Do NOT pray for Justin!

A week ago Jamin was gushing over a 'big win' by Sye here. 
Hardly a big win.  His opponent/Justin remains unjustified.  There was no repentance.


No fault of Sye's.  Sye called for repentance.  Graciously and repeatedly.


But Justin was dull.  Dull as distilled water.  And lukewarm water at that.
Clear evidence of a mind 'given over' (Romans 1:28).
Not only that- but a mind that Christians should pay no mind to.  And pray no prayer for.


Pretty harsh there, you say? 
Well... only as harsh as the loving-apostle John.  And the weeping-prophet Jeremiah.


So... let's have a look at what they have to say:


     "There is a sin that leads to death. I am NOT saying that he should pray about that" (1 John 5:16 NIV).


and repeatedly by Jehovah,


     "Therefore do NOT pray for these people" (Jeremiah 11:14, 7:16 and 14:11 NIV).




Which begs the question, "what people"? And "what sin"?


Well, in the latter verse it is clearly those that have forsaken the 'true God'- Jeremiah 16:11.
And in the former it is clearly those that have forsaken His testimony- 1 John 5:20.


Here's what Matthew Henry has to say on that former verse:


      ... a blaspheming of the Spirit of God in the testimony that he has given to Christ and his gospel, and a total apostasy from the light and convictive evidence of the truth of the Christian religion. These are sins involving the guilt of everlasting death...  For what remains but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, to consume such adversaries? Heb. 10:27.  


And Justin is well aware of his 'blasphemy of the Spirit'.  As evidenced by his dull deleting of  his confession:


Justin:... No, the Holy Spirit makes good arguments bad.


Yes, just as the atheist-Rational Response Squad is well aware of their blasphemy of the Spirit:


     You may damn yourself to Hell however you would like, but somewhere in your video you must say this phrase: "I deny the Holy Spirit."
     Why? Because, according to Mark 3:29 in the Holy Bible, "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." Jesus will forgive you for just about anything, but he won't forgive you for denying the existence of the Holy Spirit. Ever. This is a one-way road you're taking here.


Yes, this Fraud Squad recognizes this as a non-negotiable as well.
For it is an inherent Truth!  


An inherent attribute of the God that is clearly seen.  The God that is clearly felt.
And the God that is clearly 'telt' in scripture.
So that they are without excuse...


But Justin wasn't actually denying the Spirits' "existence", was he? 
Wasn't he merely calling the Spirit "bad"?


Well, this is where the Fraud Squad did some dull deleting of their own.  They neglected the subsequent verse of Mark.  The textual qualifier.  That it was calling the Spirit  "unclean" which was actually 'their blasphemy'.


A blasphemy that clearly indicts Justin.


A blasphemy that does not leave him At The Brink.
A blasphemy that clearly pushes him over the brink.


And a blasphemer that should NOT be patronized with prayer.

 

Bad Boys

Yup.  Piggybacking on a Triablogue post again.  This time at a different blog of mine.  And this time about some comments that were posted there.


Comments made by some biker chick ;)
Comments made by some chick named Carrie.
Comments like:


1)  Men have a much higher tendency to suffer from sexual sins, to points that are beyond comprehension. I do wonder theologically why that is.


2)  It would just say that men struggle more with sexual sin while women struggle more with some other sin. As far as sinning overall, the two sexes are on an equal playing field.


3)  This *almost* starts sounding like the rape victim being blamed for wearing a short skirt.


Well, let's work our way backwards on this one.


Rape victims 'shouldn't be blamed for wearing short skirts'-


For 'enticing'?  For doing the 'slut walk'?


As analogy- cuckolded husbands are often charged with manslaughter rather than murder.  Why?  Because it often meets a Provocation Test.  A test that recognizes a 'reduction in culpability'.  A shared culpability.  A shared blame (yet, for some reason the unfaithful wife sees no blame).


Is Carrie saying that this well-established (7th century B.C.) Provocation Test should be tossed?
And that there should be no Provocation Test for rape either?
That women should be free to provocate with impunity?
Free to entice 'without even slander'?


Hey Carrie, I'm even willing to grant others a Provocation Test for abortion. 
But are you willing to grant others a Provocation Test for rape?




Men struggle more with sexual sin-


Well... should women be held more culpable for sexual sin then?  Since it is an 'easier battle' for them?


As far as sin goes... both sexes are on an equal playing field-


So Satan and his demons are equal-opportunity tempters?
Not terribly convinced of that. Not terribly opportunistic of them.
It's like they subscribe to a Code of Ethics.  Or God has them bound by a Code of Ethics.
Far too egalitarian for my liking.  Some weird interpretation of Galatians 3:28?


