Musings From My Caffeinated Highs

I've Moved!

2009-03-22T20:12:00.001-07:00

I've moved! http://caffeinatedhighs.blogspot.com

Come on over =)

Rusty

Forever will be you and me

2009-01-05T07:00:00.000-07:00

It’s funny to me that I find myself time and time again identifying with certain songs. I don’t listen to the radio often (except talk radio) so you wouldn’t think I’d be exposed to new material, but somehow I’m continuously introduced to music. Usually the songs that get me are romantic songs like Melee’s “Built to Last” or Teddy Geiger’s stuff. I’ll catch a phrase, and then before I know it I’m completely drawn into the song, relating to the passions and emotions of the artist.

“Check Yes Juliet” by We the Kings is the latest of these phenomenon. What I can gather is that a young couple is struggling to stay together because the girl’s parents are trying to break them up. Rather than focusing on the issue of whether parents have ultimate authority over dating relationships for young adult couples, I would like to focus on the strong romantic feelings this boy and girl have for one another.

In this particular tale, because of the effort made by the girl’s parents, the girl is second-guessing her feelings for the one she loves. The situation has gotten to the point where the girl is locked in her room, all in an attempt to not allow her to see her boyfriend. Unexpectantly, the boy shows up outside her window and says this to her:

“They can change the locks,
don’t let them change your mind.
Lace up your shoes, here’s how we do:

Run baby run! Don’t ever look back
They’ll tear us apart if you give them the chance
Don’t sell your heart
Don’t say we’re not meant to be
Run baby run
Forever will be you and me.”

What I especially enjoyed was when the boy tells his girl: “Don’t sell your heart. Don’t say we’re not meant to be.” There are people who refuse to see true love, even though it is right before their eyes. They allow their doubts to override what they feel, and if it persists, it will destroy the love that they have. The guy saying this to the girl knows how the girl must be feeling and says just the right thing. He makes an appeal to her to not let her doubts (or her parents’ doubts) override the love that she knows to be true. What is truly wonderful about these words is that there is belief in the love that he has for the girl. It is completely romantic, and how can that be bad?

“Forever will be you and me.” There is not a doubt in this guy’s mind that he wants to spend the rest of his life with this girl. That is the kind of love that lasts. That is the kind of love worth fighting for. I hope to be that kind of guy, to find that kind of love, and to do whatever it takes to hold onto it.

Thanks for reading,
Rusty

Should Christians be hateful towards homosexuals?

2008-12-12T07:00:00.001-07:00

Should Christians be hateful towards homosexuals? The answer to this provocative question is: no. Should we swing to the opposite end of the spectrum by accepting the homosexual lifestyle as good and valid? I believe the faithful Christian can do neither of these things. But if so, how should Christians respond to the gay community? This issue has become very dear to my heart because I have family, friends and coworkers that are actively living a homosexual lifestyle. It is my conviction that how the Church chooses to respond to the issue of homosexuality will either bring glory or shame to Christ’s reputation.

This past Sunday my pastor began his sermon by pointing out that fifty years ago there were some behaviors that were considered socially unacceptable and even disgusting. One such behavior was homosexuality. It was considered taboo, and was something people whispered about. Consider the stark contrast we face today with gay pride parades made up of thousands upon thousands of people boldly demanding their sinful behavior not just be accepted but approved by all.

The gay and lesbian community, as well as that of the political Left, argue their case for same-sex marriage as though they are being denied civil liberties. I have to ask those making this argument: do you believe the founding fathers of this nation believed that marriage can be defined any which way? Of course my question becomes irrelevant to the one who doesn’t believe we need to have a consistent basis by which we interpret the Constitution. Instead today, the U.S. Constitution is a “living document” that can mean whatever the audience wants it to mean. This danger was well known by our nation’s founders, and it was their hope that this aspect of the Enlightenment mentality which led to the events in France would not be replicated on American soil. In more subtle ways we have experienced the same tragedies of France, although this was greatly slowed by our strong Puritan and Evangelical influence.

Americans, like the rest of Western Culture, have openly embraced the Enlightenment philosophies which led us toward Post-Modernism (which is really just a form of Modernism repackaged). It is time that we recognized the sad state of our culture so we can better respond to our neighbors. We are not becoming less Christian. No, our society is unashamedly anti-Christian.

I have memories from my childhood that seem so very different from today. I grew up in the 1980’s and 1990’s, but even then I vividly remember teachers in the public schools I attended advising us to pray during our official “moments of silence” set aside at the beginning of each day. Could you even imagine something like this happening today??? This would be considered an outrage today followed immediately by a-historical cries of “Separation of Church and State! Separation of Church and State!” My point in this blog is not to defend the idea that we should begin fighting for prayer in our schools (though this would certainly be a good thing), but rather that we should turn our attention to an even greater issue: the godlessness of our society.

The rampant homosexuality in our society is one evidence of how godless America has become. One of my elders, James, has pointed out many times that we are not waiting for the wrath of God to come upon America … we are presently experiencing God’s wrath. The Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 1, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (1:18, NASB). Did you catch when the text describes God’s wrath being revealed against ungodliness? The Apostle uses the present tense, which means that the wrath of God is presently being revealed against sin. In fact, Paul’s argument later in the text is that homosexual behavior is an expression of God’s wrath. Verse 24 begins, “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity…;” verse 25, “For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie;” and verse 26, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions…”

When men utterly abandon true religion, we are not waiting for God’s wrath; this is an expression of God’s wrath.

Having said all that, I still firmly believe that we are to love all kinds of men, including gays and lesbians. But my motivation for loving homosexuals is not primarily for them. My foremost reason is to bring honor and glory to my God so that I might further increase His reputation and fame. Jesus put it this way, “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16, NASB). If we consider that we are to love even our enemies (Matthew 5:43-48) then surely this includes the homosexual community. By loving homosexuals we are in agreement with God’s non-redemptive love that He has for all of His creation - expressed by God as He gives blessings to the righteous and the wicked - but our good works directly bring glory to God the Father. This should be our primary goal.

The very idea of loving gays and lesbians is not commonly disputed among Christians. What is, however, are the ways we should love them. In my experience, most who call themselves Christians believe that our love should be limited to simply expressing a kind attitude towards them, and hopefully maybe someday they will ask why the Christians are so different. This has only been asked of me twice … maybe three times in my entire life.

The goal of these Christians may be to have a positive influence towards homosexuals for the gospel of Jesus Christ. The problem with this self-limiting perspective is that the only way the Holy Spirit has chosen to reveal Himself to sinners is by the proclamation of the gospel. It saddens me that I feel I need to mention that a true proclamation of the gospel includes words … “How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard?” (Romans 10:14, NASB).

Christians ought to preach the full gospel to the homosexual community. This is the only solution to the wages of their sinful behavior and lifestyle. We cannot fall into the trap so many have given into - the belief that it is better to preach a gospel expressing only the love of God. While it is true that God the Father loves His people so much so that He sent God the Son to die as a substitute to completely atone for their sins, this message of unending love is meaningless if we do not first clearly explain the depths of man’s sinfulness. I would even suggest that when talking with homosexuals we raise the issue of homosexuality. There are two reasons for this: (1) Homosexuality is their defining characteristic, much like those who faithfully practice a non-Christian religion; and (2) because Jesus told us to consider the cost before coming to him in faith. Christ is calling every man under the Law of God to repentance, “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31, NASB).

The good news about Jesus Christ is a message of repentance from sin to Christ. Any proclamation that is lacking a serious discussion of sin and repentance is not a gospel proclamation.

Our attitude towards gays and lesbians should be one of sympathy because we share an important quality with them: sinfulness. All men are born with the guilt of Adam’s sin imputed to them, and all the days of our life we accumulate personal sins and guilt. Even though not all sins are of the same degree, all sin leads to physical and spiritual death - whether it be lying, stealing or homosexual acts. What’s more, many Christians today were formerly practicing the gay lifestyle, “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11, NASB).

Why am I making such a deal about homosexuality??? Here is why: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NASB). A person must sacrifice the entirety of their lives to God by turning from their sin - the essence of true repentance - to faith in Christ … which is only possible through the power of the Holy Spirit. I don’t believe that what Paul meant here in 1 Corinthians 6 is that if you commit one of these sins, like slander, that you prove yourself to be an unbeliever. Rather, the sins being discussed here are a defining mark in one’s life. This is the reason we must be faithful to boldly and clearly proclaim the gospel of repentance to homosexuals.

God, in His wisdom has decided to use the foolishness of preaching (1 Corinthians 1:18) to save sinners. It is our greatest honor to be messengers for our Lord to all men, including the homosexual community. The message they need to hear is one full of God’s perfect ability to save those to the uttermost through the gospel of repentance unto life. As Alpha and Omega Ministries regularly teaches: it is our job to preach the whole gospel, not to edit it.

And that’s a wrap =). Thanks if you stuck with me through that.

Because of Christ’s perfect ability to save sinners,
Rusty

James White's take on the election

2008-11-06T07:00:00.001-07:00

Many of you know that Dr. James White is one of my elders at church, as well as President of Alpha and Omega Ministries - a ministry I am a part of. Yesterday he offered some thoughts on the election. Also, for more information about Obama's heretical theology, please listen to Dr. White's webcast, The Dividing Line, on the subject.

Rusty

"When you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody"

2008-10-31T07:00:00.001-07:00

Obama was out campaigning when he was approached by a plumber named Joe, now affectionately called "Joe the Plumber." This conversation is invaluable because it points out the glaring difference between a free-market society and the Socialism espoused by Barack Obama. In a nutshell, Joe asked the Democratic candidate if he would raise taxes on his small business making about $250,000 per year. Obama's answer was essentially yes, and spent five minutes or so trying to explain to Joe why this would be a good thing for him and the economy.

Here are my three favorite moments during this exchange...

-----------------------------------------------
Obama: "Now look, nobody likes high taxes..."
Joe: "No, not at all."
Obama: "Of course not."
-----------------------------------------------
Obama: "I just want you to be clear – it’s not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too."
-----------------------------------------------
Obama: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."
-----------------------------------------------

Nobody likes high taxes, but that is precisely what Barack Obama wants to give those Americans living out the American Dream. He says he doesn't want to punish successful Americans - the ones creating jobs - but that he only wants to make sure everyone earning a lesser amount of money has a chance at success too. Umm ... don't all Americans have an equal chance at success?

Michael Medved made an excellent point today on his program when he said that the government does not create prosperity or wealth. Individuals and businesses do that, and the less government we have in our lives the more prosperous our nation becomes.

Obama wants to "spread the wealth around." This is classic Socialism folks. This is disgusting, absolutely disgusting. Not only is it unfair, but the long-term effects of this kind of economy are devastating because it removes the incentive to succeed. If under Obama's plan people are taxed more who earn $250,000 then incentive to earn more than $250,000 goes away! Plain ol' common sense.

Socialism is an irresponsible and immature attempt at a quick-fix, failing to recognize the need for incentive to drive economic growth.

Oy vey,
Rusty

How should a Christian vote?

2008-10-29T07:00:00.000-07:00

How should a Christian vote? Republican or Democrat? Conservative or Liberal? Right of Left? Moderate? How about Independent?

“Liberal” and “Democrat” are almost synonymous terms, whereas “Republicans” may or may not be “Conservative.” In fact, more and more Republicans are embracing liberal ideas about morality and economics. Independents could be anything and everything under the sun; how to define them is entirely up to you. Moderates claim to share both conservative and liberal ideas, but more often than not they tend to side with a more liberal perspective on things.

*Breathes a sigh of relief*

Now that I’ve spent some time explaining the relationship between these common political terms, I will get to the point straight away. I believe that a Christian should vote for individuals who will uphold Biblical morality. It really is that simple, if you will allow me to explain. Morality is greater than fiscal concerns, even though issues pertaining to our money (ie taxes, redistribution of wealth, social programs) are important.

To make my position even plainer, let’s say for the sake of argument that my two choices for President of the United States were (1) a Republican who supported a woman’s choice to have an abortion and (2) a Socialist who was pro-life, I would vote for the Socialist every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Please do not misunderstand me to mean that abortion is the only issue I consider during an election, but it is by far the most important from among the great host of issues. Therefore, this example should only be taken to mean that moral issues outweigh economic ones.

Next, I want to take a few moments to discuss the arguments of a loud minority within the Christian Church who, for reasons beyond me, despise those of us who vote Republican. I will proudly declare that I am a registered Republican for one reason, and one reason only: that I might vote in the Republican primaries. Being a registered Republican does not mean I agree with them on every point, especially as they have continued to inch more towards the Left. I am far more conservative than the Republican Party – on almost every issue. Regarding the Emerging Church Movement, it does boggle my mind why they, or any Christian group, would want to support a Democrat or any liberal politician.

They might screech in response, “Jesus is not a Republican! So who are you to tell me who I can or cannot vote for?!” It is true that Jesus is not a registered Republican, then again Jesus does not dwell on earth or vote in elections. However, were Jesus living amongst us today, he would certainly vote Republican over against Democrat. How do I know this? Because the Republican Party represents the lesser of two evils.

Did you notice my presupposition inherent in the last argument? I believe that Christians living in democracies are urged by God to participate in government to the best of their ability. In the Bible, a number of Christians are recorded for us as having held political office in the Roman government. Furthermore, the Bible requires of us that we submit to the governing authorities (Romans 13) because it is an authority established by God. And in a democratic society, the people are the government. It is our duty as Christians to honor God by being good citizens, which includes the responsibility to vote in national and local elections.

What about those who profess Christ yet vote for ungodly men who support evils such as abortion, and homosexual super-rights? First of all, if they are truly converted, the Holy Spirit will not allow them to persevere in the sin of voting for ungodly men. The truly converted who have not yet had their mindset corrected by the Holy Spirit and go on to vote for ungodly men are sinning. Another option is that this behavior proves these professors to be false professors (though it is impossible for us to know with perfect certainty because we can only judge men based on their outward behavior (James 2)).

If one wants to honor God, they will vote for the candidate who will do a better job of upholding Biblical morality. On November 4th, might God’s people choose the candidate that will better uphold God’s standards over against that of the world’s. Personally, I’m not a fan of John McCain, but he represents God’s viewpoints much moreso than Obama.

As a nation, we certainly deserve Barack Obama as President. But it is my constant prayer that the Lord of heaven and earth does not give us the candidate we deserve. Might our God be merciful to us for His name’s sake – that His people might continue to live in peace and prosperity. And if it be His will, might He also grant spiritual renewal and revival to America. We desperately need it.

Thanks for reading,
Rusty

Have you ever felt this?

2008-10-01T07:01:00.003-07:00

I recently purchased Celtic Thunder's DVD and I am already a huge fan. Their performance is outstanding and I will be getting a copy of all their music. As I was watching the DVD, I saw their version of "A Bird Without Wings," and I knew exactly how the author felt. Let me encourage you to read over the entirety of the song, or even better ... read the words as you watch it on youtube (isn't technology wonderful?). Here are the lyrics:

Like a bird without wings
That longs to be flying,
Like a motherless child
Left lonely and crying.
Like a song without words,
Like a world without music,
I wouldn’t know what to do
I’d be lost without you
Watchin’ over me.

I get so lonely, when you’re away
I count every moment, I wait every day,
Until you’re home again
And hug me so tight
That’s when I know
Everything is alright.

Like a bird without wings
That longs to be flying,
Like a motherless child
Left lonely and crying.
Like a song without words
Like a world without music,
I wouldn’t know what to do
I’d be lost without you
Watchin’ over me.

You’re my guardian angel
My light and my guide
Your hand on my shoulder
And you by my side.
You make everything beautiful,
You make me complete.
Everything in my world
I lay at your feet.

Like a church with no steeple,
Where a bell never rings.
In a town without people,
Where no voice in the choir ever sings.
If a boat on the ocean
Would be lost with no sail,
Then without your devotion
Surely all that I dreamed of would fail.

Like a song without words
Like a world without music,
I wouldn’t know what to do
I’d be lost without you
Watchin’ over me

I wouldn’t know what to do
I’d be lost without you
Watchin’ over me

In answer to the above question, yes, I have definitely felt this. It is the most wonderful feeling in the entire world, second only to those special times when the Holy Spirit allows you to be close to Him. The author brings out the irony of "a bird without wings that longs to be flying" or "a song without words." These things should not be. In the same way, I think the author recognizes how lost he would be without his true love.

"I get so lonely, when you’re away; I count every moment, I wait every day, Until you’re home again And hug me so tight; That’s when I know Everything is alright." Have you ever counted every moment you were apart from your one love? I know I have =). How sweet it is when she returns and suddenly everything is okay once more.

And again, "You make everything beautiful, You make me complete. Everything in my world I lay at your feet." God is too good to His creatures to allow such bliss to exist in this fallen world. I know full well that this is not the greatest blessing that we, as Christians, receive from the Father's hand. More than salvific grace, the Lord of heaven and earth allows the blessing of such passionate love to come about in this life.

