Monday, December 31, 2012

Joyce Meyer's Blasphemy

The brother of a friend of mine reviews the heretical and strange teachings of Joyce Meyer, including her beliefs that we are "little gods."

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Merry Christmas!

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. [John 1:14]

Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’” When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. [Hebrews 10:5-10]

Monday, December 24, 2012

A "Last Christmas" Rant

So as many who read this blog know, I have an undying abhorrence for the song The Christmas Shoes. For those who are new to this vendetta of mine, read my post here. However, I thought I would take a break from lamenting the "Thomas Kinkade of Christmas music" to talk about another song. This song is none other than 1984's Last Christmas, sung by the British duo Wham! It was a huge hit when it was released, but I know a few people who hate this song, some of whom refuse to even be in the same room where it's playing.

Now, I personally don't necessarily hate this song (not on the same level on which I loathe The Christmas Shoes), but I can understand why other people dislike it. I thought it would be fun to examine it on this day, the eve of Christmas, and discuss just why some people are repulsed by this holiday diddy. Let's start, like we did with The Christmas Shoes, by reviewing the lyrics:
Last Christmas I gave you my heart
But the very next day you gave it away
This year to save me from tears
I'll give it to someone special
Here is perhaps my biggest gripe about this song: it isn't really about Christmas. There's no mention of Jesus Christ. There's no mention of Santa. There's no mention of snow, sleigh bells, shopping sprees, or the like. What's it about? It's about a romantic break up! Why in the heck would you write a Christmas song about that? Why not write it about something equally depressing? Observe:
Last Christmas I ran over my cat
And the very next day I took out my dog
This year to save me from tears
I'll keep the car in the garage
Geez Louise  people. Granted, some might legitimately contend that there are far more depressing Christmas songs out there. For example, Bob Geldof's Do They Know It's Christmas?, released about that same year, makes reference to world hunger. Other songs, such as the Reggae Santa Clause (Do You Ever Come to the Ghetto?), speak for themselves. However, I think what makes Last Christmas stand out is the fact that it really, truly isn't about Christmas in the sense that it maintains a Christmas theme like other songs do. For example, look at the lyrics that follow the chorus:
Once bitten and twice shy
I keep my distance but you still catch my eye
Tell me baby, do you recognize me?
Well, it's been a year, it doesn't surprise me

I wrapped it up and sent it
With a note saying 'I love you,' I meant it
Now I know what a fool I've been
But if you kissed me now I know you'd fool me again
All right, so some might argue that the "wrapping" and "giving" parts of the song might lend itself towards Christmas, but keep in mind that gift giving and gift wrapping are not always associated with Christmas, and can happen at other times throughout the year. The fact is, these lyrics could fit with any other song. Still don't believe me? Look at the other lyrics:
Crowded room, friends with tired eyes
I'm hiding from you and your soul of ice
My god, I thought you were someone to rely on
Me, I guess I was a shoulder to cry on

A face on a lover with a fire in his heart
A man undercover but you tore him apart
Ooh hoo, now I've found a real love
You'll never fool me again
Seriously, if you were flipping through radio stations, came across these lyrics being sung, and had never heard the song before, you would never guess it was a Christmas song. I'll admit I don't know the back story to the song being written, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was originally written without a Christmas context, and the bit about Christmas was added to make it marketable for the Holiday season. You could literally fit it into any other holiday. Observe:
Last New Year's I gave you my heart
But the very next day you gave it away
This year to save me from tears
I'll give it to someone special
And again:
Last Yom Kippur I gave you my heart
But the very next day you gave it away
This year to save me from tears
I'll give it to someone special
And yet again:
Last Kwanzaa I gave you my heart
But the very next day you gave it away
This year to save me from tears
I'll give it to someone special
Heck, it doesn't even have to be a holiday, just choose any day of the week. Observe:
Last Thursday I gave you my heart
But the very next day you gave it away
This week to save me from tears
I'll give it to someone special
See?! I got lyrics to top the charts. I mean this whole song just feels like a generic romance song they converted into a Christmas song. You could do this with other songs for the same effect. Observe:
Where oh where could my baby be
Last Christmas took her away from me
See? I took a song about a fatal car crash that claimed the life of the narrator's girlfriend into a Christmas song! Sure the rest of the song has nothing to do with Christmas, but who cares? I got the word "Christmas" in there, it's officially a Christmas song. Now all I need to do is make a music video with a bunch of young couples wandering around a ski resort shooting angsty looks at each other, and I'm good to go!