Men are more pre-disposed to sexual sin.  Why is that?


Well, it just may be that men have a greater appreciation for God-given material.
Material recognized and declared to be "Good!" ("He who finds a wife finds a good thing "- Prov. 18:22 ESV).
Yet, this rib-based material (BTW, did you know that ribs grow back?) was seduced  by a fabulous fibber (1 Tim. 2:14).  
Was enticed by a pitch of  'immaterial gains'.  Only to find- an immense pit of  intense agony.


Indeed, a pit that we all stand at the brink of.  Branded as idolaters.  Branded as eternal kindling.


Unless otherwise branded by an immaterial Spirit.  To reflect the perfect material.  To reflect the perfect idol.  To reflect the perfect Son.


To the glory of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Truly exclusive glory- where exclusive glory is truly due.

Not so Wright on Hawking

Yes, writing on N.T. Wright again.  About N.T. beating up on a mental midget.
Beating up on Hawking.  A man who 'should know better than to wander from his Black Hole'.

A Black Hole that Hawking recently vacated for quite a different Black Hole- much to the scientific communities outrage.
And now Hawking is trying to outrage the religious community as well..  By now claiming that there is no Light Hole either. Indeed, no Heaven for Christians.  Despite the 'Christian wish' for Heaven.

Well, good ol' N.T. took him to task on that... sort of.
And N.T. calls Hawking 'less intelligent than the average Christian' .  As well as "very low-grade" and "sub-biblical" here. 

Yup, all that for Hawking claiming that 'most Christians believe that they will go to heaven when they die'.
While N.T. claims that in fact, 'most Christians don't believe ("think") they will go to heaven when they die'.

N.T. then goes on to explain that the "fully Christian two-stage view" is that Christians will 'first be with Christ in heaven, and then be granted a resurrected body on a renewed earth'.  'An earth that overlaps and interlocks with heaven'.  Now how duplicitous is that?  A Wright distinction without a meaningful difference it seems.

Yet, rather than clarifying- the venerable Bishop appears to have obscured and misrepresented Heaven.  N.T. has endorsed a minimized Heaven for Christians. Endorsed a compartmentalized eternity.  Again, endorsed a brief spiritual Heaven with Jesus and then a much less brief  physical haven without Jesus.  A haven that I could do without.  

I have other issues with Wright than his Post article.  Yet, let's just concentrate on his "two-stage view" in this post.  The view that  Wright says is the "fully Christian view".  A view that I say is At The Brink of Christianity.

First, lets deal with N.T.'s interpretation on the first few verses of John 14.  Verses where Jesus is promising his disciples a 'dwelling place in His Fathers House".  Sure, as N.T. insists- there may be some compartmentalization there.  But isn't  it with mere curtains?   Curtains that have been rent in two (Matt. 27:51)?  Hardly as compartmentalized as Moses's cleft in a rock (Exodus 33:22).

And I would hardly think Jesus would be promising such a temporary tent to his distressed disciples.  That Jesus would be making such a lukewarm promise to His troubled disciples.  After all, isn't our current a body a temporary tent?

So, N.T. has that interpretation... but what does the very scholarly and conservative NET Bible say on those verses?

⁴ sn Most interpreters have understood the reference to my Father’s house as a reference to heaven, and the dwelling places (μονή, monh) as the permanent residences of believers there. This seems consistent with the vocabulary and the context- NET Bible

Yup, "Most interpreters" and "permanent residences".  So most interpreters (and Christians) actually believe in a permanent heaven.  So, it seems Hawking is actually right on this one... historically and grammatically.

However, Wright may truly be right in his interpretation.  Because the NET also gives reasons why "most interpreters" may in fact be wrong. Obscure, equivocating, anachronistic reasons.  Reasons which would have given cold comfort to His troubled disciples.  Check them out!

 But y'know, all this talk of heaven reminds me of an old Negro Spiritual-
"Ev'rybody talkin' 'bout Heav'n ain't going there-
 Oh my Lord!"

Well... still hoping to see you there, holey Hawking.
You too, not so Wright ;)

An Eye for an Eye

This news article intrigued me the other day.

About how the Koran says, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and a soul for a soul".
Suggesting that these Muslims are merely following a biblical precept to the letter.

An article that suggests that we, as products of Darwin's enlightenment- should hold such barbarism in contempt.
Pretty easy to say... from a distance.

Yet, this precept is far from biblical.  Far from the letter of the Mosaic law.  And far from the letter of Christianity.

But what puzzled me- was where the Islamic "scholar" of this news article included "soul for a soul".
Which is not an accepted translation of this verse in the Koran.  Since this verse should be translated "life for life"- and not the "soul for soul" appended by that scholar.

