It is no wonder conservative Anglicans are distancing themselves from the mother church in England. In a recent television discussion, the Archbishop of Canterbury said he believed that human beings had evolved from non-human ancestors but were nevertheless “in the image of God”.

Certainly this is not Biblical, nor the historical position of the church. In addition, it is stupid. It would mean that the non-human ancestors were made in the image of God.

The Archbishop went on to say that the explanation for the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis could not be taken literally. He said “The writers of the Bible, inspired as I believe they were, they were nonetheless not inspired to do 21st Century physics,” he said.

The Bible is not a science book. It does not have to square itself with science. It does tell us who God is and who we are and how we got to be who we are. This includes how God made us.

It would be nice if a leader of a major Christian denomination supported the truth of the Bible rather than denigrated it on national television. The Archbishop has certainly come a long way from the 39 Articles.

UNITY MUST BE BASED ON TRUTH.

Kevin DeYoung tells it true here.

MOST STUPID THING I HEARD TODAY

The most stupid thing I heard today came from Norman Geisler, who said: "These people [Calvinists] teach that Christ only loved the elect and only died for the elect. And I think that's some kind of theological racism."

If Geisler really thinks that, he needs to retire. Almost everyone who has read the Bible and a theology book other than Geisler's knows Calvinists believe election is based on God's foreknowledge and choice. For example, Paul said "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blamelss in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will in accordance with his pleasure and will-to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption thorugh his blood..." Ephesians 1.

Paul addressed the Ephesians letter to the saints. The saints are those who believe in Christ and receive eternal life. Paul identified himself as one of the saints by using the word "us". So, he says God chose the saints before the creation of the world to be holy and just. He did not choose the non-believers. He took those he chose and through his grace provided his Son to die and pay the penalty for their sins. They will therefore be holy and blameless in his sight.

Further, he predestined (chose beforehand) the saints to be adopted as his sons. Why did he do this? It was not because he was a theological rascist. We know that because he chose people from all races. We do not know, however, why he chose them. All we know is what Paul told us here in Ephesians: It is because it was his pleasure and will to do so. And because it was, we, the saints, have redemption through his blood. Non-believers do not have redemption through his blood. They do not have the benefit of Christ's payment for our sins. Or, as the Calvinist would say, Christ did not die for them and did not atone for their sins.

Geisler is entitled to believe whatever he wants and he is entitled to argue for it. I think it is even a healthy way to flesh out your theology. However, this kind of name calling is sleazy. It is the kind of thing you see in politics. Every time you want to smear someone, you say he is a rascist, or his actions are rascist, whether or not it is true, for it takes the focus of the audience off of the real issue and distracts them to hatred or disdain based on the made up charge of rascism.

Ironically, the call in the political world after the Arizona shootings is for less incendiary rhetoric and more reasoned debate. Maybe theologians of Geisler's ilk should take the same pledge.

I would also caution Geisler about applying the theological rascism critique too far. The original election was racial. The Hebrews, and only the Hebrews, were God's chosen (elect) people.

And just one other thing to ponder. When the priests made sacrifices of atonement, whose sins were atoned? Only the sins of Israel, the Hebrews, were atoned. The sins of the Amorites, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Euopeans, the South American Indians and all other Gentile races, were not atoned.

Now that's limited atonement.

THE MYTH OF THE PRACTICAL BIBLE STUDY

I received an invitation in the mail to a “Practical Study” of a certain book of the Bible.

It ticked me off.

Here is why.

This advertisement makes a distinction between a theological study and a practical study. The implication is that a theological study is not practical and, therefore, not as valuable as a practical study. Both the distinction and the implication are wrong.

The Bible itself tells us this approach is wrong. 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man (and woman) of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” We study every scripture because the Holy Spirit will use it to teach us, rebuke us, correct us and train us in righteousness.

This approach also places a higher value on man than on God. In essence it says, I do not want to study theology, I just want to know how to make it through the day. That is why you see so many books with titles such as “Seven Ways to a Happy Marriage” and “Secret Biblical Keys to Wealth”.

What is theology? It is the study of God, the acquisition of knowledge about God. Why is that both important and practical? God is the most important person to the believer. You cannot worship a God you do not know. You cannot live to please God if you do not know what pleases him. While you are busy learning the seven keys to wealth, God is pleased instead with the man or woman who does not seek treasures on earth but treasures in heaven. You cannot glorify God in your life if you do not reflect the character of God.

