Separating Hinn from His Hiney

Yes, Benny Hinn's 'Hiney' has filed for divorce.
They have been separated for about 30 days.
And married for about 30 years.

"Irreconcilable differences", Mrs. Hinn claims.
Shock and awe, Mr. Hinn claims.

Which begs the biblical question, "Which differences are irreconcilable?"
And the question, "Which differences are not?"

Grounds which dear Dr. Mike- ably presents here.
And grounds which I have not as ably- presented elsewhere.

Yet are they truly "irreconcilable"?
And if shock and awe is truly the case- was there any intervention? Any Biblical counseling?
Or is Hinn or his filing Hiney above such compassionate counseling ?

Now, it remains to be seen- if Hinn can pull another alleged miracle- of out of his alleged gift.
The great miracle of reconciliation. Before she is truly "loosed"- 1 Cor. 7:15.

But if he truly has the Holy Spirit- he has an obligation to try.
To "pursue the things which make for peace" (Rom. 14:19)- lest his hiney be hung out to dry.

So get on your knees- and kiss hiney, Mr. Hinn.
Kiss her hiney till the cow comes home.

And then kiss her till her kisser sleeps.
Cuz only fools will kiss a tombstone.

Separating The Fish From The Flock

Yup, kinda weird huh?
His Name?
Yes, that too.

That and Mr. Fish still thinking that MacArthur's church- is a false church with a false gospel.
And as usual Phil Johnson does a fine job with his updated post on Fish here.

Now, I doubt that I would have been as patient with Fish- as his elder Johnson was.
Think I woulda tossed him to the sharks waaay sooner.

Yet-
Am not terribly disturbed by Fish's view on corporal punishment. As Johnson seems to be.
Am not terribly disturbed by Fish's view on masturbation. As Johnson seems to be.
Am not terribly disturbed by Fish's view on polygamy. As Johnson seems to be.

But with Johnson, I do find Fish's view on the Trinity- as ludicrous!

On this issue Fish is like a fish out of water. Not even flapping on the dock.
Suffocatingly far- from the brink of orthodoxy.

A 'compound-being of "nine"', huh?
Even blowhard Hinn retracted that ninesense :)

Oops, wait a minute- "Jerusalem is God". Better make that ten.
Oops, wait a minute- "The Throne, the Heavens and His Kingdom" are also God. Thirteen!

And given Fish's theological training- he has no excuse.
Despite his premature swim from the school- he is far too obtuse.

He bit the Master's Seminary that fed him.
Then bit the master that led him.

And even if Fish- has a sound bite on the how of justification.
Still, he doesn't know who he is justified by.

Was he justified by the God-man?
Or justified by "two men"?

Is his faith in God incarnate?
Or God "eternally carnate"?

Is this Fish incredibly shallow?
Or just hobbled by a fish-eye lens?

Will this Fish become "one-flock with one shepherd"?
Or remain a fish without a school.

Will this Fish subscribe to the Rule of Faith?
Or struggle to maintain the 613 Mosaic rules.

We shall attempt to deal with one of those rules at my mature brother blog.
A rule that Pharisee Fish maintains- the death penalty for Sex During Menstruation.

My apologies for this present post.
Not as sanctifying as the previous post.

But as Johnson might say, "Sometimes ya  just gotta take out the trash".

Separating Love from "In Love"

 

I heard the argument again yesterday. A friend emphasizing a major point of his regular teaching,  "The Bible doesn't say that a woman has to love her husband- she just has to respect him."

"And that should be good enough for him". " But he still has to love and honor her".

I read Doug Wilson saying the same thing a few days before (Reforming Marriage, pg. 26), "Wives are nowhere specifically commanded to love their husbands".
Then somehow Wilson gets away from Titus 2:4 by saying that, 'this verse doesn't count- because it uses love as a "compound word"'.   Hmmm.

Would this argument stand up to Jehovah's Witnesses who claim that the trinitarian-God is,  "not a compound being- because he is not specifically called a 'compound being' in the Bible"?

And wouldn't it follow then- that women do not have to love their children either?  Because this verse uses love as a "compound word" as well?

But we know that doesn't follow, don't we?  Don't we?

Does it not then follow, that since wives needn't love their husbands- that the church needn't love Christ?

That the church merely needs to respect Christ?  That she need not be "ONE FLESH" with Christ?- Ephesians 5:30-32.
That she just needs to give Christ the respect that "He desperately needs"?

Would Wilson also say that the Bible doesn't endorse oral sex either?   Because it never uses the compound word "oral sex"?
We know from his book (pg. 106)- that he would not say that.  And we know from this article by leading translator Bill Mounce- that Mounce would not say that either.