Yet, that scholar's "soul for soul" concept is found elsewhere in the Koran.  Thirteen verses earlier.  In the eleventh and thirteenth words. 
Here we are told that the concept "soul" is to be taken in a genitive sense with the thirteenth word.  And in the accusative sense with the eleventh word of this verse.
Note the differences between the thirteenth

and the eleventh

words.
Not exactly an identical substitution of a "soul for a soul".  Where the one "soul" is to be accused- while the other "soul" remains accursed.  Obviously some categorical distinctive that is being overlooked by the "scholar" of that news article. 
A categorical distinctive that should also applied to the "eye for an eye" etc.
A distinctive that suggests some form of equivalence- yet not exact equivalence.
A distinctive that is recognized by followers of the Mosaic law.  The law that Mohammad  alludes to.

Now what I found fascinating in my research, was not merely that Islamic justice appears overwhelmingly retaliative rather than restorative - but also that Islam appears to hold contempt for any interpretation of this particular verse that might suggest a genitive "savior" .
Holds contempt for any interpretation that might suggest a soul-ish savior.  Indeed, contempt for the interpretation of this verse by Arab scholar Bijan Moeinian:


"Based upon this incidence, I decreed to the children of Israel (and such passages are missing in the existing bibles except a few verses in Thalmud) that: “Whoever kills a human being (unless the latter being guilty of murder or spreading corruption on earth) should be looked upon as though he has killed the entire humanity and whoever saves a life should be considered as the savior of whole mankind.” However, in spite of many Prophets which came to them with undeniable miracles, the majority of them chose to disregard the Divine laws".

Contempt for the mere suggestion of a "savior".
And Bijan didn't even go all the way- by properly saying "soul savior" either!

Yes, contempt for a savior.  Contempt of a proper "soul for a soul".
Contempt which will land them... in a land of contempt.

Without a Hitch

In case you haven't heard-it seems unlikely that Hitchens will see another one of his memoirs published. It seems Hitchens is at the brink of death- and that we will be without a Hitch shortly.  Esophagus cancer.

That's too bad.
I like Hitchens.

I can appreciate his brutal honesty.  His uncompromising tenacity.  His bravery and his audacity.
Hitchens is a man in which I find very little deceit.
Hitchens is a man of which even Jesus might say, "In Hitch I find little guile " (cf. John 1:47).  And yet... I expect Jesus will find Hitchens guilty.  Guilty of contempt.
His contempt for Christ.
His contempt for his Creator.
For his insisting that, "if there actually were a Creator- then this Creator is actually evil".
For his insisting, "can anyone good be responsible- for this pernicious evil"?
His contempt for the Creator who creates good- from a pernicious evil.
His contempt for the Creator who can grant resurrection- from a pernicious crucifixion. 

Now what sort of eternity might I envision- for an uncompromising Hitchens?

A persistent pleading with a publishing house on fire,.
A persistent pleading for a keyboard that doesn't burn his fingers.
A persistent pleading for Johnny Walker with ice.
A persistent pleading through an esophagus on fire.

A persistent itch for even one ear to hear him.
A persistent itch for even one breast to accompany him.
A persistent itch from that "worm that never dies" -Mark 9:48.
A persistent itch... for Hitch. 

One For The Tipper

Yes, and not unlike our previous post- Al and Tipper Gore are also at the brink of divorce. And have probably been at the brink for a long time as well. Yet strangely- Christianity Today thinks that it may actually be good to be at the brink. That 'separation may actually be "pro-marriage"'. That separation may actually 'stimulate you to reconsider... separation'! That unfaithfulness may actually 'stimulate you to reconsider... unfaithfulness'.

But to be fair to the Gore's- this is just a "trial separation". To see if a real separation might actually work. To see if a real separation might be in the globe's best interests. As if the globe really cares.

And they are boldly going forth in a New Direction. Forging a New Covenant between themselves. A Covenant to forsake the Covenant that they had with each other- for an indeterminate while. While they determine if they should actually return to the Covenant- that they had actually had with each other. That they were to forsake all others for. For quite a while.

But does this New Direction really work? Is this separation not really sin? Is this separation not really unfaithfulness? And is not- what is not of faithfulness... not really sin (Romans 14:23)?

Does it not appear that the globe's-pal-Al has "exchanged faithfulness for a lie" (Romans 1:25)? Not appear that Al has exchanged his faithful Tipper- for little more than Air Miles? Not appear that this separation will bring Al to a much more "inconvenient truth"? To a much more inconvenient exchange?

After all, did not the extended separation of Jesse from a filming Sandra- not stimulate Jesse to an inconvenient exchange of tits for tatt's? Or did not the extended separation of Elin from a touring Tiger- not stimulate Tiger to an inconvenient exchange of long drives for mini-putts?

