Archive for November, 2008

Understanding Covenant Theology

November 29, 2008

For those of us that have been “raised” on the system of doctrines concerning the end times known as “dispensationalism” (think Late Great Plant Earth, Left Behind, Schofield Bible, Clarence Larkin, and so on), that other system, called “Covenant Theology”, can be hard to understand.  But, in fact, dispensationalism is much more complicated than Covenant Theology – it’s just that changing one’s entire systematic understanding of scripture can be difficult.

Covenant Theology is the view of scripture held by the Church for nearly one thousand eight hundred and fifty years.  And it is gaining ground against its dispensational opponents in recent times, and hopefully will soon regain its rightful place as the Bible-believing Church’s understanding of God’s plan for the ages.

The article by Robert Reymond that I have linked below, if studied carefully, will help the dispensationalist to understand the faulty basis of dispensational theology.  While it is not a thorough treatise, nor a pedagogical work, it does nevertheless provide some important primary understanding on the subject – laying out in some detail the uniformity of God’s covenants in redeeming a people for His Name.

I would challenge every dispensationalist to read this treatise and see if he can hold on to his notions about the genetic descendants of Abraham in relation to the promises of God. 

Here is the link:  http://againstdispensationalism.blogspot.com/2008/10/who-really-owns-holy-land.html

Advertisements

Marraige for Robots in Dallas

November 13, 2008

From the Dallas News:  Dallas Area Pastor Issues Sex Challenge (link provided below). 

God may have rested on the seventh day, but the Rev. Ed Young wants married couples to have sex all week long.  Once a day. Beginning this Sunday.

I cannot think of a better example of what happens when a depraved, weak human mind tries to do God’s work without God’s words.  Scripture does not minimize the holy marriage relationship down to mechanical prescriptions such as “have sex some number of days.”

 What are we?  Robots?

In fact, nothing could be more harmful to a marriage than to substitute animal desires for sacrificial commitment. 

This pastor goes on to say: 

…the embracing of sex is about nurturing and strengthening marriages.  Sex is like Super Glue. It’s a spiritual thing, an emotional thing.

If sex is a spiritual thing, I guess we should start spending our Sundays in Las Vegas.  Of course, people who know their Bibles and some religious history will immediately recognize in this the philosophy of pagan religions with their groves where one could achieve contact with the spirit world through the ecstasies of bodily pleasures aided by the temple prostitutes.  This is nothing more than Baal worship in the name of Jesus.

But wait!  “Pastor Young is not promoting prostitution or anything like that but is promoting monogamous relationships.”  Okay, fine, he is not outrightly promoting such things as mentioned, but how is he “promoting” monogamous relationships when he equates the health of a given relationship with a strong sex drive?  Isn’t it more likely that a hyper-active sex drive will result in adultery or variant behaviours that may destroy the relationship?  Isn’t adultery the leading cause of divorce?  Shouldn’t we be learning restraint rather than fueling the flame of the disastrous fire that already burns in nature?

I, like many others, wonder what the motivation of this absurd “pastor” can be.  My gut reaction to such nonsense amounts to “stupid, stupid, stupid!”  But maybe it’s not stupidity at all, but on the contrary, a very clever maneuver by a brilliant manipulator, as Jim Dale has it figured:

Jim Dale of Coppell said he figures the pastor is trying to create more buzz for his five-church mega-ministry. “Draw ’em in, no matter what or how,” wrote the Coppell resident in a posting on dallasnews.com. “Sex? You betcha. That’ll pack the pews (or theater seats).” Mr. Dale, author of a book about individual relationships with God, said he has attended Fellowship Church a few times. And he offered some praise: “I’ve got to hand it to them, they are brilliant marketers.”

In view of the continuing desire of “church” to get along with the depraved world, I predict that divorces within churches will not decrease, but will plateau at the current level, as they have in the wider society due to couples simply living together without getting married.

As long as people think that sex satisfies their spiritual needs, they have no hope for a deep abiding relationship with either God or mankind.  

Marriage is the perfect institute whereby sexual desires are not only expressed, but they are also controlled.  The Bible says that married couples are to “render due benevolence” within the context of mutual love and patience.  A normal couple will have sex thousands of times over the course of a lifetime together without ever being commanded to “do it” by some self-important preacher.  But what today’s sex-obsessed religious leaders don’t seem to understand is that sex does NOT satisfy man’s deepest needs and desires, and that it is possible for couples to be completely happy in a relationship that minimizes sex.

But hay, who am I?  I don’t pastor a MEGA-CHURCH, and have a MEGA-EGO.  All I have is the unmerited grace of God, who has chosen to give me a wife of almost 32 years, and a relationship that has endured every temptation that Satan can dish out.  Who am I to say how a relationship works?

There are two things the old folks never talked about:  1) divorce, and 2) sex.  Do you think that’s a coincidence?  No, it’s not a coincidence, because in their day, divorce was the unspeakable destruction of a family and was to be avoided at every possible cost; and relationships were to never be reduced to the animal sex act.  And in spite of that, if you’ll notice, the old folks had no problem making babies and staying committed to each other.  We ought to think about that.  We ought to think about that.  Really, we ought to think about that.

Link:  http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-sexweek_12met.ART0.State.Edition1.4a9d7c4.html

Executive Orders and Abortion

November 12, 2008

When Bill Clinton was the President of the United States, he issued an executive order which provided funding for abortions in certain underdeveloped foreign countries.  When George W. Bush was elected, he immediately issued an Executive Order rescinding Clinton’s Executive Order.  In all this talk about President-Elect Obama “reviewing” the Bush Executive Orders, I can’t help but wonder if that particular one is being targeted for a renewal of the funding of abortions.

It will be interesting – no, heart-wrenching – to see how Obama’s anti-birth agenda plays out. 

I realize that perhaps I and others like me are fighting a futile battle.  Americans that are not outright pro-abortion have in large part become indifferent to the cause.  We are worn down from losing ground with every compromise made by our “conservative” politicians.  President W. Bush tried to turn liberals into friends and they burned him.  In compromising with liberals, he forsook his conservative base.  The Republican Party left us with no one to vote for.  We could either vote for a liberal, or a liberal – choose one.

The average American does not support abortion on demand, welfare for the lazy, gun control, and any number of other liberal positions.  The liberals in both major parties are well aware of this, and play a master political chess game in getting unpopular policies passed into law time and time again.  The giant federal bailout bill stands as the clear example of the unity of the two parties in doing that which the American people do not support.  And the federal bail-out pig trough is so sweet that word is getting around – now the automobile manufacturers want their share of the pig slop.  Just keep dipping into federal funds – why not?  They can print the money at will, or they can raise taxes at will (which is really what printing money is – a tax increase).

So how long are we average American going to take it on the chin before we stand up?  Every time a political candidate begins to move in our direction, the big new media outlets label them “populists” (which is supposed to be some demonic being although I don’t know exactly why), and if they get to popular, they destroy them by finding some misdeed in their past to embarrass them into withdrawal, or draw them into alliances that betray them, or they just make up lies about them and repeat them over and over until the people are duped.

Ronald Reagan was the most popular president since FDR, and it just grinds the belly of the big media to admit it.  Reagan was not a compromiser.  His message was, “here’s what the people want – let’s get to it.”  He never said, “I have to make friends with my enemies.” 

It appears that the conservative battle is lost.  Not just the battle, but the war.  We have no candidate.  But let us pray that God may yet send us a Josiah to overthrow the sodomites and false gods.

Will President Obama Unite America?

November 6, 2008

Can America unite under a man that supports infanticide and homosexual marraige?

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin [is] a reproach to any people.   Proverbs 14:34