The so called practical approach that neglects theological passages for ones that say more about specific behavior ignores the teaching of 2 Timothy 3:16 (quoted above), but is also arrogant. Think about this. If all scripture is God breathed, God thought it important enough to inspire men to write it down. He deemed it important enough to preserve through the ages. He deemed it sufficiently important to have it translated into multiple languages. Despite all of this care and concern by God, are you going to say now that it is not important or valuable? I am not.

Luther said, “Divine Scripture is a very fertile tree, and there is no branch which I have not shaken with my own hands, and knocked down a few apples” (Table Talks, no. 5355).

Study theologically. Study theology. Learn about God. It is the most important thing you can do.

Jan blogs on living a God centered life in trying times.

THINKING ABOUT HEAVEN

One of the funny things about people is our desire to know what we cannot know and speculate about it. When we do this, we often ignore the knowledge we do have. Heaven is one of those topics that inspire speculation.

Movies have portrayed heaven in terms of clouds and harps and people wearing white.

People even write books claiming they have gone there and returned to tell the tale. This is particularly sad, since the one person we can believe this happened to is the apostle Paul, and he said we cannot do that. He did not use his own name, but referred to one who had been taken into the third heaven, which is Biblical terminology for what we call Heaven, the abode of God.

Interestingly, Paul did not say what he saw there. In fact, he said it was not allowed!

Paul told the story in 1 Corinthians 12. He was caught up to Paradise, the third heaven. "He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell." 1 Corinthians 12:4. If God would not let Paul, the last apostle, speak of the things in heaven, why would he let someone today, even if they could go and return (which I do not believe).

In addition to all this, a person who claims more knowledge of heaven than is revealed in Scripture is denying the authority of Christ and the sufficiency of Scripture. God chose to reveal some things to us, but not all. Hebrews 1 tells us God has spoken to us in these days by the word of Christ. That word is contained in the New Testament. The New Testament is closed. To claim direct revelation is to dispute the canon of Scripture and claim the status of the Old Testament prophet, receiving direct revelation from God outside of Scripture. Although there are a few Pentecostal leaders who claim this privilege, in effect elevating themselves over Christ and the Bible, orthodox believers, mainstream Evangelicals, do not not.

In case I cannot say it clearly enough, let me quote one of my favorite theologians.

"There is no need for us to speculate about the precise nature of heaven. We are assured on the authority of Jesus Christ that it is the house and the home of his Father and ours (there are twenty-two references to the Father in John 14), that his home is a prepared place containing many rooms or resting places, and that he himself will be there. What more do we need to know? To be certain that where he is, there we shall be also should be enough to satisfy our curiosity and allay our fears." John Stott.

LEAVING NORMAL

The world's smallest man died today. He Pingping was about two and one half feet tall. He was only 21, but died of heart problems.

Pingping seemed to enjoy some of the benefits of his recent fame. He traveled, he appeared on television and he made some money. It was a dressed up version of the circus freak show, sadly, with people paying money to witness his oddity. He was willing to accept the money and attention his oddness brought.

But Pingping's dream was not television. He wanted to get married and have children. He wanted to be normal. That thing that many take for granted and against which many rebel was his dream. He wanted a wife and kids, something not likely attainable for a man with primordial dwarfism.

Most people want to be normal. They want to look like everyone else, have what everyone else has and do what everyone else does. You see it strikingly in teenagers, who become intensely aware of their differences, real or imagined, from the pack. As they try to find themselves, they fear being ostracized from the pack more than anything else. They will wear whatever the pack wears, speak the language of the pack and do what the pack does, good or bad.

Adults are not much better. If the men in their group wear jeans and boots, so will they. The women will wear the same style of clothes. If the pack leader gets pregnant, all the others will follow in short order.

Many want to be super normal, or normal but better. They want to be beautiful, not just pleasant, athletic, not just coordinated, tall, not just average. No one wants to be subnormal.

However, those who originally wanted to be super normal, or extraordinary, often find themselves later wishing to be normal again. The actress gets tired of being followed by photographers. The football player would like to go to the movies without attracting a crowd. They could do that if they were normal.

But, on a deeper level, super normal creates emotional problems. The beautiful woman will always wonder if her man loves her for who she is, not for her prominent cheek bones or wide set eyes. The rich man wonders if his woman loves him or his money.

In our soul, we want to be normal and we want to be loved for it.

This is also what we want from God. We want to be normal human beings and we want God to accept us for who we are.