I pray that God would continue to allow this blessing to exist in the universe, and I even pray this for myself.

Thanks,

Rusty

"Hello. I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you"

2008-10-01T07:00:00.000-07:00

A lot of talk has been about the possible government bailout that will, theoretically, sustain and stimulate the economy to remain on level ground. From the beginning I’ve had mixed feelings about it. Quite honestly, I am still uncertain about whether I would be for or against such government intervention. This bailout may work; it may not. And yet, folks seem to only focus on the possibility that it may work. Well, the fact that it may not work needs to be given serious attention, if not more attention. Because if the government spends $700 (or more) billion that it does not have and the economy doesn’t resurface, then what do we do? Should the government shell out a trillion dollars?

The thing is this: I don’t have all the answers to these questions. But liberals better start asking themselves these tough questions because the reality is this bailout might do nothing but bring our economy into further debt.

One of my favorite quotes by Ronald Reagan is of him telling a story of a man who one day showed up on his doorstep and said, “Hello, I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you…” Reagan’s good-humored response was that nothing frightened him more than to hear that the government was going to try and help. The obvious moral of the story is that, generally speaking, whatever the government gets involved in it messes up. For example, more regulation = a slower economy. More taxes = lower standard of living. Need proof? Take a look at Europe.

One of the great lies in American history is that social programs during The Great Depression brought about positive results – although our government would want us to believe nothing more. Our time is no different. We don’t need the government to unnaturally interfere. Capitalism and a free-market system have withstood the test of time against all odds. Socialism only lowers the standard of living and weakens a nation.

What should we do? I’m not one to say for sure. I did appreciate Hugh Hewitt on his radio show the other day ask a financial expert: “Do we have smart people in Washington handling this issue?” The response was that we have incredibly intelligent and capable folks working hard at making this decision. That is a good thing.

Ultimately, my trust is in the Lord, and I pray for wisdom for those who have the burden of making this momentous decision.

Thanks,
Rusty

Waiting Patiently for the Lord

2008-08-24T07:00:00.000-07:00

The Holy Spirit recently blessed me while I was reading through Psalm 41. The psalmist is experiencing intense difficulties that brought him to the point of despair:

“12For evils beyond number have surrounded me; My iniquities have overtaken me, so that I am not able to see; They are more numerous than the hairs of my head, And my heart has failed me.” (NASB).

Have you ever felt like that? I have been in the place where evils have surrounded me; where my heart aches and I can no longer make sense of my circumstances.

But this psalm doesn’t begin here at verse 12. He doesn’t start by expressing his worry. Quite the contrary, he describes how he cried out to the Lord, and the Lord was faithful to hear him (vs 1). As Christians, this is precisely what we’re supposed to do when we encounter difficulty. Whether we need to make an important decision or face difficult circumstances, we are first to pray to our God. The glorious thing about these encounters with God is that He cares for us in the midst of these times. The Maker of heaven and earth condescends far to hear us! What comfort and joy this brings the regenerated heart! To have the knowledge from the holy Scriptures that our Creator desires to hear us is overwhelming, for He “inclines” Himself to us.

When we place this truth in its proper perspective we are able to be truly grateful for such a communion with God. The Bible informs us that all men are guilty from the moment of our conception. Not only that, but we daily offend God by breaking His Law. Even after experiencing salvation we continue to disregard His righteous standard and live as though there were no God! Because of our many sins it is a wonder that God’s patience does not run out toward us.

Of course we know that God’s wrath was appeased because of the finished work of Jesus Christ on behalf of His elect people. Praise be to our triune Lord of majesty for such a perfect work of salvation!

David continues throughout the psalm, expressing thankfulness to God for the ways He has provided deliverance. “He brought me up out of the pit of destruction, out of the miry clay, And He set my feet upon a rock making my footsteps firm” (verse 2, NASB).

One of my prayers of late has been to ask God for wisdom in my life, which we know He grants liberally (James 1:5). Faithfully, in the same sitting, the Holy Spirit again ministered to me as I continued my study time in Proverbs:

“⁵ Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. ⁶ In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight. ⁷ Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and turn away from evil. ⁸ It will be healing to your body And refreshment to your bones.” (Proverbs 3:5-8, NASB).

If you are a faithful Christian, I imagine you are well acquainted with these words. I grew up hearing them. The danger with being overly familiar with the words of Scripture is that we do not allow them to impact us as we ought. We zone out because we have become so accustomed to this admonition from the Lord.

As I read over these words, the Holy Spirit answered my prayer asking for wisdom. Rather than leaning on my own wisdom – as though my thoughts and feelings were somehow more intelligent than God’s – I should lean on the Rock of ages.

Once I acknowledge Him, then He will make my paths straight. Have I done that? Have I acknowledged Him in all my ways, or just some? Do I consider myself wise? Do I fear the Lord’s anger and turn from evil? The answer to each of these questions will bring about specific consequences. When I trust in the Lord with all of my heart and lean on Him, He will heal me and refresh me. When I do not trust in the Lord or look to Him for wisdom to make decisions, He will not heal me and refresh me. The text could not be clearer.

The promise that God offers to His saints is marvelous, isn’t it? God, the sovereign Ruler of the Universe, wants His creatures to rely on Him and His strength. It is the nature of sinful men to trust in themselves, to rely on their feelings and emotions, and their way of thinking. We are not like the world in this regard. No, we filter our thoughts, ideas and feelings through the filter of God’s holy Word. I confess that this is something I must work hard to improve on, because I have no choice. I am a slave of righteousness now, and I want nothing but to always please my King, the Lord of Glory.

I hope this was an encouragement to you,

Case

World War III, or the next Cold War?

2008-08-19T07:00:00.001-07:00

I was a little tyke during the Cold War, and by the looks of it I will have a chance to understand what it is like living during a second one. Russia’s aggression towards Georgia is unbelievably barbaric. First, a couple things: Russia invaded Georgia while claiming to support Georgian rebels seeking independence. My best bud, Scott, compared this little rebellion to the L.A. Riots not too long ago. Obviously it doesn’t fit perfectly, but I still think this is an excellent comparison! From the first moment of Russia’s unwarranted invasion of Georgian territory, Georgia has repeatedly refused to accept a Russian presence there. The Georgian President, an ally with the West, met with 9 presidential leaders from other nations who were formerly part of the Soviet Union. This meeting was quite unusual because it is difficult to acquire that many presidential figures in one meeting place. I’m sure they all know that unless a firm response from western nations is given Russia may not stop with Georgia.

Experts have pointed out that the kind of invasion performed by Russia’s military would have taken months to plan, which means that the Russian government was waiting for the right opportunity to invade and potentially reacquire Georgia.

What is Russia thinking? Some political analysts have speculated that Russia has no intention of reorganizing into the Soviet Union, but would like to expand the Russian empire.

Also, I’ve heard other speculations that Russia’s current president, Medvedev (try saying that 10 times fast), is only a figurehead and that Putin is the real power behind the curtain (no pun intended). If you know more on this, please let me know.

Just last week the United States finalized a deal to install a missile defense system in Poland. The Polish Prime Minister commented on the deal, “‘It is no good when assistance comes to dead people. Poland wants to be in alliances where assistance comes in the very first hours of – knock on wood – any possible conflict," Tusk said.” LOL! This is one of the single greatest statements I have ever heard.

What was Russia’s response to this deal? Moscow had this to say, “Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike – 100 percent.” So let me get this straight … if Poland doesn’t have a missile defense system they are open to attack. If Poland installs a missile defense system they are open to attack. What a lose-lose situation for Poland!

It has been a sad thing to turn on the news recently because I know that there will be some difficult things to read about. If Russia keeps up this behavior we will either enter into World War III, or the next Cold War.
Rusty

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-18T07:00:00.000-07:00

Tonight my dad, Scott and I saw “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” It far exceeded my expectations. From the trailer I posted in the previous entry I knew that Ben Stein would present an entertaining flick, and would at least document how modern academia seeks to suppress any discussion about alternatives to the modern Evolutionary Theory. But the film is so much more.

For the first thirty minutes or so the movie gives an accurate sense of the great lengths modern academia refuses to hear any mention of a theory that conflicts with the Evolutionary Theory. It is true that Stein does not try to defend the various forms of Creationism. Instead, he reveals his bias towards the Intelligent Design Theory which argues that the complexity of life receives its complexity from some form of intelligence. But the thrust of his movie was to bring the issues to the table so they might be discussed, analyzed and debated. I could not agree more with his motivations.

“Expelled” had a great impact on me because I survived the public school system. Anyone who has dared to ask questions that challenge the Evolutionary Theory know precisely what I mean. I have been shut down by teachers in high school, then professors in college. What is amazing to me is that Macro-Evolution is taught without addressing the glaring holes scattered throughout the theory.

Because I’m not a fan of giving away spoilers I won’t reveal too much more. But I will say that my favorite part of the film involves Richard Dawkins looking rather foolish within his own reasoning *grin*

I believe this to be an important movie because it has the potential to open up the door to many conversations about why so many reasonable and thinking people do not endorse the Evolutionary Theory. Why is it that two intelligent scientists examine the same evidence and come to different conclusions - one turns out to be an Evolutionist while another believes intelligence is behind life? The reason is because there is a fundamental difference in the worldviews between these two individuals. This is something else that “Expelled” covered, and boy was I pleasantly surprised! Presuppositions and worldviews are the key to this entire dialogue.

This movie isn’t perfect. But please see this movie. You have my recommendation.

Rusty

Intriguing!

2008-04-08T07:00:00.002-07:00

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf

My dad sent this to me today. It looks awesome.

April 18th.

and verily, much w00tage did thus fill the land,
Rusty

Russia Living in the Cold War

2008-04-03T07:00:00.001-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,345514,00.html

Good news. NATO has endorsed Bush’s plan to install a missile defense system in Europe. What has struck me as odd from the beginning of these discussions has been Russia’s response.

“Russia charges the intent of the system would be to weaken its nuclear deterrent capabilities and upset the balance of power in Europe. Bush has repeatedly denied that, saying the facilities are designed to protect Europe against a potential missile attack — or even just nuclear blackmail — by Iran. The dispute has become heated at times, with confrontational, Cold War-style rhetoric from Moscow.”

From some bizarre reasoning Russia has been led to believe that the United States means her harm. Quite frankly, I do not understand this at all. Are we really to believe that the true reason President Bush wants to put a missile defense system in Europe is to weaken Russia’s military ability against the USA and her allies? Could it be that Iran and other Islamic nations might pose a threat? How about North Korea? These are realistic concerns that we cannot pretend do not exist.

Putin has repeatedly charged the U.S. of trying to tip the balance of power in her favor, to which our President has rightly responded that Russia is a friend and not an enemy. This allowed Bush to remove the issues of balance of power from the discussion of our relationship with Russia. We have even invited Russia to be a part of the cooperate effort that will oversee the production and the continued management of this defense network. Unfortunately, Russia’s response has been to seemingly ignore our efforts of extending the hand of peace and friendship by retaliating with hostile words and mild threats. This is not how peace is made. But to President Bush’s credit, he has done nothing but return Putin’s rash comments with calm, well formulated ones.

I will say that, while I am not happy with everything George Bush has done, he has handled this situation wisely, so much so that I am proud to call him my President.

Rusty

The Great Shepherd

2008-02-01T07:00:00.000-07:00

Let me be the first to wish you a Happy Friday, as it is now officially Friday. After a near-perfect evening spent at Bucks how could I possibly be expected to go to bed on time? Exactly, I can’t.

As I was walking towards the best Starbucks ever, a longtime friend from GCC recognized me and ended up chilling with me inside for a little bit. He has been a missionary in Turkey for a few years and will be heading back in February. Earlier in the day I was reading in Acts and was reminded of the newly converted Apostle Paul 9:22, “But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ” (NASB). Here is my friend and brother in the faith, faithfully preaching the gospel in a hostile land filled with turmoil. Yet he is doing the Lord’s work, and I was excited for him! In the few moments we had together I asked how I might pray for him. He wanted me to pray for their pastor’s wife who is ill. He also mentioned that their church is experiencing regular persecution – including a failed attempt to burn down the church building – thanks be to God! As he left, I was left thinking about the marvelous kingdom of God scattered throughout the nations, and how thankful I am to be part of it.

Eventually, I made my way to one of my regular tables and began journaling, thinking, reading and praying. Very shortly thereafter, I was joined by my good buddy, James. We sat and chatted for a little bit, and encouraged one another. Once he joined up with his girl, I was left to continue on where I left off.

I read through a few chapters in Ezekiel, and though I don’t have much time to spend on Ezekiel 33:11-17, I will say that it is abundantly rich in truth. A man who trusts in his righteous deeds when he sins will be found guilty. But a wicked man who turns from his sin toward righteousness will not have his sins remembered. Indeed, the gospel is proclaimed throughout the Scriptures!

What my mind was really wrapped around was Ezekiel 34:11-16,

“11 For thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out. 12 "As a shepherd cares for his herd in the day when he is among his scattered sheep, so I will care for My sheep and will deliver them from all the places to which they were scattered on a cloudy and gloomy day. 13 "I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries and bring them to their own land; and I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the streams, and in all the inhabited places of the land. 14 "I will feed them in a good pasture, and their grazing ground will be on the mountain heights of Israel There they will lie down on good grazing ground and feed in rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. 15 "I will feed My flock and I will lead them to rest," declares the Lord GOD. 16 "I will seek the lost, bring back the scattered, bind up the broken and strengthen the sick; but the fat and the strong I will destroy I will feed them with judgment” (NASB).

Up to this point in our text, the Lord is rebuking the shepherds of Israel who are not shepherding the people of God, but are letting them go astray. God’s harshness towards these failing shepherds plus His earnest desire to search and restore His people blew me away. God, Himself will search for His sheep and seek them out, even when scattered He will care for the sheep. He will deliver them from where they have been scattered! I think of my own life and how often I have strayed, even having the blessing of faithful pastors. Yet the Lord has never given up on me. He has always gathered me back to where I should be.

Verse 15 is of particular comfort to me: “I will feed My flock and I will lead them to rest.” As Christians we have been given ultimate rest in Christ: “For we who have believed enter that rest…” (Hebrews 4:3a, NASB). We rest from our own works and rest in the work of a perfect Savior who has delivered us from the consequences and power of sin.

Last night at church I had the privilege of teaching our junior high class. My plan was to get through Romans 8, but we ended up going over vs 26-31 which was a challenge in and of itself. One of the things I emphasized was how marvelous it is that God chose any among the vast number of sinners to demonstrate His saving grace! He intervened in our lives and allowed us to enter His rest. We were working, but He caused us to trust in Jesus Christ to save us. My hope was to leave my class with a glimpse of God’s infinite mercy towards ungodly sinners.

Truly our God is a God of mercy.

The Lord spoke to me tonight through His living Word. It is incredible how the inspired Word of God is used by the Holy Spirit in our day and in our culture to encourage and build up the people of God. God continues to prove His wisdom to me.

Dba dba dba dba dba, that’s all folks!

Rusty

I KNEW it!

2008-01-31T07:00:00.000-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327070,00.html

/me grins

The Foolishness of the Message Preached

2008-01-27T07:00:00.000-07:00

There are certain times with friends that stand out in your mind, and tonight was definitely one of those times for me. The whole day was spectacular. Post Desert Schools, I went home to finish working on a “special” project, then spent the rest of the evening with friends. I was blessed by the conversation, the laughs and the fellowship.

My night ended up at my good buddy Mark’s house, along with Scott, Matt, Justin, and Brian. We talked about many things (including Nintendo Wii), one of which we spent a great deal of time on: the need for discernment among Christians in their theology and every day living. Each of us there is old enough to know folks who have a profession of faith that are struggling with basic Biblical truths.

If you have yet to experience this, give it some time and you will. I don’t say this at all to discourage you, but to give you a heads up.

I don’t know what it is about our generation that causes us to be fascinated by straying from the truth and from the Church. It seems as though people have a natural tendency to walk off the straight and narrow path into half-truths or heresy. What is the cause of this? Well, ultimately it stems from a rebellious desire to be autonomous and act as though we are the ultimate authority in our lives. Once folks neglect the means of grace (the Church, the ordinances [baptism and the Lord’s Supper], the Scriptures, and prayer) that God has given to assist in our sanctification it is no wonder the ability to live according to God’s will is hindered.

Another thing we discussed was that some Christians derive their philosophy from the world rather than from the divinely inspired Word. The Apostle Paul talks about worldviews and philosphy in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2. I’m tempted to cite both chapters here, but will simply suggest reading them. In the meantime, I’ll cite a handful of verses. Consider 1:21,

“21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe” (NASB).

A couple things stand out to me. The foremost, that sinners are not delivered from sin through the wisdom of the world. Rather, God is pleased to save sinners through the foolishness of the message preached! The proclamation of the gospel is utter foolishness to the unregenerate … until the Holy Spirit removes the heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36).

