February 2017


no-visionFor many years this proverb has been misinterpreted, probably because the KJV translates it “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” What we typically hear preached from this verse is that a church must have a long-term goal and plan if they wish to thrive rather than perish. That may be good advice, but that’s not the meaning of this proverb.

The word vision does not refer to one’s ability to formulate future goals and plans, but is a synonym for the prophetic word which comes from God’s prophets.

“Perish” has also been misunderstood.  It’s not referring to churches that will cease to exist if they don’t have a vision, or to the spiritual perishing of unbelievers who will perish in hell if the church does not get a vision for the lost.  The word means “to cast off all restraint.”  The point of the Proverb, then, is that when there is no prophetic word from God to guide the people, they will cast off all moral restraint and follow their own evil devices.

Keep it in context….

Atheists claim that nature is all that exists. If nature made us, then what made nature?  After all, the scientific evidence tells us physical reality had a beginning.  Things which begin to exist need a cause, so nature needs a cause.  That cause must be supernatural (beyond nature) by definition.  God is what made nature.

But if God made nature, what made God?  Nothing.  Unlike nature, God is eternal.  Things that are eternal never begin to exist, so they do not need a cause.  How do we know God is eternal?  Time is a feature of the physical world, so it began to exist when nature began to exist.  That which brings time into existence cannot itself be temporal, but must be eternal.  God is eternal.  Nature is not.  That’s why nature needs a cause but God does not.

peace-of-christ-rule-in-heartsLet the peace of Christ be in control in your heart (for you were in fact called as one body to this peace), and be thankful. (Colossians 3:15)

We have often interpreted this verse in an individualistic fashion to mean that each Christian should have peace in our heart.  This verse is even appealed to in support of the teaching that intrapersonal peace in our heart is a means by which we discern God’s will for our life.  Is this what Paul was conveying?  Let’s look at the context. (more…)

biology-denierLiberals love to label those who have ethical objections to cloning, doubts about man-made global warming, and the like as “science deniers” and “climate change deniers.”  Matt Walsh suggests that we start calling those who deny that one’s biological sex determines their actual gender as “biology deniers.”  And in this case, the term is an accurate description rather than a derogatory, non-descriptive insult.  Those who want to normalize transgender thoughts are truly denying biology.  They affirm that someone who is biologically male is actually female.

Transgender advocates aren’t the only biology deniers.  So are abortion advocates.  They deny the biological fact that the unborn are human beings from the moment of conception.

So the next time you meet someone who is arguing for abortion or transgenderism, ask they why they are a biology denier.

The doctrine of inerrancy holds that the original manuscripts of Scripture were inspired by God, and thus inerrant.  Both Christians and skeptics alike have questioned the rationality and utility of the doctrine in light of the fact that we do not possess those manuscripts, and the manuscripts we do possess contain errors.

Regarding the rationality of the doctrine, why God would extend His power to inspire every word down to the very case and voice only to immediately allow some of those words to be garbled by the first few scribes who copied the inerrant text?  Why extend your power to create an inerrant text if you’re not also going to extend your power to preserve it in the same inerrant fashion?

(more…)

Unfortunately, someone took the scrolls from the cave years ago.  We can only wonder where those scrolls are now.

defundThose who are opposed to state and federal defunding of Planned Parenthood argue that these dollars are not paying for abortions, but contraception and other female-related health services.  So why would pro-lifers want to defund this?  Do we just hate women?  Do we want to ensure that more women are “punished” for premarital sex by getting pregnant?  Of course not.  What we understand is that the grants Planned Parenthood receives for their non-abortion services indirectly funds their abortion business.  To see why, imagine for a moment that the government provided grants to churches to pay for all of their office supplies, marriage counselors, city permits, and building repairs.  Would the pro-Planned Parenthood-funding crowd agree with the government that this is not supporting religion?  Of course not!  They realize that the money a church saves by not having to pay for those government-funded items will be redirected to evangelistic efforts.  So while the government’s funds would not be directly funding Christian evangelism, they are indirectly funding it.  The same is true of federal funding of Planned Parenthood.  While these funds are not directly responsible for aborting babies, they are indirectly responsible because Planned Parenthood can use all of the money the government saved them and direct it to their abortion business. And when 41% of their revenue comes from government, that’s a lot of money to redirect to their abortion business.

Next Page »