Sunday, December 23, 2012

The Passive Tense Fallacy

Many attempt to prove synergism from scripture by appealing to the passive tense of some verbs. For example, some will interpret the possible passive tense of "called" (proskaleitai) used in Mark 3:13, when the Lord was calling the apostles, as implying that the apostles could have rejected Christ. Another example can be found in an article written concerning the Eastern Orthodox view of synergism.
One advantage of recognizing energeithai as passive is precisely that it enables us to see these occurrences of the term as synergistic, as are so many of those of energeia and energein. [Bradshaw, David. "The Divine Energies in the New Testament." St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 50.3 (2006): 215]
The problem with this is that it ultimately becomes an example of "a little bit of Greek is a dangerous thing" - that something is in the passive voice does not automatically infer that the subject is able to react or do anything in response to the action. Here is a quote from someone who is far more knowledgeable than myself when it comes to Koine Greek grammar, concerning the use of passive tense:
...the subject is acted upon or receives the action expressed by the verb. No volition - nor even necessarily awareness of the action - is implied on the part of the subject. [Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, 1996; pg. 431]
In other words, the matter of the passive tense is simply on the place of the subject and the verb. It does not denote that the direct object participates in some way with the action. To put it another way, I could write the following sentence in two ways:

1) I threw the ball.

2) The ball was thrown by me.

In the former case, I am using the active tense; in the latter case, I am using the passive tense. However, does the transition to passive voice suddenly suggest that the ball somehow contributed to it being thrown? Does the passive voice suggest that, without the ball's cooperation, it might have not been thrown? However, that is how many are interpreting the passive tense. They are doing so erroneously.

We can also see this in the context of many passages. Using the example of Mark 3:13 mentioned earlier, we can see that Christ's calling of the disciples was not always "passive" - one only need to look back to the calling of Matthew/Levi (Mark 2:13-14) to see this. One can also turn to John's gospel, where our Lord tells the apostles, "You did not choose me, but I chose you" (John 15:16). Part of finding the meaning of a word is not only syntax, but likewise context and what else scripture tells us of the events around said word.

Friday, December 21, 2012

The World Didn't End. Again.

I never believed it would, given the words of Christ in Matthew 24:36: "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." Why, then, would a bunch of Mayan calendar-makers somehow know when the world was going to end?

For those of you who scoffed at me, shook your head in derision, and laughed internally, I can only say...

...told you so!

Thursday, December 20, 2012

"Gay Christianity" Refuted

Below is a link to James White's presentation from last March on the presentation by Matthew Vines that supports homosexuality from the context of scripture and the Christian worldview.

The link to the entire presentation can be found here.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Virgin versus Young Woman in Isaiah 7:14

An article online that looks at the issue of how to translate the word in Isaiah 7:14, especially in the Greek translation known as the Septuagint.

Is the virgin birth really predicted in the Old Testament?

Saturday, December 15, 2012

A Woman Who Fears the Lord

Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised. [Proverbs 31:30]
I pray to the Lord with many thanks, because He has blessed me with a woman who has all three traits. And today, she has become my wife.