So studying ungodly philosophy is all well and dandy if your purpose is to refute the foolishness of their worldview. But do not pretend that by polluting the gospel with worldly philosophy you are doing the unbeliever any good. In reality, you are doing a great disservice to them. God has chosen the means by which He will save sinners, and it is by the clear and unabashed message of the gospel.

The Apostle also said,

“19 For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Corinthians 1:19-20, NASB).

It seems plain as day to me that any attempt to mix the gospel with ungodly philosophy is a mockery of God. “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” Can Paul be any clearer?

Furthermore, Paul continues,

“1 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, 4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God” (1 Corinthians 2: 1-5, NASB).

This should be a truth the Christian delights in! Paul did not come preaching with clever speech, but came with the testimony of God. He sought not to persuade with persuasive words of men, but relied on the Holy Spirit to work in the hearts of men through the message of Christ!

We should follow Paul’s example in the way he followed Christ.

But how exactly is this truth a delight and a comfort to the believer? Because the salvation of sinners does not depend on us or our own words of wisdom! Rather, the Holy Spirit uses the clear preaching of the gospel. I think back to when I was an Arminian and actually believed that my words could persuade men to believe. There were many times I was disappointed with my witnessing efforts when I didn’t see immediate fruit. There was one night I vividly recall, where after a full day of street evangelism, no one made a profession of faith. I was devastated!

Numerous problems led to my devastation, but one being that I did not believe that God is sovereign over salvation. Now as a Calvinist I recognize the Biblical teaching that salvation is of the Lord and not of man. This is why we are able to preach a message that is foolishness to the world. We can trust the Holy Spirit to save all of His elect, and to save them perfectly. It is only our job to be ambassadors for Christ, not to save souls.

My encouragement to the reader is this: do not be ashamed of the gospel. Preach it as it is, with clarity and much zeal. Preach the gospel.

“For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:16, NASB).

That’s all for now =)

Rusty

I finished!!!!!!!

2008-01-24T07:00:00.000-07:00

Two short hours ago I finished Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows. Wow ... wow. What a trip! I can honestly say that Harry Potter is the best series I have ever read. I feel so close to each of the characters it is unreal.

My only disappointment is that I have reached the conclusion of the series, although J.K. Rowling did say that she might continue writing Harry's story if ... (we'll get to that later, because I didn't give a proper warning about spoilers for those of you who have yet to read this amazing series).

More thoughts to come on book 7!

I'll keep ya posted, ya'll. For now, I must get some rest.

Rusty

Islam

2008-01-23T07:00:00.000-07:00

Many of you know that DrOakley’s recent focus has been on the subject of Islam and that he’s working on getting his doctorate in Islamic Studies as well as mastering Arabic. This new focus has had a direct impact upon AOMin. For me, it has only been within the past year that I began studying Islam.

It has become my sincere belief that the next challenge Western Christians will face in the coming years is Islam. Therefore, I thought it would be beneficial to host and lead a discussion group on the religion of Islam. My primary purpose is twofold: First, to introduce the religion of Islam; Second, to provide a meaningful apologetic against Islam so as to better equip us to clearly proclaim and defend the gospel of Jesus Christ to Muslims.

When: Tuesdays at 5:30-6:45pm

Where: My house

Materials: Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross by Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb. Don’t forget your Bibles.

I believe it is the duty of the Saints to bring honor to God by clearly communicating the gospel to our sinful world. But to effectively explain our beliefs to Muslims we must do something that many of us despise: put forth the effort to understand what Muslims believe. We have to do our homework. We need to prepare.

It has been my desire for many years to be a useful tool in preaching the gospel to the unregenerate. And I believe that we ought to pray for witnessing opportunities where we are able to clearly communicate our faith – even to such groups as Muslims. We are not only to witness to our Romanist friends, our Oneness friends or our Latter-day Saint friends. We are to also reach our Muslims friends, trusting all along that God will save those whom He wills.

The Apostle wrote these encouraging words in his epistle to the Romans,

“14How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!"” (10:14-15, NASB).

We are the ones Paul wrote about in this text. It is our responsibility, and our privilege to carry the good news of salvation to our ungodly world. It is a privilege to witness to our Muslim neighbors! We ought to pray for and seek out opportunities where we might engage Muslims, not just with good deeds, but also with our speech. For indeed “faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17, NASB).

It should be our greatest desire to hold out the word of life (Philippians 2:16) to those who are in need of a perfect Savior, Jesus Christ.

Please get in touch with me if you are interested.

Rusty

The Church that Christ Set Up

2007-12-30T07:00:00.000-07:00

Today was a busy day filled with work, “Alien vs Predator: Requiem,” filing an auto claim, and ended with some incredible fellowship. I just arrived home after chilling with some of my best friends. YC’s Mongolian BBQ and a good cigar set the evening’s scene that allowed for the discussions that were held. Our conversation ranged from the imperishable salvation we hold onto because of the powerful hand of God, to the necessity of the local church for Christian people.

Each of us at one point or another had a shaky view of the church at best. It took some immense trials and difficulties for us to discover the Biblical view of what role the local church should have in the lives of the saints.

Back in the day … (not too long ago) … I used to carry my Bible with me EVERYWHERE. I decided recently that that is something I am gonna do again, besides, who wants to encounter an enemy force-sensitive-user without your lightsaber of the Spirit? I certainly don’t! So tonight I brought my laser-sword with me, and it only took us a matter of moments before God’s Word was referenced. Doesn’t God’s Word blow you away at how relevant it is to every aspect of every topic? Amidst the course of our perusals, a text from Hebrews was mentioned that encouraged us greatly:

Hebrews: 10:19-25, “19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near” (NASB).

Verse 25 was the focal point, but notice the beautiful argument the author of the epistle makes as he leads up to it: “Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus…” and “since we have a great priest over the house of God…” These are powerful statements! Whatever follows must truly be important.

The writer is, of course, writing to admonish Jewish Christians not to go on living as though the Old Covenant were in effect because Christ came to establish a new covenant with better promises. There were many Jews who, at one time, professed faith in Christ and were falling away. It was for this reason that the author was specific in his directions to not waver in our confession of faith. Practically speaking, he writes that Christians are to spur one another on to love and good deeds. Included in this are the local gatherings of the church. We are not to stop meeting together as a corporate body. Consider that it was Christ that established the New Covenant, and in this better covenant Christians were to actively participate in the church structure He set up.

One of the immediate benefits I experienced when I began attending the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church was the blessing of a relationship with my elders. They worked at getting to know me, and I them. This experience was what the same author also wrote in 13:17, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you” (NASB). It is presupposed, not only in the book of Hebrews but throughout the New Testament, that Christians know their elders, and that their elders know the members of their flock. Why is this so? Because elders keep watch over our souls as those who will give an account to God. I was listening to a sermon by an Irish Presbyterian pastor on this subject who, commenting on this verse, said that we can really assist our elders watch over us by our faithfulness in our participation in the church. This not only includes attendance, but I think can also carry the thought of service and time.

As the conversation began to wrap up, all of us were in complete agreement on one thing: the local church and fellowship within the corporate body are a great blessing from God, designed for our betterment.

Our God is remarkable in His care for His people, is He not?

Thanks for reading,
Casey

An Evangelistic Outreach to Muslims

2007-12-27T07:00:00.000-07:00

Dr. Oakley (aka Dr. James White) wrote a wonderful blog entry on Christmas Day that I am dying for you all to read. DrO took the time to offer an invitation to his Muslim audience to take a serious look at Christianity.

He pointed out something rather obvious last year that stuck with me, probably because I hadn't yet pieced this together: Islam is a religion dependent on disproving the claims of Christianity. Muhammad, a man 600 years removed from the time of Christ, made numerous claims about Christianity and about himself that completely contradict the Bible. And yet, Islam claims to agree with the teachings of the all the Biblical prophets, including Jesus Christ. It seems clear then that Muhammad ought to be tested by the same standard to which all the prophets of old were held: Deuteronomy 13 and 18.

Also, my parents gave me (for Christmas) DrO's first debate with Shabir Ally (the most prominent Muslim apologist in the English-speaking world), "Is the New Testament We Possess Today Inerrant and Inspired?" I've been very patient and have not listened to the .mp3's yet, 'cause I prefer watching debates on video. I'm thinking about getting some friends together to watch the debate, and perhaps in the future have a book study on Islam where we can discuss how to evangelize our Muslim neighbors - Answering Islam by Geisler came recommended to me by DrO. It was very helpful for me.

Anywho, Happy belated Christmas ya'll!

Rusty

Personal Log, Jean-Luke Piccard Style

2007-12-06T07:00:00.000-07:00

“Personal Log – Stardate [Insert proper stardate format HERE]”

Four months ago from lasterday I asked Kaylee Rose to go out with me. Remarkably she said yes. Things on the Kaylee front are going incredibly well. She lights up my life.

For the first time I had the chance to decorate my house with Christmas lights. Nothing spectacular, but they look decent. I now know why every Christmas movie ever made pokes fun at the entire experience of hanging Christmas lights on the roof. As I stood on our roof I felt abundantly foolish, doubting every step. It was great and oh so worth it; Tim the Tool-Man Taylor would be proud.

Things at Desert Schools FCU are going well. I was promoted to the New Accounts Team, which keeps my interest and poses much more of a challenge. Rocking the financial universe is an experience I hope to continue for quite some time.

The month of December jampacked with weddings, parties, and family gatherings. There is so much going on that I bought a calendar for 2007-2008 just so I could keep track. I have tons of pictures to post from my birthday party, my Halloween party, the Jane Austen reenactment ball, Kaylee’s surprise birthday party, and so much more! If you aren’t a facebook user you really are missing out. Please add me to your friends list.

Okay, so I must know: what is everybody’s favorite Christmas vocal artist? Any guesses about who mine is?

Happy Christmas Season,
Rustoleum

My View Has Been in the Works

2007-12-05T07:00:00.000-07:00

It has taken me a few years but I think I’ve settled on a view of the war in Iraq. As of now, I do not support what our armed forces are doing in Iraq. Don’t mistake me for a liberal, however, because the reasoning that led to my conclusion is very different than that of Democrats. My view stems from one basic belief: a nation of Muslims cannot tolerate Democracy.

Throughout history, Muslims have been a warring people. They expand through aggressive means, killing those who are unwilling to convert, even killing each other – all in the name of Allah. The clash between Islam and the West today and over the past 14 centuries should be enough to for us to realize that Islam does not tolerate non-Islamic peoples.

Back in 2003, I thought our great nation did the right thing by invading and toppling Saddam’s oppressive regime. I vehemently disagree with the liberals that make the point that since we have not discovered any nuclear weapons our invasion into Iraq was a mistake. It is true that we have not found any nuclear weapons; what we have found are biological and chemical weapons like serrin gas. We know for a fact that Saddam was trying to obtain nukes and that he had threatened to use them against our ally, Israel. Add to that, Hussein had violated a dozen United Nations resolutions and was playing games with the weapons inspectors searching Iraq for w.m.d.’s. All of this pales in comparison with the intelligence of every nation of the world (including our own nation’s intelligence, and that of England, Germany, Russia and China), which all said the same thing: Saddam was presently in possession of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. But Saddam was equally bold in asserting that he did not have w.m.d.’s. What were we to do? Stand by and hope for the best? Were we going to trust the intelligence information of the civilized world, or were we going to trust the word of a known supporter of terrorism?

There was only one answer: in a post-9/11 world, where the realities of terrorism were ever-present, we could not afford to stand by while a madman, like Saddam, posed a threat to the civilized world.

And so we, with our allies, invaded Iraq.

A question might be rightly asked of me: When do you believe we should have left Iraq? If you will allow me to preface my answer by saying that I hold my particular view with the luxury of hindsight. I do not want to pretend that I could have done a better job than our President did, because I think he deserves our respect for doing the best that he could with the information that he had. Having said that, I would have had us leave Iraq shortly after leaving the government in shambles and ensuring that their military capabilities were demolished.

Another question might also be asked: Since we didn’t leave but rather set up a government in Iraq, when do you now propose that we leave? Even though I don’t believe any lasting form of Democracy will survive in Iraq (so long as it is run by Muslims), I believe that because we have committed ourselves to the government, we should give them our support for the time being. However, I do have trouble even fully convincing myself of this point. Feel free to offer persuasion =).

There you have it: my view on the war in Iraq =)

Until our next meeting,
Rusty

God Hates Sinners?

2007-10-10T07:01:00.000-07:00

***AOMin Email

I have really been wrestling with the concept of God hating sinners. I have been studying and trying to figure it out but am coming up short. It was quite funny when my wife noticed that I was deep in study and asked, What are you studying? and I promptly replied, Hate. I have checked the concordance to find that God hates wickedness (Heb. 1:9 and Ps 45:7). I have found that the Hebrew word "sane" #8130 does mean to hate, be an enemy to, odious. However, in the New Testament, the Greek word for hate is "miseo" #4304 that is not as strong but still says to detest, but then it says to love less. It sounds like the word means it is a preference. For example, I loved the unregenerate less than I loved the elect. What does not make sense is that if God did love everyone then no one would go to Hell. I am not sure either way. I guess the reason why I am interested in solving this issue would be that it affects how we witness. If God does hate sinners, then I don't want to tell the person that God loves them first. Would you mind answering this question? Thank you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Noel,

What an excellent question.

To properly answer your question I think we should address the subject of what we mean when we say that God loves. Is God capable of loving in more than one way? For example, does God love vegetation differently than He does human beings? I believe that God does, in fact, have different kinds of loves. As a human being, I may love my parents, but I love my best friend in a different way. In a similar way, I love my wife differently than I love my parents or my best friend.

God also loves in different ways. He has a special love for His elect people which pertains to salvation. He has another kind of love which He gives to all men.

God's special love, that is reserved for the elect, is seen in passages like Ephesians 1:3-14. God's love that is given to all men (elect and reprobate) can be seen in Matthew 5:44-45, whereby He gives undeserved blessings to all.

The question then becomes, "Even though God has a general love for reprobate (non-elect) sinners, does He also have a hatred towards them?" I believe the answer is yes. With regards to their position before God, the Scriptures are very plain that though the Lord bestows many undeserved mercies upon them, He is angry with them and hates them because they are rebel sinners. Notice Romans 9:10-18.

With regards to our Christian witness, can we honestly tell folks that do not profess faith in Jesus Christ that God loves them? I have to ask: what is meant when we say that God loves someone? Are we referring to God's special love that is reserved for the elect? Or are we referring to God's general blessings bestowed on all of mankind? If the former, then I believe it would be innapropriate because we do not know if God has decided to save a particular individual.

Personally, when preaching the gospel of our Lord, I emphasize that Christ came to die for all those who would believe in Him. It is this group of underserving sinners that God loves and has decided to deliver from their sins. This is why salvation, at its core, is completely of the Lord.

I hope this answers all of your questions. Please let me know if you want to talk on this further, or if you have any more questions.

In the saving faith,
Casey Ryan
AOMin

An Imaginary Conversation

2007-09-29T07:00:00.000-07:00

The evening before last I was able to attend one of the most thought-provoking lectures I have heard in a long time. Catherine Gallagher, an English professor at Berkeley University in California, is an expert in Victorian literature and of Jane Austen’s collected works. Mrs. Gallagher’s presentation was inspired from a brief section from Austen’s Mansfield Park wherein she attempts to demonstrate that Austen was hinting at a desire to engage the slave trade discussion that was taking place in England.

Professor Gallagher read aloud a fictitious dialogue that she brilliantly composed between the characters in Mansfield Park, as if Jane Austen had decided to include such a discussion. Gallagher showed herself not only as a gifted writer but also a true historian! She incorporated into this imaginary conversation the differing perspectives that formed once England enforced her ban on the international slave trade. There were two prominent positions represented in this conversation, the first being that England’s difficult stance was the result of practicality and economic convenience. The second was motivated by moral conviction over the treatment of other human beings.

Once Mrs. Gallagher finished with her reading, she offered some fascinating commentary amidst some time set aside for Q&A. What struck me most was a question she posed to the audience about religious conviction: “England’s sense of guilt and desire to correct her contribution to the slave trade was largely the result of religious belief in God’s wrath and love. Understand that I am a secular humanist, yet I wonder if secularists have enough passion to lead the way in social justice?” At this, many in the room shifted uncomfortably. Here is a self-proclaimed secular humanist declaring that she questions whether secularists have passion enough to stand up for morality in society! It was absolutely amazing to witness.

History certainly defends her point: it is only the religious that have fought for moral justice. More specifically, Christianity has been the root cause of defending morality in Western Civilization. Other movements that claim to fight for social (not moral) justice are rooted in secular ideals that view man as the god of his own existence. These movements quickly gain momentum but soon prove to be faulty, and many times crumble within a few years of their boldest achievements. Consider the French Revolution. Benjamin Franklin and Voltaire, both secularists, paved the way for French rioting and the Reign of Terror. Even after the French established a form of Republicanism, this shabby government stood only for a brief moment until Napoleon rose to the scene.

The more I considered this particular point, the more I was convinced of the truthfulness of it. Gallagher hit it right on the nose.