I received an email newsletter from a youth organization whose leader I met a few years ago (and who wants me to support him financially). The letter raved about a recent event the youth attended. The leader interviewed kids and asked what great thing they learned. A young man was quoted as saying his self esteem had been greatly raised because he learned that God loved him as he is and no matter what he did.

Pause of the buzzer to sound.

Unfortunately, many evangelicals teach this, and many Americans want to believe it. God is very loving and tolerant and cool.

Actually, God says no to that. God says each man and woman misses God's mark. His favorite word for that is sin. For example, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". That means all normal people miss God's mark of perfection.

He also said what you get for sin is death. He said sin separates you from God. He said there will be a judgment for all who miss the mark and they will spend eternity in a place with all the others who also missed the mark and rebel against God's standards and pay the price for it.

In short, normal does not cut it.

Fortunately, God provided help. He sent the super normal man, the God man, his son. His son, Jesus Christ, took a normal body but lived a super normal life without missing God's mark one time. Despite being not just good but perfect, he died to pay the penalty for all our mark misses. When we believe in him, we get the benefit of that. God says the penalty is paid and he can accept us, because we are no longer normal, but saved from normality by the price paid, the death of Jesus.

My friend, Dr. David Heddle, has decided to update his eschatology notes over at "He Lives". David is a great thinker and it should be good.

He gets started with a good look at verse one, which most people jump right over. The key is the word "soon". Check it out.

THE DEITY OF CHRIST, CRAWFORD TOY AND HERESY

Tony Cartledge, who writes at www.ethicsdaily.com, wrote an article praising Crawford Toy, one time professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who resigned and eventually taught at Harvard and became a Unitarian. Cartledge address the story that Lottie Moon broke off her engagement to Toy because, upon her return to America to marry him, she discovered he had abandoned the faith to embrace liberal theology. Cartledge wrote that Dr. Toy was “no less devoted to Christ” than Lottie Moon.

This is an incomprehensible statement in light of the fact that Moon sacrificed marriage and comfort for Christ and the gospel and would not marry the brilliant man and live in comfort because she stayed true to the gospel and Toy left the faith for Unitarianism and taught at a liberal seminary.

Dr. Al Mohler, president of the same Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, took umbrage at the statement by Cartledge on Toy’s devotion to Christ. He said “The article is breathtaking in its argument — that a man who abandoned the Christian faith was “no less devoted to Christ” than Southern Baptists’ most famous missionary.” But, then Mohler went on to use the “H” word.

Citing Toy’s union with the Unitarian faith and his belief in evolution, he said “In other words, Toy became what Christians throughout all the centuries of church history and in all the major traditions of the Christian Church would rightly identify as a heretic.” You can read Mohler’s blog at: http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/01/13/heresy-is-not-heroic-is-crawford-howell-toy-a-baptist-hero/

Next, Dr. Bruce Prescott, at the blog Main Stream Baptist , jumped into the fray. Prescott took umbrage at Mohler’s statement, saying: Mohler labels Toy a "heretic" because, after he was forced from his position at Southern Seminary and went on to have a distinguished career at Harvard University, he joined a Unitarian Church. That is an accurate summary of Mohler’s statement, although Mohler added the sentence on Toy’s belief in evolution.

But then, Prescott goes on to write: I have no insight into C.H. Toy’s personal relationship with Christ, I am not authorized to pass judgment upon it (Matt 7:1), and I am not inclined to pay attention to men or women who presume to have such authority.

If patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, Matthew 7:1 has become the last refuge of liberal theologians. I think he misapplied the scripture, but, in this case it is no matter to the discussion.

Whether or not you can judge Dr. Toy’s heart, you are able to ascertain his beliefs by his actions and his words. Dr. Toy rejected the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity in his writings.

He denied the deity of Christ by joining the Unitarian Church. The hallmark of Unitarian belief is that there is one God, the Father, and Jesus was a good moral teacher but not God.

Toy also denied, in writing, the virgin birth, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. He claimed, in writing, that Jesus was mistaken in a many of his ideas.

Dr. Toy denied the inspiration of the New Testament writers by claiming they were mistaken in their interpretation of Old Testament writings.

A heretic is a professed believer who actually has beliefs contrary to those of his church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.

What does the Christian church believe about the deity of Christ?

John the Apostle believed in the deity of Christ. In John 1:1, he wrote: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (RSV)

The Apostle’s Creed (not written by the Apostles, but an early creed written and used within 50 years or so of the last books of the New Testament) said:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;

The Apostle’s Creed proclaims the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, and the bodily resurrection of Christ and believers.