Bless you, my darling, and I love you.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

The Pope and Michelangelo

A Monty Python sketch featuring a discussion between Michelangelo and the Pope on how to do a painting of the Last Supper.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Squabbles and Defense of Family

A few words from Martin Luther related to family and marriage life, taken from his Table Talk.
It is no wonder that Satan is an enemy to Christ, his people and kingdom, and sets himself against him and his word, with all his power and cunning. T'is an old hate and grudge between them, which began in Paradise: for they are, by nature and kind, of contrary minds and dispositions. The devil smells Christ many hundred miles off; he hears at Constantinople and at Rome, what we at Wittenberg teach and preach against his kingdom; he feels also what hurt and damage he sustains thereby; there rages and swells he so horribly.

But what is more to be wondered at is, that we, who are of one kind and nature, and, through, the bond of love, knit so fast together that each ought to love the other as himself, should have, at times, such envy, hate, wrath, discord and revenge, that one is ready to kill the other. For who is nearer allied to a man, than his wife; to the son, than his father; to the daughter, than her mother; to the brother, than his sister, etc.? yet, it is most commonly found, that discord and strife are among them. [233]

If the emperor proceed to war upon us, he intends either to destroy our preaching, and our religion, or to invade and confound public policy and economy, that is to say, the temporal government and administration. In either case, t'is no longer as emperor of the Romans, legally elected we are to regard him but as a tyrant; t'is, therefore, futile to ask whether we may combat for the upright, pure doctrine, and for religion; t'is for us a law and a duty to combat for wife, for children, servants, and subjects; we are bound to defend them against maleficent power...But the temporal and civil person is subject to the temporal rights and laws, and tied to obedience; it must maintain and defend itself, and what belongs to it, as the laws command. For example, if, in my presence, some wretch should attempt to do violence to my wife or my daughter, then I should lay aside my spiritual person, and recur to the temporal; I should slay him on the spot, or call for help. For, in the absence of the magistrates, and when they cannot be had, the law of the nation is in force, and permits us to call upon our neighbor for help; Christ and the Gospel do not abolish temporal rights and ordinances, but confirm them. [784]

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Did Lazarus contribute?

Did Lazarus contribute to his being raised? Was he the deciding factor in it happening? That some believe so has often astounded me. I was going to write a post on this, but instead I'll let someone else have a say at it and just engage with any conversation that gets started.

Friday, December 7, 2012

The Westboro Law

There is an internet adage known as Godwin's Law, which states that the longer a debate or conversation goes on, the more likelihood something or someone will be compared to Hitler or the Nazis (this is also known as Reductio ad Hitlerum). For example:
Person A: "I believe in tighter gun control laws."
Person B: "You know who else believed that? Hitler!"
Or as an another example:
Person A: "President Obama wears pants. You know who else wore pants? The Nazis!"
OK, that one was a little exaggerated, but you get the point. Some instances of this can be just as silly. It's basically a logical fallacy of responding to something by jumping to an extreme example of that position or opinion, and when there's very little to connect the two (or at the very least, a very slim connection). It is also an attempt to make the other side look bad by striking at the audience's or reader's emotions.

Might I now propose a new law? I call it the Westboro Law. What is this new law, you ask? It's the idea that the longer a debate or conversation either over morality or religion goes on, the more likelihood someone is going to make a reference or analogy to the Westboro Baptist cult (I refuse to call them a church). For example:
Person A: "I don't believe homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle."
Person B: "You know who else believes that? The Westboro Baptist people!"
Or even (as I once personally experienced):
Person A: "[insert religious arguments that have nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality at all]"
Person B: "Wow! You're just like the Westboro Baptist crazies!"
Just like Godwin's Law, this seeks to jump to an extreme analogy simply to make the other side look or sound bad. Because Fred Phelps and his cronies are the poster children for how to do your religion wrong, people cling to them whenever they want to make other religious people or certain moral beliefs look bad. This, likewise, is attempting to appeal to the emotional responses of those reading or listening to the conversation or topic. It is also just as fallacious.

Now what would we call this? Reductio ad Westborum, perhaps? Latin is not my strong point...