Yet Al and Tipper think that separation from each other might stimulate them to... be faithful? To whom? To what? To Al's Mother Gaia?

Well, if Al and Tipper pass this "trial"- then they are certainly eligible for a divorce. And legally, it takes a year long "trial"- for them to pass. No questions asked. And only half that "trial" time if they opt to give "just cause" for a divorce.

Yes, a considerably longer trial than is required for Muslims or Jews to obtain a divorce (seems it takes Muslims or Jews only "an hour or two" trial). Yet, Tipper seems willing to endure yet- one more year. Yes, one for the Tipper. Then, rather than opting to give the specious cause of 'spiritual adultery'- after a year Tipper can give the less than specious cause of "irreconcilable differences". Some difference. More patience.

However, what was this editor at CT thinking? Why would he publish this article?
And what was this Director-of-Family-Formation-Studies at Focus on the Family thinking? Why would he write this article? Why would he endorse this separation?
And why would Focus not ask this Director to step down for his similar marital unfaithfulness?
Or this endorsement of Gore's unfaithfulness?
Odd that Focus didn't mind asking it's founder- to step down. Didn't mind asking Dr. Dobson to separate from "The Family". Seems they had some irreconcilable differences.

Yet, does it not seem that Christianity Today and Focus have lost... their focus? Seeming to think that the faithfulness of today- should be different than the faithfulness of yesterday? Seem to have separated themselves from the world of faithfulness- and have entered a whole New World of pragmatism? Seeming to think that they should become 'all things- that they might save some' (1 Cor. 9:22)?
Even if it means endorsing separation? Even if it means endorsing unfaithfulness?
As long as it makes the globe happy?

Should Benny Stalk Suzie?

Not too flattering a picture of Suzie, sorry.
I actually like her better than Benny though. Not nearly as duplicitous. Not nearly as deceitful.
Not nearly as vain. Not nearly as heretical. And actually kinda pretty.
Yet is she being "unbiblical" as Benny claims?
Seems Benny wasn't telling the whole story either. Again, much less shock and awe than claimed by Benny.
Seems they've been apart a few years already. Already been unfaithful. Already sinning against each other. Unless Benny is now bereft of manly passion. And Suzie bereft of lady lust.
Yet, marital obligations extend far beyond providing sex (although good biblical scholars would argue that this is Paul's primary argument for getting married). Far beyond providing food. And far beyond providing clothing (Exodus 21:10).
After all, who would contend that they do not include providing shelter? Transportation? Or defense?
Yet how do you defend an 'absentee' wife? One that seems more than a little absent upstairs as well as downstairs.
And Benny likely knew that Suzie was physically 'absent' for a while. Quite a while in fact.
And Benny likely knew that Suzie was being "unbiblical" for a while as well. Quite a while in fact. And it seems Benny did little to defend Suzie from various wolves. Little to defend Suzie from various heresy. Little to defend Suzie from a sickening Shaw. Shaw's aberrant view of marriage. And Shaw's abhorrent view of sex.
Yes Benny, it likely was "unbiblical" for Suzie to leave you (1 Cor. 7:10) . Unless Benny was defaulting in his obligations too (which is pretty unlikely, huh?).
However, if Suzie will not submit to biblical authority. Will not submit to the churches counsel. Then Benny should let Suzie leave- and with the churches endorsement (Matt 16:19)!
What!!!?
But in that last post you said that Benny should "kiss up", Ron.
And indeed Benny should "kiss up"- if Suzie 'puckers up'.
Yet there is currently no indication of Suzie submitting or 'puckering up'. Currently no indication of Suzie truly being a Christian. Despite her peculiar past manifestations. Despite her being an alleged "Pastor".
Now, this was essentially the same counsel that I gave Greg at Desiring God.
Indeed, Greg's 'absentee' claims to want "nothing to do with God". "Nothing to do with biblical counsel". "Nothing to do with church". "Nothing to do with covenant". "Nothing to do with Greg".
And Greg should respect her aversion. These are not the fruit of a "born again" person. These are the fruit of a barren person.
And as 1 Cor. 7:15 says, Greg should not be "stalking" a barren person (we'll deal with the moderator at that blogs rebuttal to me- on my mature brother blog).
Likewise Benny should not be "stalking" Suzie.
And unless she 'puckers up' soon--- Suzie is 'all show and no go'. All fluff and no stuff.
A gold ring in a pigs snout. And Benny should sow no more seeds in this sow.

Update:  Seems Benny is intent on another sow now.  Seems he couldn't be civil enough to wait out the civil- waiting-period for a divorce.  Seems Benny was conquered by his "passions".  And Suzie by her lack.