The Westminister Confession, chapter 2, article III, proclaims the deity of Christ:
In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

as an aside, Toy once wrote, if the Westminister Confession is the definition of Christianity, he was glad not to be called a Christian)

The Abstract of Principles, to which Toy would have had to subscribe in order to teach at the Seminary, says in part III, regarding the Trinity: God is revealed to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit each with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence or being.

The deity of Christ is central and essential to Christianity. If you oppose that belief, as Toy did, you are a heretic.

Dr. Mohler is right.

IT’S THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT

Among all the other weird things he says, Harold Camping now says the end of the world will occur in October 2011. I was worried I would miss my birthday party that month. I guess I will, because Camping also says May 21, 2011 will be the date of the rapture.

Camping teaches an odd and often contradictory set of beliefs. He claimed to be an amillenialist, but believes in a rapture and sounds more like a dispensational premillenialist. He also believes the church age is over, but the “rapture” has not come yet, although the purpose of the rapture is to end the church age and remove the church from the world before the tribulation (if you are dispensational and believe in 3 comings of Christ).

I thought Camping would be better off to say the end will come a year later, in 2012. The Mayans say 2012 and even got a movie out of it. Camping got nothing but his radio show, and I bet he has to pay to air that.

Here is what Camping says about The End. “Thus, we have learned that a great many facts harmonize with the conclusion that the Great Tribulation began in 1988 and ends at the end of the world in A.D. 2011. Further, that it was divided into two parts, the first part being 2,300 days and the second part being 17 years, also appears to harmonize with any and all Biblical data that relates to this subject. And now, we have no option. We can't say 'maybe' 'it's possible' 'it looks very probable...' No way! We have to say this is what the Bible teaches! This is fact! May 21, 2011 is the day of the Rapture, it is the day that Judgment Day begins....” (Harold Camping, 12-3-2008 on "Open Forum")

It sounds like he is pretty sure of it, doesn’t it? Well, note that he previously thought it would end in 1994.

Lest you think Camping is the only wing nut to predict The End inaccurately, you might examine the teachings of some other famous folks.

For example, there is Chuck Smith, who started the “Calvary Chapel” movement. He wrote a book in 1978 called "Future Survival". He predicted The End for 1981. This really upset me because I had just graduated from law school. I was rather carnal, but wished it would have ended before I did all that studying. I think Smith even planned a “Welcome Home, Jesus” party. Of course, I knew even then that earth was not Jesus’ home, at least not until the Father made all things new and we all lived with the new heavens and new earth.

I guess the ‘70s were ripe for this kind of prophesy of the end. The real biggie was Hal Lindsey. I had never heard of him until someone gave me his book, "The Late, Great Planet Earth" in paperback and told me it would explain everything. I really did not know anything about the dispensational model at that point in time.

Well, Lindsey wrote that the Rapture would be happen no later than 1981. He was most impressed with the fact that Israel had been re-constituted in 1947-48, tied it to the metaphor of the olive tree, added in Jesus’ comment about his coming in “this generation”, ignored the fact that this generation would be within the lifetime of those to whom he addressed his speech, and decided the “rapture’ would occur within 40 years of 1948. That meant 1988 was the last possible year. I could not make any sense of the olive tree thing, remembered Jesus said no one knew the date and ignored it. The book is in my garage somewhere. 1988 came and went, but The End did not.

Lindsey went on to write several other books, his failure to predict the date seemingly guaranteeing his success at publishing. This may have been because his reading of Revelation was not literal, but found symbolism of modern day events, weapons and nations and applied the scripture to the events of the day to make it look like this was the moment of fulfillment.

The End still did not come, so he wrote "The 1980's: Countdown to Armageddon". That didn’t happen either, but he still sold books and did interviews on radio and television.

The 1980s continued to abound in End Times Fever as Edgar C. Whisenant) wrote his famous book “88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988”. I was pretty jaded by this time and did not pay any attention to it. Others did, however, buying over 4 million copies of it and his next book. Whisenant was a former NASA engineer and had the sense of exactness that only engineers can muster: he said the Rapture would occur in 1988 between September 11 and September 13.

I remember my pastor said he received many inquiries from fearful folks, so he preached a sermon debunking the book. My thought: if the supposed Rapture means we all go to heaven and avoid the difficulty, why would you be afraid? Wouldn’t you jump for joy?