Monday, December 3, 2012

Modern Marriage and Modern Theology

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. [Ephesians 5:22-27] 
In the course of my upcoming marriage, I've been doing some thinking about how society perceives marriage, and the similarities we have to our concept of God and our interaction with God.
  1. The bride and groom choose one another. In Christ's time, the bride was chosen by the father of the groom. Now, I'm not proposing we go back to arranged marriages, or that women shouldn't be allowed to choose their husbands, but this difference leads into the realm of theology as well. With Semi-Pelagianism (and at times rank Pelagianism) infecting the church and Christian evangelizing movements, the idea of God's calling (whether you want to go at it from effectual grace or prevenient grace) is left out. Indeed, many are outright horrified by the idea. To them, nothing is more offensive to them than the words of Christ to the disciples, when he said, "You did not choose me, but I chose you" (John 15:16a). Instead we desire a Savior that we can play "hard to get" with, and whom we can choose when we personally feel we are good and ready. 
  2. So much focus is on the bride. Every notice how everything involves the bride these days? The bride makes the final call on everything, most of the decisions regarding the wedding are made by the bride (or her family), and on the day of ceremonies, everyone is focused on the bride. What is considered one of the most climactic moments of the wedding is not when the groom appears, but when the bride appears. Everyone is focused on how lovely her dress is, how beautiful she looks, how happy she is, etc. How unfortunate this circumstance is in the divine marriage as well: so much emphasis is placed on the church itself (specifically, it's members). People want a flashy praise band, smoke machines, dirty jokes during the sermon, and generally want all the focus to be on them. It's not about Christ, it's all about them, and what Jesus can do for them (that is, in an earthly sense). People as a whole desire Christianity to be about them and what they want - Christ just needs to stand up there in the tux and passively go with the flow.
  3. There are no specific roles. In this day and age, many consider it extremely sexist to suggest that, in a marriage, a husband plays a significant role particular to him, as does the wife. Here I have to be careful, as many, upon hearing about marriage roles, jump to the extreme of a man on a couch watching football and yelling to his wife, "GIMME A BEER!" However, as Paul explained the verses cited above, there are distinct roles between the husband and wife, and they are similar to Christ and the church. That is, the wife submits to the leadership of husband, as the church submits to the leadership of Christ, and husbands nurture and edify their wives, just as Christ nurtures and edifies the church. However, many today desire far more passive men who become in essence walking doormats. Therefore, not only do we expect a passive groom, but we expect that passive groom to be a passive husband the day after the wedding. In the same fashion, many today desire Christ to be a passive groom in the divine marriage between himself and the church: we don't want a Messiah who will condemn some to hell; we don't want a Messiah who gives us a guide on how to discern the morality of our lives; we don't want a Messiah that tells us the sins we love to do, or what sins our friends do, are wrong; bottom line, we don't want a Messiah to whom we should submit. Rather, we want the Messiah to submit to us
  4. Loyalty to one another is minimized. In college I used to hear guys with girlfriends (or even wives) say, "Just because you're on a diet doesn't mean you can't look at the menu." The idea is that, so long as you aren't doing anything physical, it's perfectly fine to look at and lust after other women. Some would probably even say emotional affairs or flirting is all right, so long as it doesn't lead anywhere physical. To the Christian worldview, this is completely false: Christ clarified to us that looking at a woman with lust made one guilty of the act of adultery, as if they had performed it (Matt 5:27-28). Many today - even many so-called Christians - therefore desire a sort of "permissible adultery." For those in the church, this extends to the realm of loyalty to Christ. Why can't we take a gander at New Age theology? Why can't we make worldly philosophy even more important than studying scripture? Why can't we place our favorite pastor on equal with Christ's authority? Why can't we listen to a heretical teacher so long as he says "Jesus" a few times? The bride's loyalty to the groom is not seen as highly important...indeed, she can toy around with other suitors as much as she wants.