After the lecture I expressed my deep appreciation to the professor for the intriguing presentation, and even asked a question or two of my own. Kaylee and I very much enjoyed ourselves.

Rusty

God causes all things

2007-09-02T07:01:00.000-07:00

***The following is an email that you might find interesting =)

---------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Brian,

You asked: "My question is why do you believe that God determines all things (I mean every single last act of ours is determined by God, meaning that every choice we make is the only choice we have since that is the determined plan of God)?"

This is an excellent question.

Before I answer your question, you labeled the belief that God has ordained all things that happen in space and time as "Determinism." A better label would be "God's absolute sovereignty and rulership in creation."

Why do I believe that God determines all things, including the choices we make? The simple answer is that the Scriptures teach this.

Romans 8:28 is a clear example: "28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose."
(NASB).

God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God. The question should be asked: What is meant by "all things?" Consider the surrounding context. The election of God is certainly included (verses 29-39). Before verse 28, Paul also speaks of the desires of the heart of the unregenerate and of the regenerate (verses 5-16), our sufferings as children of God (verses 17-18), the groaning of creation eagerly awaiting redemption from its fallen state (verses 19-22), and the Holy Spirit aiding the saints in their weaknesses, even in prayer (verse 26).

The Apostle concludes chapter 8 with those wonderful words founds in verses 38-39: "38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (NASB). Why is it that none of the aforementioned things (death, life, any created thing, and anything else) are unable to separate us from the love of God? Because of the truth found in verse 28 ... all things are caused by God to work together for good to those who love God.

It is because of the context that I can firmly say that the "all things" Paul speaks of is in reference to every action and decision that takes place in creation.

I will not examine the following texts in depth, but they are worth mentioning:

Proverbs 21:1, "The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it whereever He wishes" (NASB). The king's heart, his innermost being, is under the complete control of God.

Genesis 50:20, "20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive" (NASB). Joseph provides this answer to his brothers who did many evil things to him. His brothers meant evil against Joseph, but God meant it for good. God was not passive in the evil intent of his brothers. No, God intended these evil deeds, and with great purpose (for preserving many people alive).

In Isaiah 10:1-19, God brings judgment upon Israel by using Assyria (verse 6). Assyria had no original plan or intent against Israel, but only a general desire to destroy (verses 7). The Lord then punishes Assyria because of her boasting, as though she were the cause of her success; it was God who directed Assyria's evil purposes against Israel. God also brought success to Assyria (verses 12-19). Even though Assyria had no plans against Israel, God, not Assyria, decided to use them to bring judgment against His people.

Acts 4:27-28, "27 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur" (NASB). The Lord purposed all the decisions and actions of all those who were involved in the crucifixion of Christ, including Pilate, the Gentiles, and the peoples of Israel. To what were they purposed? To do whatever God's hand predestined to occur.

The Scripture is abundantly clear that though human beings make decisions every day, these decisions are in the complete control of God.

I hope this was beneficial for you. If you have any further questions or comments, please let me know.

In Christ,
Casey Ryan
AOMin

Meeting with the Elders

2007-08-26T07:02:00.000-07:00

Tonight I had my third meeting with the missionaries. At around 5:30am this morning I awoke to the oh-too-happy song by The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus playing on my phone. I was receiving a phone call. After fumbling to answer my phone at such an ungodly hour, I managed to answer with a very tired, “hhhhello?” I asked. “Hey Casey! This is Elder Johnson!” LOL … not quite what I was expecting that early in the morning. Turns out he called because he wanted to answer the question I posed during our previous meeting: How do you reconcile LDS doctrine that there are many gods (D&C 132, among many references) with Isaiah 44:6-8 which teaches that there is only one true god in existence?

I should note that near the end of our second meeting the two elders told me that I “wasn’t worth their time because [they] are looking for people who’re ready to convert.” I kid you not, I was speechless for about 12 seconds after hearing this =). So when I spoke with Elder Johnson this morning I was fairly surprised that he wanted to meet at all.

They arrived with a list of verses that seemingly taught a plurality of gods, and that men can become gods. Among them we examined Psalm 82:6 and 1 Corinthians 8:5. After taking a closer look at them they ended up agreeing with my interpretations (they had obviously never read the entire chapter of the verses they were citing). I then reiterated my challenge to them: If Isaiah 44:6-8 teaches that there is only one true god, and since the Bible won’t contradict itself, doesn’t this mean that the teaching of the Bible is that there is only one true god? If so, how do you reconcile this with the LDS teaching of a plurality of gods?

What is exciting about all of this is that they had obviously given this challenge a great deal of thought. My prayer for them is that every time they think about the Law of Eternal Progression – their belief that “as man is God once was, and as God is man may become” – that they would be convicted by Isaiah 44:6-8. Might our God be pleased to be merciful to these men and free them from the slavery of their sin.

Evangelism Bucks-Style

2007-08-26T07:01:00.000-07:00

I’ve got to share something very exciting that just happened. I was sitting at Starbucks, reading, when a guy sits down in the comfy chair next to me. Apparently he needed someone to talk to – [if anyone ever wants to talk about how American coffee shops are very much like the Salons in France during the Enlightenment, lemme know] – which I’ve come to expect over the years at Bucks. We went from talking about work, to Starbucks to where he attends church. Naturally, the conversation transitioned towards the gospel, which God allowed us to discuss for the next hour and a half! We went through Romans 1:1-5:1. When we finished, I challenged him to ask himself if he has peace with God … the peace that Romans 5 talks about. I’m so thankful for the gospel, and for opportunities to talk about the gospel. Isn’t our God merciful? Ron is the guy’s name; pray for him if have a minute =). Our God can save anybody.

Christian Contentment

2007-08-26T07:00:00.000-07:00

The sermon Sunday morning was phenomenal. Elder James preached out of Colossians 3 about Christian contentment. This is probably the most practical sermon I have ever heard, and I can honestly say that the Holy Spirit, through the ministry of the Word, greatly affected me yesterday morning.

Here's the link Enjoy =)

Rusty

Clarification on Reformed Theology

2007-08-08T07:00:00.000-07:00

***The following is an AOMin email asking for clarification about Reformed theology. If Christine asks anything more specific, that email will be quite a bit more lengthy =)***

Hello Christine,

I will do my best to offer some clarification.

You stated: “My concern is that a non believer/catholic friend stated she believed that "if God has not given a person the Gift of Faith that that person would not go to hell." It also seems you imply that having faith is only a gift from God and that only certain/some people will receive it. If that is the case, it seems that we as humans have no choice in the matter, we are either damned or saved. Can you clarify that for me?”

In short, we do believe that sinners naturally hate God (Romans 1:30) and suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). It is only because God regenerates dead sinners to spiritual life (Ephesians 2:1-6) that any turn to Him in faith. God grants faith (Philippians 1:29); indeed, all of salvation is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8-9). Unless God makes dead sinners alive and grants to them saving faith, they will not come to Christ (John 6:44).

To answer your question directly, you are correct that we believe that God extends His grace to some. All whom God draws to Himself come to Him (John 6:37, 44).

Does this mean that human beings do not have a choice? Well, human beings certainly have a will with the ability to make choices. But since all human beings are born sinful, they all choose to hate God. Sinners will continue in their unjust hatred of God and His truth unless God has mercy upon them.

If you have any further questions or concerns, please let me know.

In Christ,
Casey Ryan
AOMin

Oneness Pentecostalism

2007-07-30T07:00:00.000-07:00

***The following is my response to an AOMin email. Enjoy =)

Hello Nathan,

Just to be clear, are you a Oneness Pentecostal? And you believe that within the one being of God, there exists one divine Person? If you answered yes, then you are correct that we worship very different gods. My god is tri-personal (triune), which simply means that within His one being exists three divine Persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

To deny that God is triune is to deny the one true god. The reason I say this is because Scripture teaches that one must believe in God as He truly is. Jesus brings this out in John 8.

Throughout the chapter, Christ makes repeated claims of His cooperation and agreement with the work of the Father. Christ's judgements are perfectly aligned with the Father's (vs 16). Christ testifies about himself; the Father also testifies about Christ (vs 18). Finally, there is such a union between the Father and the Son that to know Christ is to the know the Father (vs 19).

It is then that Christ makes the statement found in verse 24: "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (NASB). You might have noticed that "He" is italicized. The italicized font is used because the translators are making the reader aware that the word is supplied. A more literal translation would read: "...unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." The greek phrase for "I am" is "ego eimi" which I believe is a claim of divinity on the part of Christ.

There is a strong line of argumentation that leads to this conclusion: the Septuagint's (the Septuagint is the greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) rendering of Exodus 3:14 and Isaiah 43:10 (both important Old Testament texts) uses the same Greek phrase "ego eimi" found in John 8:24. In Exodus 3:14, God describes Himself as "I AM that I AM" ... which was how Moses described God to Pharoah. In Isaiah 43:10, "I AM" is used in the context of God being the one true god. It is with this rich background that Jesus applies "I am" to himself, and throughout John's gospel (John 8:58-59, John 13:19, John 18).

Getting back to our text in John 8:24, you will notice that unless you believe Jesus is "I am" you will die in your sins. Not only is this a claim of divinity, but given the immediate context one must also properly infer Christ's relation to the Father. In other words, is the Son a distinct Person from the Father? Or are they one and the same Person? In conclusion, to embrace Oneness theology about god is to embrace a false god because the god found in Scripture is tri-personal.

If you are interested, I would be happy to discuss the doctrine of the Trinity, as well as your own thoughts on God. Please let me know. I look forward to hearing from you.

Casey Ryan
AOMin

A little chat about God's existence

2007-05-31T15:46:00.001-07:00

Brandon transferred to our Starbucks from out of state, and was a lot of fun to work with. At one point he was a shift supervisor, so he really knew his stuff. As we got to know each other, he discovered that I was a Christian, and we mentioned a number of times that we would like to sit down and talk about spiritual things sometime off the clock. By God’s ordination, I bumped into Brandon at Fiesta Mall. We chatted for a few minutes when I offered to sit down and have that discussion we had been putting off.

So we did.

It turns out that Brandon became an Atheist when he realized one could not prove God’s existence through the sciences. I then shared my testimony: being raised in a Christian family, becoming a Christian at a young age, and reforming much of my theology as I grew older. It was obvious that Brandon had never heard the gospel before, though he says he has many Christian friends (how sad). So we spent some time going over that.

One of the things I emphasized after my overview of the Christian message was that he has gone to such great lengths to suppress the truth of God’s existence, evening calling himself an Atheist. This is further evidence of his sinfulness and depravity.

Approaching this conversation using the Presuppositional Apologetic, I challenged him with the fact that his own worldview cannot explain human dignity, morality or even the sciences. I then pointed him to the Christian worldview, which of course, does consistently explain the world around us.

All in all, it was a successful conversation. Brandon is a wonderful guy, and I will continue to pray for him - that our Lord might be merciful toward him and grant to him saving faith.

Happy almost Friday,
The Rusted One

"Let the Good Times Roll" -- Mark Hammell, as the Joker

2007-05-30T15:16:00.001-07:00

April and May for me are analogous to the 400 years of silence during most of the intertestamental period.

=)

Lotsa stuff goin on. As of two weeks ago, I know longer work for the Starbucks Coffee Company. I know … I know! How tragic! It was a blessing to have worked for Bucks as long as I did. Being a Shift Supervisor was a lot of fun, in fact, it helped me realize that I really enjoy the business side of life. Above all, I hope that a single phrase, “For the Win” (ftw), endures at my store. Being just a customer is a beautiful thing; sitting back, sipping my coffee, meeting new folks, not worrying about being PC. Ama-zu-zing!

I have a second interview tomorrow with Desert Schools Federal Credit Union. I’m fairly confident it will go well. But if you have a moment, pray for me.

Currently re-reading the Harry Potter series to properly prepare for OOTP in theaters, and TDH (book 7). You might also be interested to know that I am working diligently at making my own Quidditch pads; I’ve got the rest of the costume ready. Yes, I do plan on standing in line with my uber costume, putting the other wanna-be costumes to shame *innocent smile*.

This summer me and some buds are going on a four-day cruise to Mexico, followed up by Disneyland and Six Flags: Magic Mountain. Talk about spoiled. The fun meter is going to explode with funness.

Have I mentioned that I am planning a trip to Ireland? I’m shooting for this November, somewhere between 8-10 days. Why? Because I’m Irish and want to visit my Island. I’m successfully driving my roommate nutso from all the gaelic and folk music I’m listening to =).

I have a bunch of posts lined up … to make up for where I’ve been lacking. Have fun!

Rusty

May Day is Coming

2007-04-11T15:03:00.001-07:00

“Yes you can!” was the message of thousands of protesters who last year took to the streets in May to defend their “right” to illegally remain in the United States. It appears that the protesters are planning another day of national protests next month called “May Day.” Oh joy.

Illegal aliens have broken the law by wrongfully entering our space, which is why I chuckle at the demands that they and their liberal supporters spout off. They want to live in the USA – fine. But go about it legally.

“But receiving citizenship is difficult and can take years. I want in now!”

It is a difficult and lengthy process, and you know why? Because millions upon millions of people apply each year. If anyone wants American citizenship, for goodness sakes, do it lawfully.

This year’s protests will also be protesting the Federal raids which are capturing illegals and the employers who hire them. At least twice a week I catch a story of the authorities cracking down on illegal immigration, yay for us. The government is enforcing its laws.

I’m tempted to go out to the protests in Phoenix and hand out tracts. These people need to hear the gospel. Obviously, I’ll brush up on my Roman Catholicism apologetics, but I have a feeling many conversations will revolve around turning from sins – specific sins that define one’s life, such as illegally immigrating – to Christ.

“May Day” is coming folks. Don’t get caught in traffic. =)

Rusty

The Religion of Islam

2007-03-22T07:02:00.000-07:00

Studying the religion of Islam is something I earnestly put off over the years. Knowing my unpreparedness on the subject, I quieted my conscience with the untruth that Islam is not something I encounter on a regular basis.

Not a few things in my life served as a constant reminder of my inability to be a faithful witness to Muslims. Standing at the forefront was that Elder James has made Islam a top priority of Alpha and Omega Ministries. In fact, Dr. White has three debates set up with the most well-known English-speaking Muslim apologist, Shabir Ali.

Next, my every day reading of the news has forced me to confront the fact that at least some Muslims are willing to kill Muslims of a different flavor as well as non-Muslims in the name of Islam.

Unsure about which book to begin with, I picked up Ron Rhodes’ Reasoning from the Scriptures with Muslims. It served as a simple introduction to the Muslim religion, but I do not believe it is enough to fully prepare one for evangelism with Muslims. Elder James recommended Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross by Geisler and Saleeb, and having looked at the chapter contents, I cannot wait to begin reading it.

Ron Rhodes includes a call to evangelism in the introduction of his book that encouraged me: “The current estimates are that a mere two percent of the Protestant missionary force is actively involved in evangelizing among 1.3 billion Muslims. William Miller says that ‘with some glorious exceptions, the Christians of the world have signally failed to obey Christ by sending laborers to sow and reap a harvest in Muslim lands.’ Not only are there too few Christian missionaries evangelizing Muslims in other countries, there are far too few Christians seeking to reach Muslims in our own country. This is not as it should be.” (Rhodes 19).

He is absolutely correct that Christians, including myself, need to be more faithful in witnessing to Muslims. Might we take to heart Christ’s words in Matthew 9:37-38, “37 Then He said to His disciples, "The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. 38 "Therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest."” (NASB).

I want to be found faithful in asking the Lord to send out workers into the field, particularly to reach Muslims. It is also my desire to be a faithful worker proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ to our sinful world.

Because of Christ,
Rusty

A Minor Announcement

2007-03-22T07:01:00.001-07:00

How could I have forgotten to post about recent news? If anyone remembers two years ago at Alpha and Omega Ministries annual business meeting, I was asked to be a corporate member. All of the guys were able to catch me completely off guard, or to put it more simply: I was stunned. It has been a great couple of years, learning from the AOMin crew.

As it turns out, I was equally caught off guard at our past meeting where Rich Pierce, the master of surprises, asked me to be a board member. As you can imagine, this surprise made my night =).

I'm honored to serve with godly and capable apologists such as James White, Rich Pierce, Mike Porter, Simon Escobedo, Warren Smith, and many others. They are such a blessing to me, and I hope to continue learning from their wisdom and their firm devotion to Christ's gospel.

In Christ,
Casey

"For I ne’er saw true beauty till this night"

2007-03-22T07:00:00.000-07:00

A glooming peace this morning with it brings.
The sun, for sorrow, will not show his head.
Go hence to have more talk of these sad things.
Some shall be pardoned and some punished.
For never was a story of more woe
Than this of Juliet and her Romeo.
(Shakespeare 327).