And would Mounce not also say that some form of the Granville Sharp rule of translation also applies to this verse construction as well?  That there is a parallel construction?  That the same qualities that apply to "husband" also apply to "children"? 

Then why would Wilson and Eggerichs present this concept?  Is it to dissemble that popular "in love" concept?
A concept that is nowhere presented in the Bible?  Now, that would be a noble undertaking but...

So, in keeping with that same Mounce article- let's not attribute motives.  But let's assess the implications of this profound new teaching.

A wife not having to love her husband.
A wife not having to sacrifice for her husband.  Hmmm...

A mother not having to love her children.
A mother not having to sacrifice for her children.  Hmmm...

So...

Any men here- still desirous of an unloving bride?
Any Christ here-still desirous of  an unloving church?

For a church that would thereby "blaspheme the Word" [the subsequent verse in Titus]?
The Word that is God? 
Surely the compound-Word will "spit you out"!- Rev. 3:16
For God was not so "in-love" with this world that...

Separating the spirit from the Holy Spirit

You've probably seen and heard enough of Dan Brown, right?
Disputing the deity of Jesus.  Disputing Jesus metaphysical nature.  Rampant metaphysical scepticism. 

Well, in a recent "exclusive" interview- there is some indication that Dan just may be coming around.  That Dan just may be at the brink of saving faith. May be coming to know the real Jesus in his study of history.  May be seeing Jesus as fully God, as well as fully man.  Or is at as Dan writes in his latest book- "The truth, however, was stranger still"?

Dan claims in this interview- that he is now seeing 'more metaphysical stuff'.  A good thing.
That he is now seeing more of a "spiritual aspect to science".  An oxymoron by naturalist standards.
Seems Dan is becoming less of a naturalist, however.

Not unlike father of science- Isaac Newton's view of science, "But these are things that cannot be explained in few words, nor are we furnished with that sufficiency of experiments which is required to an accurate determination and demonstration of the laws by which this electric and elastic Spirit operates. THE END."

Not unlike Jesus view of science, "you do not know where it [the wind] comes from or where it goes- John 3:8
And not unlike Jesus view of causality, "that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit"- John 3:6

But notice, Brown appears to be referring to an impersonal force.  While Newton (an Arian similar to Brown) appears to be referring to a force unlike impersonal gravity.  A force much more like a person.  A force worthy of an upper-case capital.  Unlike Newton's lower-case gravity.

Other Arians like Jehovah Witnesses, also appeal to an impersonal force.  In their magazine Should You Believe in the Trinity? they state,  "THE Bible's use of "holy spirit" indicates that it is a controlled force that Jehovah God uses to accomplish a variety of his purposes. To a certain extent, it can be likened to electricity, a force that can be adapted to perform a great variety of operations."

Should we marvel then, that those that liken the Holy Spirit to a mere force- are not born of the Spirit?  That those that cannot liken the Holy Spirit to God- are not truly born of God?  That they are mere naturalists born of flesh?- John 3:6

Notice also, that such naturalists use a lower-case spirit, while true spiritualists use an UPPER-CASE Spirit.

But which case is used by the scribes of  the oldest  manuscripts?

"No Fair!"you exclaim,"Everything was UPPER-CASE in the oldest manuscripts".

Yes, but let's look at what else they did.

We now (just a few months ago) have this wonderful public access to marvelous images of Codex Sinaiticus.
Indeed, currently "the oldest Bible" and "the oldest substantial book to survive antiquity".

Notice in this image of 1 Corinthians 2:12 the case of spirit as the first word.

Yes, it's all UPPER-CASE.  But notice what else they did.  They placed a line above this word.
A line that is also placed above the word next (separated only by the definite article) to it- GOD!
This over-line/over-bar/superscript highlights the sacredness of this name.  What is called a nomen sacra in Latin.

It seems the scribe of this text understood the Spirit to be something transcendent.  Something transcendent like the sacred name God nearby it.  Not something subservient to God.  But someone equal to God.

Here is another image of this same verse in P46 (preserved @ University of Michigan) written about a century earlier. 

Here is a great article on the nomina sacra.

This article repeatedly claims that there are "no" early manuscripts that do not include this nomina sacra.
Other noteworthy claims:  
Comfort claims, “The nomina sacra for Lord, Jesus, Christ, God and Spirit must have been
created in the first century” (Encountering the Manuscripts, 203, emphasis added).
C. H. Roberts argued that the nomina sacra arose early (before AD
70) in the Jerusalem church, representing an “embryonic creed of the
first church.”15 The nomina divina represented the common beliefs
shared by all Christians in their reverence for God the Father, God the
Son and God the Spirit.

May Dan Brown share in that common belief.  That embryonic creed.
And may you rejoice in His sacred names- or remain nameless in His Book of Life.