Well, Whisenant also wrote “On Borrowed Time”. He was so confident, he said "Only if the Bible is in error am I wrong…" He was definitely wrong, but you cannot find a Bible version that says Jesus will come in 1988.

Of a funny, and weird, side note, Trinity Broadcast Network (TBN) provided special instructions on praying for the Rapture.

I have no idea why you would need to pray for the Rapture. Maybe “make your calling and election sure”, but not pray for the Rapture. The Rapture is doing fine, thank you.

Whisenant was not deterred. He continued to write and predicted dates in 1989, 1993, and 1994 for the Rapture. For some reason, sales dropped off. I guess it was that “cry wolf” thing. Whisenant finally died and Jesus still had not come. Hopefully, he was able to find out why.

Maybe it was the big hair of the 80s that set all these preachers off, but failure did not abate the predictions. Pat Robertson picked 1982. He predicted that the Soviet Union would invade Israel. That would set off a nuclear war that would be the Battle of Armageddon and that would be The End. That didn’t happen, but others thought the world was coming to an end when Robertson ran for president in 1988.

Moving along, Lester Sumrall wrote a little book called “I Predict 1985”. In 1986, he wrote a book called “I Predict 2000”.

The 80s mercifully ended, but the predictions did not. Benny Hinn, white wearing stadium preacher and channeler of a dead evangelist, predicted the Rapture would occur in 1993. He went on to say that God would destroy all homosexuals by fire in ’95. Of course, 1993 has come and gone, Benny is still wearing white, making millions, but has, thankfully, cut the comb over, which some thought made him look like the Anti-Christ. And I have not seen any gays flaming in the literal sense.

Where Hinn failed, Kenneth Hagin stepped in without fear, predicting 1997 for The Grand Finale. For some reason, Hagin evidently felt it would all start in St.Louis rather than the Plain of Megiddo, but I would have thought Detroit.

Jack Van Impe, who also has suspicious hair, made a video with the catchy title of "A.D. 2000...The End?" He figured the Rapture would occur in 1992 and, of course figuring in a 7 year Great Tribulation, calculated The Final Curtain for 1999. I'm guessing he did not get invited to Prince’s big party.

The 1990s ended without the Big Event, Clinton did not turn out to be the Antichrist, and Hal Lindsey got back into the game with "Planet Earth - 2000". This would be the date for the big battle. Hey, you can’t hit if you don’t swing. Plus he is in good company. Newton went for that date, too. There is something about those zeros they just cannot resist. Here is a thought, though. What if God uses the Hebrew Calendar rather than the Julian calendar? I mean, which would he want the Julian Calendar? Or, what if he does not use a calendar? Would he care about the zeros?

All this has made me tired: So many predictions, so much time. I think I will stick with Jesus and believe no one but the Father knows the time and he did not leave a puzzle for us to figure out. If he had, I am sure Dan Brown would have written a book about it.

Remember, the purpose of the warning to watch for the return of Christ, is to be living for him when he returns, not to try and figure out when it will be so you do not have to pay your credit card bills.

John MacArthur reviews the preaching of Oral Roberts here.

Here is the money quote:

"Tragically, the Seed-Faith message usurped and utterly replaced whatever gospel content there ever may have been in Oral Roberts' preaching," MacArthur lamented. "The reason for that is obvious: the message of the cross – an atoning sacrifice for sins wrought through Jesus' sufferings – frankly doesn't mesh very well with the notion that God guarantees health, wealth, and prosperity to the righteous."

I remember when, as a young lawyer, I went to the home of an elderly couple to talk to them about their will. The husband was ill and dying. Their coffee table was stacked with paperback books from Oral Roberts about healing. They were sending money to him continuously and doing everything the books said to do. He desperately wanted to live.

He died weeks after we signed the will.

I wonder what his wife did with the books.

O Holy Night, or abolitionist theme song?

This song is a standard for Christmas Eve church services and programs. It is an old Christmas standard, plus lends itself to dramatic presentation.

However, like many songs we sing, including some in our hymnals, the words we know to this song are not the original words.

The original text to this song, or “carol” if you prefer, was written in French as a poem in 1847 by Placide Cappeau de Roquemaure. It was titled “Mi­nuit, chré­tiens, c’est l’heure so­len­nelle”. Here are the lyrics, translated into English.

Midnight, Christians, it's the solemn hour,
When God-man descended to us
To erase the stain of original sin

And to end the wrath of His Father.
The entire world thrills with hope
On this night that gives it a Savior.