A tragic ending is befitting of tragic words, and Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” concluded in proper form. It was an honest pleasure to read through such well-written prose and poetry. On the same token I equally enjoyed the hate, malice, murders, secrets, and general ungodliness throughout the story – do notice my cynicism =). My reasons for reading this work were twofold: First, to become familiar with this famous piece of literature. The second reason may prove to be more concrete, and that is my desire to perhaps borrow some poetry for the future towards a girl whom, to my knowledge, I have yet to meet *innocent smile*. Whichever reason dominates the other, I am able to say boldly that Shakespeare was a remarkable writer. Romeo and Juliet’s circumstances go from bad to worse, and it is a bit unnerving to watch sinful people not do anything right. For me it served as a warning of what not to do. For example, I was reminded to always tell the truth, whenever possible.

My expectations going into the play were not met, but I do recognize that this play is not as novel as it was during the 1600’s =). We have new stories to choose from almost daily, so it is a little unfair of me to remove Shakespeare from the context he was in.

To those who have read “Romeo and Juliet,” is it my imagination or was Shakespeare a pervert? I’m unable to count all the sexual references and puns made throughout the story. On every other page most of the main characters were continuously using foul language, making crude jokes and had a non-serious attitude about sex in general.

Yet, as distasteful as I found the barrage of sexual discussion, I did enjoy much of the romantic dialogue.

Not long after Romeo first lays eyes on Juliet he proclaims this to no one in particular:

Oh, she doth teach the torches to burn bright!
It seems she hangs upon the cheek of night
As a rich jewel in an Ethiope’s ear,
Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear.
So shows a snowy dove trooping with crows
As yonder lady o’er her fellows shows.
The measure done, I’ll watch her place of stand,
And, touching hers, make blessed my rude hand.
Did my heart love till now? Forswear it, sight,
For I ne’er saw true beauty till this night.
(Shakespeare 105).

See what I mean?

As time permits, I intend on reading through a number of Shakespeare’s plays. My roommate, Scott, tells me that “Henry V” is an incredible story. So that's next, then others.

That’s it from the Shakespearian front.

By and by until we meet thee again,
Rusty

“Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together..."

2007-03-15T07:00:00.000-07:00

In America “people do not enquire of a stranger, What is he? but, What can he do?” wrote Benjamin Franklin in a pamphlet meant to entice Europeans to immigrate to America.

Covering the length of time that I’ve delved into the study of history, it was not until recently that I was enticed enough to read Benjamin Franklin. His Autobiography was witty and a little boring at times. Walter Isaacson’s biography was much more appealing, as is often the case with autobiographical counterparts. To my utter surprise, Mr. Franklin was the most popular American in the known world during his lifetime. Ben was a printer, publisher, husband, father, postmaster of the American colonies, scientist, diplomat, and successful politician.

What was most disconcerting for me to read at length was his worldview: a self-proclaimed Deist. Like many of his contemporaries embracing that movement known as the "Enlightenment," Franklin was forcibly opposed to all religious belief and conviction with the exception of moral teachings. For Franklin, he held a particular interest in religion that was practical and applicable to every day life (though Christians understand all true religion as being applicable).

Isaacson presented a convincing argument placing Benjamin Franklin and Jonathan Edwards as representatives of the two mainstream perspectives during the era. Edwards held deep religious conviction and was a leader of the great Evangelical movement, the Great Awakening. Franklin represents the polar opposite perspective and movement: the Enlightenment. Edwards was concerned with people’s spiritual needs above all else, and allowed that to impact his entire life. Franklin emphasized science and practicality over against spiritual matters.

Like most of the colonists, it took time for Franklin to endorse the idea of breaking away from England. His arguments for colonial independence were convincing … to the “Enlightened” mind, but they fail to convince the Biblically minded person.

During the American Revolutionary War, the colonies selected Ben Franklin as their primary ambassador to negotiate a peace treaty with England. He already possessed world renown because of his mastery over lightning as a direct result of his various experiments, culminating in the lightning rod. Benjamin was comfortable with European culture and politics because of his extravagant travels (he spent over 15 years in England and France). It came as no surprise to discover that Franklin was the only ambassador to remain during the entire negotiating process. The reader has surely spotted my cynicism of the colonists’ rebellion, but after it began, I have to admit that Franklin played an essential role in talks of a treaty. Surely, without him, the war would have lasted considerably longer.

Franklin’s great successes were the fruition of his very capable social skills, especially persuasion. He was a social butterfly, and used these social tendencies to his advantage.

Whereas he greatly lacked in oratory skill, he made up for in the cleverness of his writings. In a scientific spoof he made to the Royal Academy of Burssels, he humorously suggests studying the cause and cure for farting: “It is universally well known that in digesting our common food, there is created or produced in the bowels of human creatures a great quantity of wind. That the permitting this air to escape and mix with the atmosphere is usually offensive to the company from the fetid smell that accompanies it. That all well-bred people therefore, to avoid giving such offense, forcibly restrain the efforts of nature, it not only gives frequently great present pain, but occasions future diseases... Were it not for the odiously offensive smell accompanying such escapes, polite people would probably be under no more restraint in discharging such wind in company than they are in spitting or in blowing their noses. My Prize Question therefore should be, To discover some drug wholesome and not disagreeable, to be mixed with our common food or sauces, that shall render the natural discharges of wind from our bodies, not only inoffensive, but agreeable as perfumes.” (Isaacson, 373).

As inspiring as the discussion on farting is, I have yet to present my favorite line of Franklin’s: “Another time, he was playing [chess] with his equal, the Duchess of Bourbon, who made a move that inadvertently exposed her king. Ignoring the rules of the game, he promptly captured it. “Ah,” said the duchess, “we do not take Kings so.” Replied Franklin in a famous quip: “We do in America.”” (Isaacson, 372).

Anyone with a strong interest in the Enlightenment or the American Revolutionary War would profit from reading Isaacson’s Benjamin Franklin: An American Life.

Permit me to conclude with one last scene, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, no less: “At the official signing of the parchment copy on August 2, John Hancock, the president of the Congress, penned his name with his famous flourish. “There must be no pulling different ways,” he declared. “We must all hang together.” According to the early American historian Jared Sparks, Franklin replied: “Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” (Isaacson, 313).

Rusty

One of THOSE emails

2007-03-07T07:00:00.000-07:00

Quite surprised, was I, to be “tagged” into these humorous lists. The reader can count on me not to disappoint.

"If I can get the Rusted One to put down his Venti Cinnamon Dolce Latte for a minute, I will tag him."

In turn, I cheerfully tag: js4jc, Prince Cor, Jayj and Judge Roberts. Mwuahahaha

1. What is your occupation?
Office Manager for American Family Insurance; Supervisor at Starbucks Coffee Company; Part Time Student at ASU

2. What color are your socks right now?
White/Gray

3. What are you listening to right now?
Silence, haha

4. What was the last thing that you ate?
The breakfast of champions: a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, a nutrigrain bar (cinnamon flavored), and a glass of apple juice

5. Can you drive a stick shift?
Yea baby!

6. When is your birthday, and how old will you be on that day, this year?
Oct 16, Twenty Five

7. Last person you spoke to on the phone?
My mom. Awww, how cute

8. Do you like the person who sent this to you?
Not in the slightest. (kidding!)

9. How many states have you lived in?
Two – AZ and CA (do forgive me for this crime)

10. Favorite Drink?
Iced Double Venti Non-Fat Light Ice Tazo Chai Tea Latte from Starbucks. Coca-Cola Classic is second.

11. What is your favorite sport to watch?
Football

12. Have you ever dyed your hair?
I’ve had it “frosted.” Does that count?

13. Pets?
Nah. But I’d like a dog once I get married.

14. Favorite Food?
Mexican – Serrano’s

15. What was the last movie you watched?
National Treasure

16. Favorite day of the year?
Christmas

17. What do you do to vent anger?
Talk out loud, walk, pray, talk to a friend

18. What was your favorite toy as a child?
GI Joes (the American hero)

19. What is your favorite season?
Winter ‘cause I adore Christmas. Right Hobs? =)

20. Hugs or kisses?
Who’s doing the hugging and the kissing? =)

21. Cherries or blueberries?
I love the sweetened cherries they put in sodas. If they’re normal cherries, then I’d side with blueberries.

22. Do you want your friends to e-mail you back?
LOL

23. Who is most likely to respond?
Your mom

24. Who is least likely to respond?
Mike Porter

25. Living arrangements?
Apartment, gotta luv the Bachelor pad!

26. When was the last time you cried?
Probably in December.

27. What is on the floor of your closet?
Clothes hamper, and clothes that missed the hamper, which is why I will NOT be making my career in the NBA

28. Who is the friend you have had the longest that you are sending this to?
Hmm, Probably JJ Brenner.

29. What did you do last night?
Went to the grocery store, visited with my mom who is recovering from surgery, read at Bucks, finished going through The God Who Justifies with my youngest bro, hung out with Cory and Scott at my apartment, watched an episode of Smallville, read some more, went to bed.

30. Favorite smells?
Christmas trees

31. What inspires you?
Godly men, good books

32. What are you afraid of?
Heights

33. Plain, cheese, or spicy hamburgers?
Cheese!!!

34. Favorite dog breed?
Cocker Spaniels

35. Number?
3773

36. How many years at your current job?
Six, One

37. Favorite day of the week?
The Lord’s Day

38. Where would you like to retire?
Dunno if I will retire. If so, Gilbert, AZ

39. Favorite Movie?
Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith

40. Ever driven a Motorcycle or heavy machinery?
Yup

41. What are your plans for today?
Work, dinner, church, Bucks (read), chillax at home

42. Are you actually going to answer all these and send them back to the person who sent them to you?
No, but she will see them on my blog!

Okay, now it's your turn. If you don't send these back, Joel Osteen will move into your basement and smile at you every time you go down there to do laundry. It's true, it happened to my cousin's sister-in-law's best friend's uncle. He's now blind and suffering from really bad theology. Poor guy.

:-)

We all worship the same GOD

2007-02-20T03:17:00.001-07:00

I read the page on Mormonism that you have on your web site. First of all let me compliment you on your time and effort to share your beleifs and comments on the LDS Church. I'm sure you receive many e-mails from Latter-Day Saints often on your site. When i was 16 years old i received Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I remember that day and how much it changed me. I was a senior in high school when two missionaries came knocking at my door, they gave me a Book of Mormon and asked me to pray about the talk they gave me. I did just as they asked me. For two years on and off i studied the LDS faith and Prophet Joseph Smith. I read good and bad subjects on the church, but mostly on the 14 year old boy Joseph Smith who found the church. Sometimes it makes me sad to know people who bash The Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint. This is a free country where people are free to express their feelings, but it makes me wonder if they really speak from their hearts or if they just speak out of hatred. I have never felt the spirit in anyother church than i have in the LDS chuch. I do beleive in the chuch i feel so strongly about it. I've grown so much, and i am in love with every little thing about it. What i am trying to say to you is everyone is different. Everyone has thier beleifs. In the end we all worship the same GOD. Different people grow in defferent churches. We are all Heavenly Fathers children, and he loves all of us just the same. It dousn't matter if we are Catholic, Jewish or even people who don't believe in him. I have been open to many different churches, and to be completely honest the nondenominational chuches are the most judge mentel people i have ever met. They teach that they are the onlyones who will go to heaven. We teach even if your not LDS you will oneday be with heavenly father. That is the reason we have the temple. Thank you for your time, and i hope you will be open to my letter and different religions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Stephanie,

Thank you very much for writing your thoughtful letter. I wanted to begin by saying that I am in complete agreement with you that each individual believes as he chooses. I also am thankful that you recognize the difference between those who speak out of love and those who speak out of hate. I want to be up front about the fact that while I very much disagree with the teachings of the LDS faith, I do not hate the Mormon people. In fact, it is because of my great love for you all (Latter-day Saints), that I desire greatly to proclaim the message of my God and my Gospel.

You said, "In the end we all worship the same GOD."

I do not believe that all people worship the same god. In fact, the god that I worship is not the god of the Mormon faith. For example, I believe in what is called Absolute Monotheism: the belief that only one true god exists. Mormons believe that many true gods exist; even that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three separate beings, and three gods. This is called polytheism.

Why is this important? If you would, read through John 8. To quickly catch us up, the Pharisees bring to Jesus a woman they caught committing adultery. He challenges the authority of the Pharisees which they then use to question Christ's authority. In verse 13 the Pharisees challenge Christ by declaring: "You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true" (NASB). Jesus then responds by saying that He testifies about himself, and the Father, who sent him, also testifies of him. After asking where Jesus' father was, Jesus replied: "You know neither Me nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also." Jesus continues: "I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come." It is Jesus' next statements in verses 23-24 that brings me to my point: "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

Jesus told the Pharisees that they will die in their sins, unless they believe that "I am he." You probably noticed that the word "he" is italicized in your translation. The reason it has an italics font is because "he" is not in the Greek copies that the New Testament is translated from. ego eimi, or "I am" is actually a claim of divinity. I would now like to provide some background info to establish this. Bear with me =). The Old Testament that Jesus and the rest of the Jews had in the first century was a Greek translation of the Hebrew called the Septuagint. Interestingly enough, what we find in the Septuagint's rendering of Exodus 3:14 and Isaiah 43:10 (both key passages in describing God) is the same Greek phrase for "I am" that Jesus says in John 8:24. In Exodus 3:14, God describes Himself as "I AM that I AM" ... which was how Moses was to describe God to Pharaoh. In Isaiah 43:10, another important text where God declares that He is the only true god in existence, we find the phrase "I AM." It is with this rich background in mind that Jesus describes Himself in John 8, and throughout the rest of John's Gospel. In John 8:58-59 Jesus calls himself "I am," and the Jews picked up stones to throw at him! In John 18, Jesus' referring to himself as "I am" results in the Jews falling down to the ground!

Scurrying back to our text in John 8:24 where Jesus refers to himself as the "I am," you will notice that Jesus' states that a rejection of his divinity results in dying in your sins. Therefore to reject Jesus as he truly is is to remain dead in your sins. It is my belief that the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus taught in the Bible, and is therefore a false Jesus. This means that a belief in the Jesus taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints results in one remaining in one's sins. This is why I am so passionate about preaching my Jesus to the Mormon people, because I desire that they, and you, turn from the Jesus taught by the Mormon Church to the Jesus of Scripture.

Having said all that, I would be honored to have a pleasant and kind discussion with you. Might I suggest a first topic: how many true gods exist? I should briefly state that while I do believe in only one true god, I also believe that His one Being is shared by three co-equal and co-eternal Persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (this is what we call the doctrine of the Trinity. And I would love to discuss the Trinity, but after establishing how many true gods are in existence).

Thank you for your email. I hope this was beneficial, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Casey Ryan
AOMin

Oneness Pentecostalism

2007-02-18T04:24:00.001-07:00

Dear Friend I have read many of your books and heard you at conferences, have appreciated your ministry. I especially enjoyed your book on the Trinity. My question is-what do we say about folks like T.D. Jakes, Phillips C & G., Jesus Only people, etc. Can a person truly be a saved person (Like Jakes) who denies the Trinity? Isn't the whole foundation of salvation destroyed by this? Is it simply ignorance on their part God will overlook? Is it in the same class as the Jehovah's Witnesses? Thanks. Doyle.
------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Doyle,

To deny the Trinity is to deny the God of the Bible. When Jesus claimed divinity, it was always a claim of who He actually is, and not to the exclusion of the Father and Holy Spirit as co-equal and co-eternal divine Persons. Throughout John 8, where Jesus claims his own divinity (Consider the "I AM" statements in John 8:24, 8:58, 13:19, 18:6 with Exodus 3:14, and Isaiah 43:10), we see Jesus addressing the Father as a distinct, divine Person. Claiming that Jesus is divine isn't enough. One must believe in Jesus as He truly is: the second Person of the Trinity.

Jehovah's Witnesses deny the Trinity from a different angle by believing Jesus is indeed a god, but not Jehovah.

If you haven't already, you would be greatly benefited from reading Dr. White's The Forgotten Trinity. It is a personal favorite of mine, and have read it at least four times over the years =). For further information, I also recommend Robert Reymond's A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, specifically his section on the Trinity. It is excellent.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

In Christ,
Casey Ryan
AOMin

The choicest gift of God to man, the gift of reason

2007-02-14T16:49:00.001-07:00

At least, Thomas Paine thinks so. Having read Common Sense and Rights of Man, I figured that I might as well finish reading his other major work: The Age of Reason. Unfortunately for me, TAOR contains all of Mr. Paine’s arguments against organized religion, specifically the three monotheistic religions of the world: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Paine had a background with the Quakers, and it is for this reason that I believe he attacks Protestantism and Roman Catholicism with great energy. It would be an understatement to say that Thomas Paine detests Christianity. No, he hates it with all of his being.

Here is the author’s profession of faith: “I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavouring to make our fellow creatures happy. But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them. I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit” (Paine. Pgs. 3-4).

Okay, so there is one god. But what do we know about this God? Weeell, that’s where Paine gets a little fuzzy. You see, God is incapable of communicating an unchangeable message to human beings through language, whether spoken or written, because human language is always evolving.