Separating Saints From Aint's

Found the above image at an atheist blog. One of those "New Atheists". The bigger, bolder intolerant type.
Yet the above is exactly what the Bible exhorts us to do... with scandalous saints- 1 Cor. 5:5. Let's call them Aint's.

Indeed, if you truly love the Aints- you will deprive them of the blessings of the church. Deprive them of the special graces designated for His children. No, not just deprive them of the marrying and burying blessings (which even the perverted pagans demand our blessings upon)- but deprive them of all of the sanctificational blessings of the church. That they might be as unholy as they please.

Was asked by Christopher Blackwell the other day, a wonderfully concerned bible student- to explain the above passage. Explained to him that it was the loving thing to do- to have the scandalous friend removed from the church. That to "deliver one to Satan" was not necessarily delivering them to Hell (as if the church had that power). That it was delivering such a one out from among a holy people- so that he might recognize his problem. Recognize the solution. Turn away from his scandal. And return to the church. Return to a concern for holiness.

This student was memorizing this chapter. Memorizing the NIV. Unfortunately, the NIV translation is pretty weak here. Translator-Blomberg endorses translator-Fee in my Mounce book (Basics of Biblical Greek, pg. 54)- that the intent of this verse is remedial and not punitive. "As is every other New Testament instance of church discipline". I am looking forward to translator- Mounce having a large input into the revised NIV (scheduled to come out in 2011). Just as he had a large input into the ESV. Not terribly sorry that Christopher's memorization will be affected.

Now, as for those those Aints? They can still be your friend. As Judas Iscariot was Jesus "friend"- Matt. 26:50. But it's wise not to hang with them- 1 Cor 5:11. Such friends are actually dehydrated hypocrites. Desiccants of Christ. Those who hang Christ out to dry. Bring ill repute upon His church. And they will dehydrate you by their presence.

And as for the pagans? Those that have no Christ to dry? Those that have no church to decry?
Offer them big, bold Christian tolerance. Welcome them into the church with open arms.
Welcome them as Jesus welcomed the Samaritan woman- John 4.
Offer them water. Living water. Water that may become a well.
That it may be well with their body. And well with their soul.
A body that is inclined to dust. And a soul that is inclined to Sin.

MacArthur Milks the Prodigal Son

Kinda suggested that I might get to Bailey's stuff on the prodigal son here.

Thought MacArthur might be a little more edifying, though. And he is.

He mentions three books of Bailey as his source in the intro. Directly quotes Bailey twice in the book. And Bailey is sourced in half (2) of the footnotes in this book.

Twice as much as I'd like to see.

Yet when I post a comment on a YouTube video suggesting as much- it gets removed as hostile?

Was recently notified that somebody subscribed to my YouTube channel- didn't think I had one.

Glad I don't subscribe to FaceBook.

Even gladder not to Tweet.

Oh well, on with the show this is it...

MacArthur begins by suggesting that "it's not a good idea to try to milk meaning out of every incidental detail in a parable" (viii). I would suggest that he should have followed his suggestion.
Particularly when he milks Bailey for 'cultural insight'.

One of these lactations occur when MacArthur suggests (20,85) that "the idea that God would freely accept and forgive repentant sinners... was a shocking and revolutionary concept. Almost no one in that society could conceive of God as reaching out to sinners". And that this society thought it was "the repentant sinners duty to work hard to redeem himself and do his best to gain whatever degree of divine favor he could earn".

Carson doesn't see such merit theology in their society here. It is also very hard to believe that they were that ignorant of very basic Torah (Exodus 33:19) and prophets ( Psalm 51:17, Isa. 1:11. and Mic. 6:6-8). Would they think that God freely accepting and forgiving Ninevah was novel stuff? Basic stuff that Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai supposedly had to re-teach them after the sacrifices could no longer be performed (when the temple was destroyed)?
Neusner is similarly quite critical of such Rabbinic studies of that period here.

Another lactation occurs when the prodigal son is suggested to be wishing his father dead (45,51). That "any self-respecting father in that culture would naturally feel he had to disgrace the son as publicly as possible- giving him a slap across the face, a public denunciation, formal dismissal from the family, and possibly a funeral".
Young makes a bold claim that Bailey is being anachronistic- by importing modern examples into the first century here. In other words, this is shear speculation. There is no historical reference.

A final lactation occurs when MacArthur claims, the elder son "never really understood or appreciated his fathers goodness to him; but he was happy to receive it and milk it for whatever he could get out of it". Seems a little hyperbolic to me. Almost as mockingly hyperbolic as Luke 15:31.

