Monthly Archives: June 2013

Since I Rob Bell's Mars Hill is only a few miles from where I live (he's gone, church is still there), I sort of keep an eye.

Here is Michael Kruger's review of Bell's new book, "What We Talk About When We Talk About God"

In the end, my overall concern about this volume is a simple one: it is not Christian. Bell's makeover of Christianity has changed it into something entirely different. It is not Christianity at all, it is modern liberalism. It is the same liberalism that Machen fought in the 1920's and the same liberalism prevalent in far too many churches today. It is the liberalism that teaches that God exists and that Jesus is the source of our happiness and our fulfillment, but all of this comes apart from any real mention of sin, judgment, and the cross. It is the liberalism that says we can know nothing for sure, except of course, that those "fundamentalists" are wrong. It is the liberalism that appeals to the Bible from time to time, but then simply ignores large portions of it.


How To Read a Book

Not so much for the "how to read" but the "how to review" if the "answer these four questions" segment:

1. What is the book about, as a whole?
2. What is being said, in detail, and how?
3. Is the book true, in whole or in part?
4. What of it? What's the significance, and how?


Same sex "marriage" round up

The Witherspoon Institute focuses not on the "marriage" but how it will affect religious liberty


abortion / gun rights (yes)

"A Good Question" via Gay Patriot

“Many Democrats, when they were arguing for gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting said even if this saves one life it will be worth doing. Why not support this bill then, if it undoubtedly will save lives of babies that have been carried throughout 5 months of pregnancy?“ Many Democrats, when they were arguing for gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting said even if this saves one life it will be worth doing. Why not support this bill then, if it undoubtedly will save lives of babies that have been carried throughout 5 months of pregnancy?”

"The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" by Lorraine Boettner

For a beginner to Reformed theology, this book will give the basics of TULIP in an accessible way. If you are firmly already in the "ANTI-" camp, don't bother reading the book, you'll hate it. But if you want to learn about the theology, with an open mind, this is a great place to start.

This book begins at the beginning. Boettner teaches in this book that all of "TULIP" stands or falls together and starts with the "T" - total depravity.

For Boettner, the sovereignty of God is something to be glorified, not hated. We deserve nothing from God, and the idea that He saves some at all is a testament to goodness.

Each segment is supported with Scripture, and explained thoroughly.

There is a little bit of "here's where the other side is wrong" - and sometimes in not very graceful language - but even those are framed in "here's why from Scripture"

I read the Amazon reviews and there were a few of "one-star" reviews. ALL of these were not based on the writing of the book, but on their disagreement with Calvinism.

1 Comment

Christian who is politically conservative?
Christian who is theologically conservative?

My Political Views
I am a right social moderate
Right: 3.54, Authoritarian: 0.54

Political Spectrum Quiz

I am, first and foremost, Christian.

Theologically, I am 100% Reformed.

Based on the chart here, I'm a theological conservative, but on others, I miss the mark on 7-day creationism.

I find it interesting the (generally and broadly) those who fall mostly in the "liberal" description are not willing to identify with that descriptor.

But if a person who fall into the "conservative" side gets called "conservative, their reply is more likely to be "thank you."

I started this post a few days ago, and honestly don't remember where I was going with it.

Probably because I do post on theology and I do post on politics.

For me, "conservative" is a handy way to let folks know up front what mind set I'm working from.

Within a few days, SCOTUS will be delivering decisions on same sex "marriage."

That means that, as Tim Challies said:

once marriage has been redefined away from the union of one man to one woman, it seems almost impossible not to see it also expand to include polygamous relationships

1. Given that Scripture never "moves the definition of marriage" away from polygamy

    Bathsheba was David's WIFE


    Rachel was Jacob's WIFE


    Gideon had many WIVES


    Jehovah had Israel and Judah

2. Given that (as I pointed out a couple of days ago) we must not call "sin" that which God does not call "sin"

3. Given that "where there is no law, there is no sin."

...Christians should NOT be lumping polygamy in with same sex "marriage."

One is called "marriage" and the other is called "abomination."

This is purely from a Biblical view, not touching (yet) politics in today's world.

Does this mean that I think Christian evangelicals should embrace and practice polygamy? No, but I think that if a converted Mormon or Muslim shows up in our churches with plural wives, we should accept their marriages.

So...Im reading in 1 Thessalonians....v. 4

For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction

The conviction, the power and the Holy Spirit came not as the result of our choice, but of God's choice.


1 Comment

This debate is "heating up" because of the battle over same-sex "marriage" - and some folks are saying the one of the problems with legalizing same-sex "marriage" is that it could lead to polygamy. (Reminds me of a joke my husband used to tell: Why does Bob Jones University forbid dancing? It could lead to sex standing up)

I have read in both blogs and their comments section that "homosexuality and polygamy are equal (sins).


(side note: 1 Cor. 6:9-10: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality(**), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God

**or Old Testament patriarchs


First: I am not "pro-polygamy" in the sense that I believe it's the right think for everybody.

I am not (NOT) pro-polygamy in the sense that it's what I want for myself.

I simply cannot call "sin" what Scripture does not call "sin." I'm happily (and truly) Reformed and the first Sola is "Sola Scriptura." Scripture is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct. We must not call evil...good. But we must also not call "sin" that which God does not call "sin."

Our Holy Father does not regulate "sin" - He forbids it.

Like all things, polygamy can (and is) abused, but if we call all things "sin" that some people abuse...we would not even be able to eat!

Our Holy Father does not describe Himself, even in metaphors, that portray Him as doing anything that is "sin.". Isaiah 3:6-10 gives us Jehovah and his wives, faithless Israel and treacherous Judah. I believe that polygamy, in and of itself, cannot be "sin" or Jehovah would have chosen a different metaphor.

Our Holy Father does not give us sinful things. in 2 Samuel 12 we read that Jehovah had delivered Saul's wives into David's arms. One can hardly say that polygamy made David commit adultery and kill Uriah! Greed and Lust did that.

God could have put an asterisk after the Leverite marriage law...but He didn't. The God who told His people not to wear cloth made out of blended linen and wool, could have told His people to take only one wife...but He didn't.

God didn't forbid business, He regulated it.
He didn't forbid marriage, He regulated it.
He didn't forbid polygamy, He regulated it.

If you want to make an argument that it leads to bad things (so does parenthood, if you ask Abel,) that's fine. But that's not the argument I see being made.

If you want to make an argument that in the New Testament, leaders are forbidden to have more than one wife, that's fine. But that's not the argument I see being made.

Don't call "sin" that which God does not call "sin."

"No more illegal wiretapping of citizens, No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary. This administration acts like violating civil liberties is a way to enhance our security. It is not…There is no short cut to protecting Americans”.

-- Senator Barack H. Obama, 2007