“But some perhaps will say-Are we to have no word of God-no revelation? I answer yes. There is a Word of God; there is a revelation. The Word of God is the creation we behold: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man. Human language is local and changeable, and is therefore incapable of being used as the means of unchangeable and universal information. The idea that God sent Jesus Christ to publish, as they say, the glad tidings to all nations, from one end of the earth unto the other, is consistent only with the ignorance of those who know nothing of the extent of the world, and who believed, as those world saviours believed, and continued to believe for several centuries, (and that in contradiction to the discoveries of philosophers and the experience of navigators,) that the earth was flat like a trencher; and that a man might walk to the end of it.” (Paine. Pg. 33. Bold Emphasis Mine).

Particularly enjoyable was the latter part of his statement where he compares those who believe in the message of Jesus Christ with those who believe the world is flat. This brings out an interesting point that I see time and time again in the writings of Enlightenment Thinkers: if you don’t agree with them, with modern thinking, and with the science of the day, you are living in the Dark Ages. If you aren’t Enlightened, you are Darkened. How ironic that both Paine and Christians believe each other’s worldview is backwards and “reverse” in their reasoning.

Up to this point in the book, there has been no argument or piece of information I have not heard before by liberal professors or in the media. This means that secularists have not changed their arguments one bit.

In this hefty citation, Paine tells us how Christianity was formed:

“It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the story of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of some of their gods. It was not a new thing at that time to believe a man to have been celestially begotten; the intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, and cohabited with hundreds; the story therefore had nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, or mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. The Jews, who had kept strictly to the belief of one God, and no more, and who had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited the story. It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian Church, sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousand. The statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus. The deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints. The Mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian Mythologists had saints for everything. The church became as crowded with the one, as the pantheon had been with the other; and Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud” (Paine Pg 8-9. Bold Emphasis Mine).

No one (except for the modern Roman Church) denies that the Roman Catholic Church adopted various forms of paganism to its strange system of beliefs, but is it fair to apply this to non-Romanists? Have you begun to notice what Paine’s arguments are seriously lacking? Evidence. He is devoid of evidence. He has placed many presuppositions out on the table, but he has not substantiated one.

What was most fascinating about TAOR thus far is how much of these arguments I have heard before. I could have sworn the next selections were my ASU history professors back at it:

“When the church mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find, and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and the New Testament, are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them; pr whether they added, altered, abridged, or dressed them up. Be this as it may, they decided by vote which of the books out of the collection they had made, should be the Word of God, and which should not” (Paine 19).

Okay, I just can’t go on. If you’ve stuck with me this long, I congratulate you! Well done, for you have put up with a whole lot of Darkened Thinking … see, two can play at this game =).

It seems to me that the secular and anti-Christian arguments of Thomas Paine have won out in Western society. From Paine’s perspective, human reason is the highest authority. Man is his own supreme authority. This is the logical outworking of his worldview.

I’ll post another update once I’ve finished with this horrendously bad series of indefensible arguments.

Thanks mucho,
Rusty

Resources for Defending the Bible's Accuracy

2007-02-14T14:21:00.001-07:00

I responded to an AOMin email that I know some of you would enjoy.

I have a question. Can you please point me to articles that suggest the bible is 99.9% accurate. I am currently in an email conversation with a mormon who claims that this statement is false. He claims apologists and not textual scholars have claimed the bible is 99.9% accurate. I did some research and it seems i find more articles that the bible is not 99.9% accurate. I am an evangelical christian and i do believe the bible is trust worthy and need to convince my mormon friend. Again, please tell me the bible is 99.9% accurate despite the claims of Metzger and his scholar friends. Please help with this. Thanks Dean

------------------------------------------------------

Hello Dean,

You are correct that the Bible has been safely transmitted to us. We also have many accurate and excellent English translations of the Bible: NASB, ESV, NIV, and the NKJV to name a few.

There are relatively few passages in the Bible that we lack complete confidence in, however, we do have all the possibilities of what these passages could be. In fact, in these places where we are left with a few choices, most Bibles have footnotes to provide the Christian with this information.

I’m not aware of any Internet articles, but I would strongly recommend two of Dr. White’s books: The King James Only Controversy and Scripture Alone. Both works contain a discussion of how the Bible was transmitted and translated. You should find them very helpful. Bruce Metzger (who would in fact agree that the Bible is “accurate”) also has some wonderful works on the subject – specifically on the New Testament. If you need even more information, get a copy of the Nestle Aland 27th Edition of the Greek New Testament (NA27), which contains an extensive textual apparatus. The NA27 lists the various choices we have for debated passages, and rates the confidence of each choice. It even lists the major sources containing various renderings of the text. Finally, AOMin's webcast, "The Dividing Line," has started a series on Textual Criticism that you would benefit from.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

In the saving work of Christ,
Casey Ryan
AOMin

The Long Expected Date

2007-02-01T07:00:00.000-07:00

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#article:9452

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows will be released on July 21st.

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!

There is so much to look forward to in July. First the OOTP July 13, then the conclusion of the book series on the 21st.

If I was any better I couldn't stand it.

Rusty

What's New in the Life of the Rusted One?

2007-01-23T07:01:00.000-07:00

What’s new in the life of the Rusted One? Here’s the summarized version: school started back up, I got a promotion at Starbucks, I will probably start new training at AmFam, still workin for AOMin, teaching the junior high class at church, and I decided to start swing dancing again! I’m still looking for a wife, getting ready for the OOTP and Relient K’s new album.

Yes, it is true, I am now a Shift Supervisor for the Starbucks Coffee Corporation. I’m finished with training and have run one successful shift. I’m surprised by how much responsibility they’ve given me. I run the store when I’m a Shift which is way exciting. My store has great Baristas, so it is super easy to do my job.

I had a rough rough practice shift: computers were down for two hours straight, someone called in sick, one person was late during which time we got crazy busy, I had to go to another Store to pick up product, and I stayed an hour late. Noooot the best first experience =). But that is not a normal shift, so yay for that.

While I’m in school I want to continue progressing, and make a possible career move by continuing training at American Family Insurance. Stay tuned for updates.

My junior high class at church is now in chapter 2 of Romans, and we are movin right along. They are comprehending the material which is rewarding for me to see. I love those kids so much.

Swing dancing. I haven’t gone yet, but I am planning on it. I love it. But I do need some major practice before I step one foot on that dance floor. I’m hoping Heather might be willing to spend some time with me =)

Yes, still looking for a wife. If I know you well, feel free to keep an eye open for me.

OOTP comes on July 13th. Uber excited about that one. I’m gonna reread the series before it comes out.

Finally, Relient K’s new album comes out in March, which I’m sure will r0x0rz. Relient K is officially my favorite band of all time.

That’s it for now.

Casey of Basey

The Mercy of God

2007-01-23T07:00:00.000-07:00

Deuteronomy 4:31, “For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which he confirmed to them by oath.” (NASB).

God has been merciful, He is merciful, and He will continue to be merciful. The mercy of God has been a theme in my life in recent weeks. On more than one occasion, this has been the topic of conversation amongst friends.

Just last night I was talking on the phone with a dear brother, Eli. We were reminiscing over the years that we’ve known each other when he paused and said, “You know, God sure has been good to us, Case. Think of what He has brought us through. He has spared us from so many things. He has protected us and kept us firm in the faith.”

This is so true for me especially over the past 4-5 years. But through it all, through all the changes in life, God has remained faithful. The Potter has molded me as He saw fit, and I am able to marvel at his perfect plan.

CoB

Thanks to this Bill I Deserve a Raise =)

2007-01-10T07:00:00.000-07:00

“Tackling a top priority, House Democrats pushed a $2.10 an hour increase in the federal minimum wage toward passage Wednesday, calling it only a partial restoration of purchasing power for America's lowest-paid workers.

As their second bill since taking control of Congress, the Democratic-written legislation would raise the federal wage floor from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour in three steps over 26 months. The federal wage hasn't budged for 10 years.” (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242742,00.html)

Democrats took control of Congress and said they would raise the national Minimum Wage. Welp, they are doing just that! I guess they can be said to keep their word … at least in this case? (Hey, I’ve got to say SOMETHING nice about the Dems. Right?) It boggles my mind why people continue to live in this fantasy world that by raising the minimum wage, America’s economy will suddenly come to life? Let’s think this through: the minimum wage is raised $2.10/hr. While this may help the nation’s 16-year-olds, how does this help the economy? This sudden boost in the minimum wage means that everyone earning more than minimum wage is now earning a lesser value.

What is the motivation in upping the minimum wage in the first place? Liberals argue that they want to “help the working class of America!” Well la-dee-freakin-da! Sure sounds nice doesn’t it? And it would be nice if they were actually helping the working class of America. But are teenagers really America’s working class? And another thing: aren’t minimum wage jobs supposed to be jobs when one first starts out. Minimum wage jobs (bagging groceries, etc) are meant to be a transition job, aren’t they?

Democrats act like they are saving America when in reality they are hurting our economy. Once this bill goes into effect, I would actually expect a raise at both of my jobs. Why? Because I don’t work at minimum wage jobs, and therefore my wage needs to increase to counterbalance the increase in minimum wage work. Inflation inflation inflation!

I’ve got a question for anyone more familiar with economics: how long will it take for our economy to properly adjust to this drastic raise in minimum wage?

The conservative in me wants to smack the Democrats upside the head for this bad idea. Why not let businesses determine their employees’ pay? Demand and competition do work, ya know?
Anywho, let’s pray our economy doesn’t get too messed up.

Some sad news to report

2007-01-04T07:00:00.000-07:00

EmergentNo informed me of some very sad news today: a few ECM leaders are having a conference with TD Jakes. Among the ECers is Mark Driscoll. I pray that our God grants repentance unto Pastor Driscoll to turn away from the ECM and from cooperating with anti-Trinitarians.

Happy Freakin New Year!

2007-01-02T07:00:00.000-07:00

*innocent grin*

On New Year’s Eve, my church replaced our evening worship service with our New Year’s Eve celebration. As always, it was an amazing time of fellowship, food, singing, prayer and a brief message. Pastor Fry’s sermon was refreshing. He taught from one of my favorite passages of Scripture: Romans 8:28-39,

“28And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. 31What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; 34who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 35Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36Just as it is written,"FOR YOUR SAKE WE ARE BEING PUT TO DEATH ALL DAY LONG; WE WERE CONSIDERED AS SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED." 37But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (NASB).

This passage has been a favorite for the Saints of God down through the history of the church, and for good reason! O how marvelous are these words! O what comfort they bring! I cannot recall how many times the Holy Spirit has used these words to assist me in my time of difficulty. I was so very pleased when my pastor began preaching from this section in Romans.

Beginning with verse 28, Pastor Fry reminded me that everything that happens in life happens at the predestinated purpose of the almighty Lord of heaven and earth. Then there’s the Golden Chain of Redemption, found in verses 29-30 – those choice words that cause every believer to rejoice. But what really struck me were Paul’s words in verse 31: “What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?” Pastor Fry brought out that we have many enemies in this world: the Devil, and an unending number of unregenerate men. But you know what, none of that matters because the all-powerful God of the universe is for us. He is more powerful than our adversaries.

Whenever the Lord brings trials into your life, whether in the form of difficulty, or opposition to the gospel of Christ, be comforted because God is bigger and stronger than all things. More than that, He has good intentions for His children.

Paul was convinced that nothing can separate us from God’s love. And that matters above all else. I praise God for this! He is merciful upon those who deserve to face His wrath. As my dear friend, Simon Escobedo, so often prays, “Thank thee, Lord, for making us trophies of your grace.” Amen. Thank you, Lord.

After Pastor Fry’s sermonette (shorter sermon), we spent some time in prayer, singing and sharing words of testimony. As I looked around the room, I realized that I knew every person by name. Many of those I knew very well, and have had many laughs with. I was surrounded by people who have had a great impact on my walk with God. Two men who shared brought me to tears. The first was Rich Pierce, President of Alpha and Omega Ministries. He expressed his thanksgiving to God for providing new facilities for AOMin. Even though the facilities have a long way to go before they are fully refurbished, he is thankful nonetheless. The second was by our Deacon, Jim Broyles. He expressed God’s faithfulness to him and his wife as they had a full-term still-born child this past year. I cannot tell you how I encouraged I have been to see a man who lost a son stand before the people of God and thank God for His faithfulness through it all!

I left with a renewed wonder towards the grace of Christ, and with the resolve to increase in my sanctification in 2007.
Rusty

The Gospel is Such Good News

2006-12-22T07:00:00.000-07:00

The Lord blessed me today with the opportunity to explain the gospel, at length, with one of my partners (co-workers) from Starbucks. We planned out a time to meet up and discuss (1) God, (2) the sinfulness of man, and (3) how sinners can have a right relationship with God. We were able to discuss the triunity of God, God's sovereign rulership over His creation, and right to do as He pleases (among many other things). I pounded home the deadness of man in sin, and were we all to receive justice would face death, judgment, and the flames of Hell for eternity. When I began making the transition to the purpose in the Messiah's coming, it really hit home how good the good news of the gospel is. I found myself tearing up at moments because I was amazed at the goodness of God in providing such a remarkable salvation. When we finished I exhorted my friend to examine herself and cry out to God for mercy.

She and I will be starting an on-going Bible study going over various Biblical topics and themes, starting with the basics: the Trinity, Justification by Faith Alone, personal holiness, evangelism, and other such topics.

If you have a moment, pray that God might grant to her faith and repentance unto life.

Questions relating to predestination

2006-12-20T07:00:00.000-07:00

***The following is my response to an email I received through AOMin.

Hello Jennifer,

It sounds like you're asking three different questions: (1) Does the Bible teach that God fore-ordained to save a certain group of people? (2) Does God desire to save all men? (3) If God fore-ordained all those He would save, why preach the gospel?

Each of these are excellent questions.

Does the Bible teach that God fore-ordained to save a certain group of people? Yes, it does. Ephesians 1:3-15, "³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, ⁴ just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love ⁵ He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, ⁶ to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. ⁷ In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace ⁸ which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight ⁹ He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him ¹⁰ with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him ¹¹ also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, ¹² to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. ¹³ In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, ¹⁴ who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory. ¹⁵ For this reason I too, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which exists among you and your love for all the saints," (NASB)

In verse 3 Paul informs us that God blessed "us" with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ. Verse 4 explains that God chose the same "us" before the foundation of the world. Then in verse 5 we see that God predestined this same "us" to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ. If you follow the pronouns you discover that the "us" and "you" are referring to the same group of people throughout: God's elect people.

Your next question: Does God desire to save all men? I believe that God desires that all men repent from their sins, that is, that God demands that all men everywhere should obey His Law (Acts 17:30-31). I also believe that God desires to deliver only His elect people from their sins (2 Peter 3:1-9 - God is patient toward "you" which refers only to believers). This means that God desires the end-result of His own fore-ordained will. Reformed theologians describe this as the "two wills of God."

Finally, If God fore-ordained all those He would save, why preach the gospel? The foremost reason Christians preach the gospel is because we are commanded to preach the gospel (Matthew 28:18-20). Secondly, God has not only predestined the ends, but also the means to accomplish those ends. So just as God has determined to save some underserving sinners, He also determined to save those sinners through the proclamation of the gospel (Romans 10:14-15).

Please let me know if you have any other questions.

In Christ,

Casey Ryan

AOMin

"It's a beaut Clark, it's a beaut!"

2006-12-18T07:00:00.000-07:00

If you didn't know, the title of this entry is a famous quote from National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation.

"Chains shall He break for the slave is our brother, and in His name all oppression shall cease. Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we, let all within us praise His holy name. Christ is the Lord! Then ever, ever praise we. Noel, Noel. O Night Divine."

This is my favorite time of year. I love everything about it - the music, the food, the lights, the gifts, spending time with family and friends. Our Christmas tree is up (now fully lit up, and with a star). I plan on putting up a few more strands of lights, though probably not until Wednesday.

To say that Starbucks is busy is the understatement of the year =). But it's fun. I have had more eggnog in the past few weeks than I have in my whole life combined thanks to Starbucks, lol.

Amy Grant is my favorite Christmas singing artist, hands down. Next is Vince Vaughn's Charlie Brown. Then Alvin and the Chipmunks =).

Above all, I enjoy celebrating the birth of the God the Son. It really does thrill my heart to think on the purpose of why the second Person of the Trinity came to earth. Christ, the God-Man came to save His people from their sins. I rejoice at the thought.

On a different note, Eragon was a great movie. The graphics were so-so. Overall, the acting was wonderful. The story though was truly fantastic. I wanna read the books. I also heard the Pursuit of Happiness was awesome. I wanna see that and The History Boys, The Holiday, and The Good Shepherd. So many movies!!!

Finally, I am having a Christmas party this Saturday at my apartment, 6pm. Let me know if you wanna come. Please call my cell to rsvp ya'll.

Case of Base

Response to Isaac

2006-12-14T07:00:00.000-07:00

The following is a response to Isaac's comment on the previous entry.

