."