People kneel down, wait for your deliverance.
Christmas, Christmas, here is the Redeemer,
Christmas, Christmas, here is the Redeemer!

The Redeemer has overcome every obstacle:
The Earth is free, and Heaven is open.
He sees a brother where there was only a slave,

Love unites those that iron had chained.
Who will tell Him of our gratitude,
It's for all of us that He is born,
That He suffers and dies.

People stand up! Sing of your deliverance,
Christmas, Christmas, sing of the Redeemer,
Christmas, Christmas, sing of the Redeemer!

These words are Biblical. (Although my Arminian brothers might squirm a bit.) They deal with incarnation, original sin, God’s wrath on sin removed by the Savior, humility before God, worship and celebration of salvation.

But, you say, I never heard these words! That is true, because someone changed them before you heard them.

That someone was John Sullivan Dwight, an American Transcendentalist , Unitarian and abolitionist.

A Unitarian does not believe in the deity of Christ. He believes Jesus was a prophet and good man, but not God or God’s son.

The Transcendentalists came out of Unitarianism, stressing the inner essence of man as capable of finding and celebrating truth and beauty and unity with all mankind. (It reminds me of my hippy friends in the ‘60s and ‘70s, all carrying around their paperback copies of Walden Pond.)

In short, Dwight was not a Christian, not a Trinitarian and not a believer in Jesus as savior in the orthodox sense. Therefore, he did not translate the lyrics, but changed them and adapted the thought to his philosophy.

Given Dwight’s religion and philosophy, you can see why he changed the reference from ending God’s wrath on original sin to “the soul felt its worth”. In other words, Jesus showed us our worth, rather than our need for salvation. This may be why this song is so popular today, it says Jesus came to raise my self esteem.

Much of the English lyrics are abolitionist. Though the original had a reference to slave and brother, it has greater emphasis in Dwight’s version.

Truly He taught us to love one another,
His law is love and His gospel is peace.
Chains he shall break, for the slave is our brother.
And in his name all oppression shall cease.

There is nothing about atonement, or turning away the wrath of God, but in universal brotherhood and the defeat of slavery. At least it does not tell me I should “fall in love with Jesus”.

UNBIBLICAL ADVICE FROM AN ANGLICAN PRIEST

"My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift." Father Tim Jones, Anglican priest.

"You shall not steal." Exodus 20:15

"You shall not steal." Leviticus 19:11

"And you shall not steal." Deuteronomy 5:19

"You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20

"Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need." Ephesians 4:28

"But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler."
1 Peter 4:15

Any questions?

"I do not come into this pulpit hoping that perhaps somebody will of his own free will return to Christ. My hope lies in another quarter. I hope that my Master will lay hold of some of them and say, "You are mine, and you shall be mine. I claim you for myself." My hope arises from the freeness of grace, and not from the freedom of the will." Charles Haddon Spurgeon

In a 2008 Pew survey, 47% of evangelicals revealed their belief that other religions can lead to eternal life. It was 57% in 2002.

Jesus claimed exclusive access to eternal life. In John 14:6, he said "no one comes to the Father except through me". (NIV) That is perfectly clear with no room for debate. Did Jesus believe other relgions could lead to eternal life? No.

The famous verse of John 3:16 actually contains this same truth. God loved the world in this way: he sent his one and only son so that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. God provided one way for salvation. He has one son who is that way. If you believe in him, you have eternal life. Verse 18 states it in the negative: whoever does not believe does not have eternal life but is condemned.

Since Jesus' claims, as set forth in the Bible, clearly are exclusive, what does this say about the 47% of evangelicals who believe otherwise?

Either they do not believe the Bible contains the words of Jesus, in which case they have othing to believe. Or, they do not believe Jesus told the truth, in which case he is not God's son and cannot be their savior. Or, and I think this one is the answer, 47% of evangelicals are not believers, are not Christians.

And this explains a lot of the problems in Evangelicalism.

SEX BLOGGING

Tim Challies is sex blogging. And doing a good job of it. His wife is co-blogging. It is worth the read.

There are two tenets of atheism: One, there is no God. Two, I hate him."
--Douglas Wilson

A GREAT LORD OF THE RINGS ANALOGY

Joshua Harris likens Gollum's slavery to the One Ring to our slavery to sin.

In 2009, there are more writings in print by 19th-century Calvinist pastor Charles Haddon Spurgeon than by any other English-speaking author living or dead.

"The Comeback Kid" is a great article on John Calvin and the resurgence of Calvinism by Timothy George in Christianity Today.