Hello Isaac,

You said, “I agree that pursuing holiness is far more important than pursuing relevance, but does one have to come at the expense of the other?”

No, one does not have to pursue holiness at the expense of being relevant. In fact, I believe that one becomes more relevant to the world as one increases in holiness. The problem John MacArthur and I have is not that we believe the Emergent Church Movement (ECM) over-emphasizes being relevant, but rather in how Emergents define “relevant.” The ECM proposes that the church adapt to the ever-emerging culture by incorporating the world’s culture so as to attract the unregenerate. In so doing, they argue that only then can the Church be truly relevant to the unbelieving world. I firmly disagree. I believe that the stylistic preferences of each local church should be decided by the elders of that church for the purpose of benefiting the Christians who attend.

For example, if Local Church A decides to sing hymns, that would be perfectly fine. Let’s say that Local Church B church decides to sing more contemporary styles with songs that strongly reinforce Biblical teaching. Again, perfectly fine. Neither of these churches is more likely than the other to attract unbelievers to the point of true conversion. The Holy Spirit doesn’t only save sinners who sing along with contemporary-style songs. But the ECM would have us believe that Local Church B is more likely to convert the unregenerate, and even they are not as “cool” as they should be. It’s almost as if the ECM forgets that God is sovereign over salvation by acting as though certain stylistic preferences might help convert a dead sinner.

So what does Biblical relevance look like? How does one effectively reach our sinful world? The Apostle Paul answers this for us in 1 Corinthians 1:21, “21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.”

God is not pleased to save sinners through the world’s wisdom. God saves sinners through the foolishness of the message preached. O how foolish preaching seems to those who are perishing, but to God’s elect it is an amazing thing. Therefore, if a believer in Jesus Christ desires to truly be relevant to our dying world, he needs to uncompromisingly proclaim the gospel. There is no need to doctor it up with flashy styles, or with lame attempts to look cool. God saves, and He saves perfectly. All we must do is faithfully proclaim the gospel, or as Paul said, “1And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, 4and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 2:1-5).

You said, “I've seen several examples of churches this year that take both righteousness and relevance very seriously, Rock Harbor in Costa Mesa, and Ecclesia in Los Angeles, to be specific.”

I cannot comment on either of these churches because I’ve never heard of them =).

You continued, “Both of these churches take the truth of the Bible and doctrine very seriously, while also being engaged in modern culture and having a reasonable understanding of the world outside of the church walls.”

What did you mean by: “…being engaged in modern culture and having a reasonable understanding of the world outside of the church walls” ? If you mean that you adapt the stylistic preferences of the local church to match the styles of worldly culture, I obviously disagree. Also, one can be well aware of the world’s culture without becoming a part of the sinful aspects of that culture. But the goal of the Christian is not to become an expert on worldly culture. His goal, with regards to evangelism, should be to clearly preach the gospel to those who are a part of worldly culture.

You said, “I agree that being 'cool' is a silly goal for the church. I cringe whenever I hear about the "awesome rock concert style services" or "multi-media presentations" at churches.”

Good to hear =). However, I believe the reason Mark Driscoll and other Emergent Church leaders are concerned with being “cool” in the eyes of the world, is a result of the Emergent philosophy that the local church needs to adopt worldly culture.

You continued, “It's not that the inclusion of these particular devices automatically means that truth is being compromised…”

Very true, except if you count the belief (incorporating the world’s culture) that led them to this behavior as a compromise.

You continued, “…but very often they accomplish the opposite of their intended goal and come off as embarrassingly out of touch and straight-up dorky.”

I completely agree with the first part of this statement: “but very often they accomplish the opposite of their intended goal.” In many Emergent Churches, they genuinely desire to see the lost come to know Christ, and that is wonderful. But my pastor has a saying: “What you win folks with is what you win folks to.” In other words, if you use post-modernism and worldliness, you’ve won them to post-modernism and worldliness.

About your second point: “and come off as embarrassingly out of touch and straight-up dorky.” This may be true, but honestly, who cares what the world thinks of you? If they think you’re a dork, so be it. The questions I would ask are: how was the preaching during church? Or: did you clearly preach the gospel to so-and-so?

You said, “It’s ridiculous for the church to try and dress up like modern culture,…”

This is exactly what the ECM movement does, including Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church.

You continued, “…but I think it's important to make an effort to understand the culture and be an active participant in it.”

I disagree. We do not need to participate in worldly culture. We need to preach to those who are involved in worldly culture. This is a monumental difference.

You said, “The point here is to keep the message of the Gospel from automatically being dismissed by a segment of Thai people that value a particular style of grooming.”

This scenario is a matter of preference really. If you want to grow a beard, I think that is acceptable. But let me use another example. Let’s say that there is an African tribe that prefers that you have ear-lobe extensions 3-feet long. Should a missionary do this so he can preach the gospel to these people? I think that would be a bit over the top. My point is that there are boundaries to our interaction with others. One of these boundaries is allowing the elders of a local church to decide which stylistic preferences their church should use that would benefit the believers of that congregation. Another boundary is not engaging in aspects of culture that are sinful. I don’t need to see every R-Rated or PG-13 movie so I can preach the gospel (not that every R-Rated or PG-13 movie is sinful, though some are). I don’t need to know who the coolest bands are. I don’t need to go clubbing so I can be relevant to partying college students. We already have so much in common: we are all born sinners. That puts us on an even playing field. Yes, definitely have an idea of the worldview people have, then present to them the Christian worldview.

You said, “Missionary groups are also quick to warn against forcing newly established churches in foreign countries to automatically engage in western-style worship music.”

We definitely agree here. So long as the songs reinforce Biblical doctrine, styles don’t matter.

You said, “My hope is that emerging churches that have gone overboard with a reactionary response can meet halfway with traditional churches that no longer live on the same planet as the people they’re trying to communicate with.”

My hope is that the ECM repents of incorporating Post-modernism and worldliness into the Church.

You ended by asking, “Can we make it a goal to be righteous and relevant at the same time?”

Christians who are righteous are relevant to the sinful world around them. As stated above, one does not become relevant by adapting to the world’s culture. Be the most relevant by appearing foolish to the world through preaching the message of Christ.

Thanks,
Casey

John MacArthur on the Emerging Church and Mark Driscoll

2006-12-12T07:00:00.000-07:00

It is about time that Pastor John MacArthur spoke up about the Emerging Church Movement and the infamous Mark Driscoll.

“We keep hearing from evangelical strategists and savvy church leaders that Christians need to be more tuned into contemporary culture. You have no doubt heard the arguments: We need to take the message out of the bottle. We can’t minister effectively if don’t speak the language of contemporary counterculture. If we don’t vernacularize the gospel, contextualize the church, and reimagine Christianity for each succeeding generation, how can we possibly reach young people? Above all else, we have got to stay in step with the times.”

I vividly remember hearing these arguments for the very first time. It was a horrifying experience to hear a friend of mine defend the idea that our churches should adopt postmodern so we can be more “relevant” in reaching the lost. Do you remember where you were when first confronted with Emergent arguments? I do. I was sitting at Bucks when I was given my first written work by Driscoll. How ironic that the first Emergent book I read was written by someone on the far end of the conservative spectrum.

“Those arguments have been stressed to the point that many evangelicals now seem to think unstylishness is just about the worst imaginable threat to the expansion of the gospel and the influence of the church. They don’t really care if they are worldly. They just don’t want to be thought uncool.”

Sadly, this is exactly what we see from most who claim to be Emergent. The primary concern is having the appearance of coolness, while the clarity of the gospel comes in second. My criticism is not simply that these priorities be reversed, but that coolness not even be a concern. Besides, as Pastor MacArthur later points out, if the world hates you, remember that they hated Christ first.

“Worldly preachers seem to go out of their way to put their carnal expertise on display—even in their sermons. In the name of connecting with “the culture” they want their people to know they have seen all the latest programs on MTV; familiarized themselves with all the key themes of “South Park”; learned the lyrics to countless tracks of gangsta rap and heavy metal music; and watched who-knows-how-many R-rated movies. They seem to know every fad top to bottom, back to front, and inside out. They’ve adopted both the style and the language of the world—including lavish use of language that used to be deemed inappropriate in polite society, much less in the pulpit. They want to fit right in with the world, and they seem to be making themselves quite comfortable there.

Mark Driscoll is one of the best-known representatives of that kind of thinking. He is a very effective communicator—a bright, witty, clever, funny, insightful, crude, profane, deliberately shocking, in-your-face kind of guy. His soteriology is exactly right, but that only makes his infatuation with the vulgar aspects of contemporary society more disturbing.

Driscoll ministers in Seattle, birthplace of “grunge” music and heart of the ever-changing subculture associated with that movement. Driscoll’s unique style and idiom might aptly be labeled “post-grunge.” His language—even in his sermons—is deliberately crude. He is so well known for using profane language that in Blue Like Jazz (p. 133), Donald Miller (popular author and icon of the “Emerging Church” movement, who speaks of Driscoll with the utmost admiration) nicknamed him “Mark the Cussing Pastor.”

I don’t know what Driscoll’s language is like in private conversation, but I listened to several of his sermons. To be fair, he didn’t use the sort of four-letter expletives most people think of as cuss words—nothing that might get bleeped on broadcast television these days. Still, it would certainly be accurate to describe both his vocabulary and his subject matter at times as tasteless, indecent, crude, and utterly inappropriate for a minister of Christ. In every message I listened to, at least once he veered into territory that ought to be clearly marked off limits for the pulpit.”

It is greatly encouraging to know that I am not alone in my assessment of Mark Driscoll. Right from the off I took a hard stance against his views at a time when he was uber popular, which was not easy. Thankfully, in my circle of friends right now, his popularity is at an all time low =). In fact, I knew that once folks began to realize the kinds of results the ECM produces, they wouldn’t take to it. Having said that, there will always be those who fall prey to a smooth presentation like Driscoll’s. But these folks were already susceptible to other spiritual dangers.

If you carefully read how MacArthur described Driscoll, it is along the same lines of what other incredibly gifted men of God have said: James White, Phil Johnson, Steve Camp and countless others. The only folks who disagree with the above description fall into one of two categories: (1) those who are not familiar with Driscoll’s books and sermons; (2) those who are themselves Emergent/Emerging.

Finally, I’ll end with MacArthur:

“I frankly wonder how any Christian who takes the Bible at face value could ever think that in order to be “culturally relevant” Christians should participate in society’s growing infatuation with vulgarity. Didn’t vulgarity and culture used to be considered polar opposites?”

A Terrible Day Showed Me How Blessed I Am

2006-12-07T07:00:00.000-07:00

Today was the worse day of the semester. I was woken up at 8:56am by my cell phone. Normally I turn my cell on silent so that I’m not disturbed by any calls. But for some odd reason my phone started beeping at me … LOUD. Because this was so unusual I picked it up and saw that I had missed five calls and had two voicemails. The calls were all from Starbucks, so I knew something was wrong. I called my store straight away. The shift supervisor, James, picked up. He kindly explained to me that I was an hour late to work. Immediately I knew what had happened: the night before I stopped by the store to check what time I was working the following day. I read 8-12, and interpreted it to mean 8pm-midnight when in reality it was 8am-noon. Oh boy had I made a careless mistake! It is understandable why I interpreted it the way I did because I never ever work from 8am-noon. I either open or close. It is uber rare for me to work in the AM as a non-opener. Nevertheless, I felt HORRIBLE. As you can imagine, the moment I hung up the phone I was frantically getting dressed (no shower, no shave, no hair – I looked like a mess).

Then it happened. As I was about to walk out the door I noticed that my bathroom was flooded! For a moment (a brief moment) I considered whether I should let the floor get damaged and let the apartment management fix it with a property claim and get to work sooner, OOOR, if I should quickly dry it up and then get to work making myself even later. I decided to quickly dry it up – and now all of our towels are waiting to be washed, oy. I honestly could not believe how my morning was turning out.

So I rushed over to work, sped a little, and made it there fairly quickly.

There was a line from the moment I walked in until about 10:30am, the dishes were overflowing out of the sinks, hardly any of the prep had been done - which means it was a busy morning. Again, I felt terrible. I repeatedly apologized to James, my shift supervisor, and to my fellow Barista, Mike. Both were incredibly gracious towards me. James said up front, “Don’t worry about it bro. Everyone knows you have integrity. We understand that it happens sometimes.” That meant the world to me. I was a little disoriented throughout my shift, but it was doable.

I flew home to clean up my mess in the bathroom before work at American Family. I called my mom to ask if I could be a few minutes late. She could tell I was a little stressed, and offered to give me the afternoon off! I ended up going into AmFam anyways because I hate to miss work.

But the thing I realized today is how blessed I am. God has placed some truly amazing people in my life. Without every one of my partners at Bucks today, and my mom at AmFam, I don’t know how I could have made it. Of course through it all, I knew that this was all a part of God’s foreordained plan. God ordained these difficulties today, and it is for my benefit.

It is turning out to be not such a bad day after all. God has been so merciful to me, a sinner.
Rusty

I've Made a Decision

2006-11-28T07:00:00.000-07:00

Micah has been kind enough to engage me on how well the American Revolution fares in light of the Biblical teaching to submit to governing authorities.

From the outlook, this has been troublesome for me. Why so troublesome? I believe there are two reasons. First, I am overtly patriotic. Second, I have been raised in a post-Enlightenment era in a nation greatly influenced by the Enlightenment which provides a great many liberties won as a byproduct of the Enlightenment (how many times can you use “Enlightenment” in one sentence? =)). What it comes down to is a desire to uphold the American Revolution in a positive light. I have agonized over the possibility that our forefathers might have been hasty in their actions – even wrong. So it has been difficult.

I dismiss outright that the colonists were justified in rebelling because of Britain’s cruelty. After all, Paul penned the words of Romans 13 at a time when Christians were heavily persecuted by the government. People are to submit to all authority because it is God who places leaders over us.

The only argument that even stands a chance for the sake of the revolutionists is that England only had the appearance of governing the colonies, and not any meaningful governing authority.

Colonial America was founded by Europe; primarily Great Britain. Over the course of the 17th and 18th centuries, the colonies grew more and more distant from the “mother country.” England seemed a far off place which had little relevance to them – except to provide egregious taxation. In fact, leading up to the Revolutionary War, most colonists did not consider themselves “Englishmen.” The point is: England wasn’t around. I think a good case can be made to support that the colonists had been self-governed for quite a while.

But then one must consider that it was colonials who committed the first acts of terror against the British. It was the colonials who would not accept the British claim of authority. It was the colonists who declared independence from Britain. I asked myself this question: why would the colonists declare independence if they were already independent? Was it a formality? Or was it a response to the new-found desire of the British Crown to retain the neglected colonies?

I think both are excellent points. Therefore it seems to be a grey area.

Don’t get me wrong, I say this as one who has a deep love for my country. I truly believe that the United States of America is the greatest nation the world has ever seen (other than the nation of Israel under the blessing of the Lord). Our land provides for more freedoms and liberties than any people on earth. America has experienced many mercies from our Lord. I am glad for the way things have turned out.

Even so, I cannot offer my full support for the American Revolution. At best, it is a debatable issue. If you know me well, you know that I tend to side on the conservative side of things – which means that were I alive during the late 18th century, my support for American independence would be iffy.

There you have it. Don’t hate me. I love America. Now that we are independent, I am grateful for such a blessed nation.

Lemme know your thoughts.

Rusty

Even better than the trailer!

2006-11-21T07:01:00.000-07:00

The following is a link to a FOUR MINUTE SPOILER that appeared on HBO.

WARNING: the video does contain many spoilers to the plot. If you have not read the book, you should not be watching this video.

For the rest of us real fans: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/videogallery/video/show/562

Enjoy =)

Rustoleum

Finally, Scholarships for Whites

2006-11-21T07:00:00.000-07:00

Boston University’s College Republicans have done the most brilliant thing I have ever heard of. They are offering a white scholarship. Yes, you heard me right: a scholarship for white people. You must be at least 25% Caucasian to apply for the scholarship.

I can already hear the screeching liberals: “You racist, white-supremacists! How do you get off making a white scholarship?!”

If you didn’t already know, the purpose of the scholarship is not to give whites some new scholarship. The real purpose is to draw attention to how silly it is that there are special privileges for minorities. Shouldn’t scholarships and job hiring be based on ability and not on what ethnicity you are?

“"Did we do this to give a scholarship to white kids? Of course not," the scholarship reads. "Did we do it to trigger a discussion on what we believe to be the morally wrong practice of basing decisions in our schools and our jobs on racial preferences rather than merit? Absolutely."” Click HERE to read the article.

Btw, when Education students discuss why there aren’t white scholarships (oh yes, we have talked about this many times), they are oh-so-easy to accuse conservatives of being racist. “But, minorities just need a helping hand! Whites don’t need any help!” they exclaim. “What minorities need is to be treated like normal people,” I reply. They cannot see that favoring anyone based on ethnicity is wrong – I prefer not to accuse liberals of racism, because I don’t believe they value minorities less than whites.