Apart from these lactations MacArthur does some excellent stuff here. Perhaps unknowingly- even shooting Bailey's gospel directly in the udder:

"And so we're told, Christians should be less concerned about their personal redemption and more concerned about redeeming our culture or resolving the large scale dilemma of our times, such as racial prejudice, global warming, poverty, the marginalization of disenfranchised people or whatever worldwide crisis is slated to be featured cause for the next Live Aid concert(142)".

See Bailey's gospel here and here. Udderly incompatible.

A shame that MacArthur borrows Bailey's cream. Incompatible bedfellows indeed.

Fireproofing Your Body and Soul

Spoiler Alert


Does he look worried to you?

Nah. He's a fireman in this movie. Supposedly see's it all the time.

Knows what fire can do. Thinks he knows what the fire will do.

Till he has a revelation of real fire. A fire that can destroy the body. A fire that can destroy the soul. A revelation of Him who is able to destroy both body and soul in Hell (Matthew 10:28). A revelation from Him WHO WAS, AND WHO IS, AND WHO IS TO COME (Rev. 4:8).







Does she look worried to you? Nah. Just angry. Seems like that a lot in this movie.

Husband (fireman) is a jerk. And likes jerking off. Isn't flattering this nurses ego enough. So she finds a doctor to flatter her.

Such doctor turns out to be a philanderer. While her husband becomes convicted of sin- and ceases from being a porn junkie. Her husband then attempts to woo this angry woman back (contrary to 1 Cor. 7:15).

Kinda freaks her out. Kinda concedes that 'people can change'. Kinda concedes that she ought to change.



So they do the 'happily ever after' thing again.

Does she ever get angry again? Does he ever jerk off again (which are not necessarily sinful- see here)?

Do they ever commit adultery again?

Wait a minute you say, "He was never committing adultery. He was just looking at a computer monitor!"

Wait a minute you say, "She was never committing adultery. She was just looking to a flattering doctor!"

Well... Cameron (fireman) and Comfort (evangelist) appear to suggest (The Way Of The Master) - 'It's the same thing!'.

But it's not.

Perhaps you differ, "Jesus said it was the same thing!". But did he? Let's look at this passage.

In Matthew 5:28 you will see that Jesus makes a distinction. He adds the qualification, "in his heart".

To their credit, Cameron and Comfort grant this qualification as well.

But this qualification relegates this commandment to the same definition as the tenth commandment- Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife...

A commandment that impacted the apostle Paul greatly (Romans 7:8). The commandment that was actually foremost in impacting Cameron as well.

But such is not physical adultery. We must not get loose with our definitions.

Such looseness would grant virtually everyone virtuous grounds for divorce. Such was not Jesus intent.

The intent of Jesus's charge of coveting in that Matthew passage (and charge of hating your brother in the prior passage)- was to bring our sinfulness to the forefront. To recognize that we would do well to covet the sinless one (2 Corinthians 5:21). To truly love God and our brother made in His image. To know truly monogamous rapturous intercourse with Christ. Lest our whole body and non-virtuous soul be thrown into Hell.

A good reason not to be non-virtuous. And an infinitely better reason to actually be virtuous.

Please allow me to close with some inept wisdom from the Talmud:

A king once engaged two watchmen to take care of his orchard. One was blind and the other lame. still they answered the purpose very well; for their presence was quite sufficient to keep depredators at a distance.
One evening the lame watchman was sitting in the orchard, when his eyes fell upon a bunch of luscious grapes, the first and only ripe ones in the whole place.
"Are you feeling very thirsty?" said he to his blind companion, who was walking up and down, feeling his way with a stick.
"Would you like a bunch of fine juicy grapes?"
"Yes", was the blind man's reply. "But you know we cannot pick them. I am blind and cannot see. You are lame and cannot walk".
"True", said the lame man. "Still we can get at them...take me on your back. I can guide you, and you can carry me to the grapes".
And so they stole the precious fruit and ate it.

Now the next day the king went into the orchard to gather this very cluster of grapes; for he had already observed it as being just fit for the table. It had vanished, and he at once taxed the watchmen with the theft.

"How can my lord, the king accuse me of such a thing?", exclaimed the lame man. "Here I must sit all the days of my life, without moving a single inch; for am I not lame?"
"And how can my lord accuse me of such a thing, when I am blind?" asked the other. "How can the heart long after, or the hands reach that which the eyes cannot behold?"

The king answered not a word. But he ordered his servants to place the lame man on the back of the blind man, and he condemned them to punishment just as if they had been one man.

So it is with the soul and body of a man. The soul cannot sin without the body, nor the body without the soul; the sin of both is the sin of each, and it will not avail in the great day of judgment to shirk the responsibility; but even as the lame and blind watchmen, body and soul will be judged as one.


One would think that the Talmud would understand coveting better than that. One should hope that they understand coveting better than that.
Failing that, they should have little confidence in being fireproof. And far less confidence of being in communion with Christ.