What’s happened in America is a strong over-reaction against racism. Some of the things we’ve done have actually become bad things … like ethnic scholarships and government mandated equal opportunity laws. Buuuuut, this is a discussion for another time.

Honestly, I don’t believe there is an ounce of racism in my body. Drat. There I go again. Another discussion for another time. Soon perhaps. =)

Rusty

OOTP Teaser

2006-11-20T07:00:00.000-07:00

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/videogallery/video/show/560

July 13th folks. w00t

Case

Name That Heresy

2006-11-18T07:01:00.000-07:00

Me: “Does God exhaustively know the future?”

Nate: “I do not believe that God is ever surprised.”

Me: “So, God exhaustively knows all future events?”

Nate: “He knows all that could ever happen.”

Me: “But does God actually know, with perfect certainty, the future?”

Nate: “I don’t believe the Scriptures are clear enough to give us that answer.”

The announcer walks out to center stage and begins to speak into the microphone, “Iiiiiiiiiiiiiit’s time to play ‘Name that heresy!’”

So, any guesses? Don’t cheat by reading ahead. What common heresy teaches that God is limited in His knowledge of the future?

[Insert the Jeopardy theme HERE]

… … … … … … …

Okay. Time’s up.

The answer: Open Theism.

While working at Bucks this week I ran into an Open Theist pastor I spoke with three years ago. Once I got off the clock, I sat down next to him and we began talking. It wasn’t long until I asked him if he was still an Open Theist. He told me he is. I then offered to set up a time to talk with him again about the Bible’s teaching of God’s exhaustive knowledge of the future, predestination, and the gospel.

It was a fairly decent conversation. He wanted to talk a lot about (worldly) philosophy that he’s studied. What he did not want to do is engage the Scripture when it talks about God’s knowledge of the future – I wonder why =). He repeatedly denied Sola Scriptura by arguing that the Scripture can give more than one true meaning on a given subject. This, then, excuses one from having to deal with this (or any) issue. Like most Open Theists, he is much more charitable to non-Open Theists in that he considers those of us who believe in a meaningful view of predestination are included in the family of God. I, on the other hand, do not include Open Theists in the kingdom of God. The reason being that the god of Open Theism is not the God of the Bible. My God knows the future, exhaustively. Also, without this essential aspect of God’s being, there can be no meaningful view of the atonement.

In the famous Trial of the False Gods, found in Isaiah 40-50, one of the arguments the Lord makes against false gods is that they cannot declare what will happen in the future:

Isaiah 41:22-23, “22 Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; As for the former events, declare what they were, That we may consider them and know their outcome. Or announce to us what is coming; 23 Declare the things that are going to come afterward, That we may know that you are gods; Indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together.” (NASB).

If these gods were able to tell us the future, they would prove their existence as true gods. Failure to proclaim the future would prove them as false gods. I think a strong argument can be made that any true god knows the future – aaand since there is only one true God, He knows the future. Simple, but sweet.

Pray for Nate. Might our Lord be merciful to him and grant to him repentance unto life. Also pray for Nate’s church – a Baptist church. If our Lord so chooses, would He deliver his congregation from this false teacher and his deceptive teachings. The Lord of time can certainly do all this and more, so let us be faithful in our prayers to our all-sovereign King over creation.

Casey

P.S. - I'd still love to hear feedback from the audience about the discussion question in the Thomas Paine entry ... (I know, talk about a guilt trip - gooOSH) =)

First Impressions

2006-11-18T07:00:00.001-07:00

I saw Happy Feet with some buds tonight. My real motivation in seeing the movie was because the Harry Potter OOTP teaser trailer would be playing. The trailer was great. It looks like it'll be the best one, again.

Happy Feet was great. I laughed from beginning to end, even during the semi-serious moments ( once you see it, you'll understand why). Animation was spectacular; truly the best animation done to date. The dancing was contagious. In fact, I could hardly sit still in my seat.

My only criticism of the film was the not-so-hidden agenda that showed up near the end of the movie: humans are evil. Because human beings are the dominant creatures on planet earth, we are inherently bad. The implication was almost: don't cut down trees, don't kill any animals. Just, cease existing. And when you consider the cast for Happy Feet, it is no wonder such an agenda shows its ugly face.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I sincerely laughed for much of the film. It was cute, and filled with clean, genuine humor.

3 out of 5 stars.

Rusty

"These are the times that try men's souls"

2006-11-16T07:01:00.000-07:00

“Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it is right” (Paine. Common Sense. Pg. 7. Bold Emphasis Mine).

I’m currently reading through some of Thomas Paine’s more famous works: Common Sense, various letters following Common Sense, Rights of Man, and selections of his other works.

Common Sense was written during the American Colonial War of Independence. Many have described this work as the spark that ignited the passion for the Colonists. With no formal training, Paine proved himself to be a natural writer. He wrote with passion and inspires the reader to take up arms against the British Crown. I nearly bought myself a musket and marched off to join Washington’s cause for freedom from tyranny =). Paine’s arguments are dripping with Enlightenment ideas but makes some compelling arguments (or maybe they just seem compelling because I’m raised in a post-Enlightenment era?).

“…here too is the design and end of government, viz. freedom and security.” Definitely agree with him here. Paine’s entire argument for breaking away from England is summed up in the belief that the isle of Britain has not and cannot govern the North American continent. The Atlantic Ocean is simply too vast a distance for her to govern. Add to that all of Britain’s abuses against the Colonies, and he’s got some good points. So you have Britain claiming the Americas. But Britain has stripped the colonists of their freedoms and security. The colonists know they can do a better job. Suddenly, you’ve got a war for independence.

Thomas Paine had his share of critics. He responds to arguments of the day:

“But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families; wherefore the assertion, if true, turns to her reproach; but it happens not to be true, or only partly so, and the phrase parent or mother country hath been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our minds. Europe, and no England, is the parent country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still” (Pain. Common Sense. Pg. 24. Bold Mine).

I cannot help but smile when I read this. Such boldness. Such fierceness. Remember that for most American colonists at that time, they had never seen the “mother country,” England. England was a distant land - a place and a people they did not identify with. They did not consider themselves Englishmen, but American colonists. And now, these British “foreigners” were stepping on their rights. It is no wonder the colonists were upset.

If you are interested, Paine is said to have become a Deist near the end of his life (probably closer to the French Revolution), but so much of his writing is filled with references to Christianity. It seems to me that Paine remained a professing Christian man until he was better influenced by the French Enlightenment Thinker, Voltaire.

“Every thing that is right or natural pleads for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, ‘Tis time to part. Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and America, is a strong and natural proof, that the authority of the one, over the other, was never the design of Heaven. The time likewise at which the continent was discovered, adds weight to the argument, and the manner in which it was peopled increases the force of it. The reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety” (Paine. Common Sense. Pg. 27. Bold Emphasis Mine).

Here is a question for my audience: what is your opinion of the American Revolution in light of Romans 13:1-7? I’ll go first. Honestly, this is something that has troubled me for years. ESPECIALLY when you consider that Paul penned those words during a time of fierce persecution for Christians. An Enlightenment Thinker would argue that it was the duty of Christians (and non-Christians) living in the first century to revolt against the Roman government to get rid of tyranny and provide a government that functions as God intends. Ouch, this paragraph is difficult for me to read – and I penned those words! But seriously, how well do the arguments of our nation’s founding fathers hold up to the teaching of Scripture? If it is true that England could not effectively govern the Americas, that might be a point to consider. But then again, I’m just not sure… yet. Lemme know what ya’ll think.

Here again is this very argument:

“As to government matters, it is not in the power of Britain to do this continent justice: The business of it will soon be too weighty, and intricate, to be managed with any tolerable degree of convenience, by a power so distant from us, and so very ignorant of us; for it they cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us. To be always running three or four thousand miles with a tale or a petition, waiting four or five months for an answer, which when obtained requires five or six more to explain it in, will in a few years be looked upon as folly and childishness—There was a time when it was proper, and there is a proper time for it to cease. Small islands not capable of protecting themselves, are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet, and as England and America, with respect to each other, reverses the common order of nature, it is evident they belong to different systems; England to Europe, America to itself” (Paine. Common Sense. Pg. 30-31. Bold Emphasis Mine).

“But where, says some, is the King of America? I’ll tell you. Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony, be demonlished, and scattered among the people whose right it is” (Paine. Common Sense. Pg. 37-38. Bold Emphasis Mine).

I have got to say Amen to that! Monarchy is an effective form of government when the King is just. But we know all too well how quickly the crown can be corrupted. One sinner ought not to be put in such a supreme position. I was utterly caught off guard when Thomas Paine made an extensive argument against monarchy from the Bible, pointing out that it was only because of the jealousy of other nations that Israel demanded a King to rule over them. Democracy is the best form of government for this sinful world.

I will close with an excerpt from a letter Thomas wrote to a British commanding General, General Howe:

“As the blood of the martyrs hath been the seed of the Christian church, so the political persecutions of England will and hath already enriched America with industry, experience, union and importance. Before the present era she was a mere chaos of uncemented Colonies, individually exposed to the ravages of the Indians and the invasion of any power that Britain should be at war with. She had nothing she could call her own. Her felicity depended upon accident. The convulsions of Europe might have thrown her from one conqueror to another, till she had been the slave of all and ruined by every one; for until she had spirit enough to become her own master, there was no knowing to which master she should belong. That period, thank God, is past, and she is no longer the dependant, disunited Colonies of Britain, but the independent and United States of America, knowing no master but Heaven and herself. You or your king may call this “Delusion,” “Rebellion,” or what name you please. To us it is perfectly indifferent. The issue will determine the character and time will give it a name as lasting as his own” (Paine. Letter to General Howe March 21, 1778. Pg. 105-106. Bold Emphasis Mine).

What’s done is done. I am glad we are a nation filled with many freedoms. Indeed, we are the most free nation the world has ever known. My prayer is that God continues to be gracious to our land in granting to us such liberty.

I love America,
Rusty

For Those Who Need Encouragement

2006-11-16T07:00:00.001-07:00

I was listening to this song and thought that some of my readers could use some encouragement.

The pathway is broken
And the signs are unclear
And I dont know the reason
why you brought me here
But just because You love me
the way that You do
I will walk through the valley
If You want me to

Now I'm not who I was
When I took my first step
And I'm clinging to the promise
You're not through with me yet
So if all of these trials
bring me closer to You
I will go through the fire
If You want me to

It may not be the way
I would have chosen
When you lead me through a world
that's not my own
But You never said it would be easy
You only said I'll never go alone

So when the whole world turns against me
And I'm all by myself
And I can't hear You answer
my cries for help
I'll remember the suffering
Your love put You through
And I will go through the valley
If You want me to

How to have a conversation

2006-11-04T07:01:00.000-07:00

Tonight I was nudged (err, pulled) into a conversation about Calvinism with some Arminians. Now, this should have been an hour conversation, but I only had five minutes (‘cause I was on a 10 minute break). So naturally I did my best to give direction to the conversation with the little time I had.

Over the years, I have had, oh I don’t know, hundreds upon hundreds of conversations with all kinds of people. I’ve talked with unbelievers and believers of every flavor in too many contexts to count. The single greatest thing I have learned is how to have a productive conversation with someone with whom you disagree. The second greatest thing I have learned is that most people don’t know how to have a productive conversation.

What not to do: (1) get emotional, (2) be illogical, (3) be mean, (4) jump from topic to topic, (5) talk and never listen.

It took me years and years and years to learn how a good conversation might be possible. I like to start every conversation by giving myself and my opponent a chance to explain our positions – without presenting any arguments. This is essential. You and your opponent must understand each other’s views before you can begin to meaningfully interact. Then, and only then, should you begin to make arguments. Stay on topic, and completely finish talking about one point before moving on to the next. If all this is accomplished, you should be able to establish certain truths and progress until a conclusion is reached.

Scurrying back to the conversation tonight … the moment I sat down to join this conversation these particular Arminians wanted to hear my best argument that would somehow prove all of Reformed Theology. I wouldn’t do it … I mean, I couldn’t do it. I had five minutes for goodness sakes =). I told them I would love to talk to them sometime when I have more time, and hopefully then I’ll be able to set up some informal rules (without calling them “rules”) so we can get somewhere.

Yay for productive convos,
Casey (spelled the right way)

Never give up; never surrender

2006-11-04T07:00:00.000-07:00

I wanted to share some things that have developed in my view of dating, love, girls – all that good stuff.

Most importantly, I am always always always hopeful towards dating, love and girls. When a friend tells me that he is interested in a girl (if there aren’t any major religious conflicts with the girl), I always encourage him to go for it. When a couple is struggling I hope they work things out, and offer advice to see that it does. I do my best to live like I really believe these things. When Iiii am interested in a girl I do my very best to pursue her.

If you didn’t already know, the title of this entry is from Galaxy Quest. “Never give up; never surrender.” That’s how I feel towards romance. If you want to get married then never, under any circumstances give up looking. God will provide a girl, so why worry about that? Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be looking, but never fret =).

Eddie McKee, a dear friend in the Lord, offered this advice to me years ago one afternoon during lunch: “Be busy about the Lord’s work, and He will provide you with a wife.” I really believe this to be true.

Finally, I just want to say that the reason I am probably so passionate about this subject is because I know that once you find the right person it is so worth it. That’s what I look forward to.

I’m a hopeless romantic, what can I say?

Thanks for reading this very non-chalant entry.

The Rusted One

Paaaaaaarte'

2006-11-01T07:00:00.000-07:00

Tonight was such a blast! I held my annual Halloween / Reformation Day costume parte'. About 18 people, a sinful amount of candy, Serrano's beandip, other snacks, games, and a movie made for a grand time.

First, check out this wicked sick candy:

That's right, each candy has its own bowl. mmm

Also, I have yet to name my Halloween Pal, which EVERYONE can buy at their local Starbucks. I would appreciate any name suggestions for my pal.

We played two rounds of Mafia, and was pleased to introduce it to a few new faces. Mafia is the bestest game ever (we play the no doctor version, aka the real version). I believe this is right before I saw to it that Lindsey was killed by the Townspeople. You see, as a responsible Cop, I guessed her, discovered she was part of the Mafia, and shared my knowledge with the good townspeople. She was quickly thereafter voted to receive the death penalty. The following night the Mafia killed me off, LOL. Good times.

Other Mafia fun:

JJ was such a chick magnet:

We did have some violent moments, however. Like Jack getting mugged!

and Harry Potter was mercilessly attacked:

Everyone now, "Awwwww,"

We concluded by watching an oldie but a goody, The Princess Bride.

The parte' was totally a success. NEXT year, my costume will be completely 100% done. (It was two weeks late and didn't end up arriving in time. Major bummer, considering I've been planning this costume for two years now. But next year it will be freakin awesome).

Thanks to everyone who came. It was such a blast.

To see all the pics, click HERE. To see all my pics over the years (including recent pics from my bday, click HERE).

Case

The greatest thing you'll ever learn

2006-10-31T07:00:00.000-07:00

Last week I saw The Moulin Rouge for the first time. Once I discovered that Ewan McGreggor was a lead actor, I knew I had to see it. Nicole Kidman also, but Ewan walked away as the star.

The only way I can describe the movie is to compare it to a broadway show. It’s a little bit strange, but has some amazing moments. The movie is about love. Ewan’s character (Christian) falls in love with Satin (Kidman), and they go on for about an hour and a half like that.

What is incredible is that Ewan and Nicole recorded their own songs. By far my favorite song was one that Christian sang to Satin titled “Your Song.” Read some of these gorgeous lyrics:

“My gift is my song

And this one's for you

And you can tell everybody

That this is your song

It may be quite simple

But now that it's done

Hope you don't mind

I hope you don't mind

That I put down in words

How wonderful life is now you're in the world”

and then

“Anyway the thing is well I really mean,

Yours are the sweetest eyes I've ever seen”

Good stuff, eh?

What’s refreshing about The Moulin Rouge is that love is portrayed in such a positive light. The moral of the story is summed up in a single line: “The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.” As a Christian, I recognize that the greatest thing you’ll ever learn is to love [God] and be loved [by God] in return. But, the point I can agree with the film is that love between a man and a woman is a wonderful thing.

Before you see this movie, be prepared to get past strong sensuality, and near the beginning a lot of half-naked prostitute-dressed actors from the 1900’s. If you can get past all that, you will probably enjoy the movie. So watch with caution.

Finally, can I just add that Ewan McGreggor is the man. You’ll understand after you see this movie.

That’s it for now, but … the show must go on…

Case

I agree with Phil

2006-10-26T07:00:00.000-07:00

Phil Johnson has done it again. He took the words right out of my mouth:

"On a side note, but a related subject I thought in the interests of balance, after hearing that sermon by Bell, I ought to listen to a sermon from the "conservative" side of the Emerging movement. So I listened to this one by Mark Driscoll. I wish I hadn't. Driscoll's smutty language and preoccupation with all things lowbrow are inappropriate, unbecoming, and dishonoring to Christ. I completely agree that many Christians fail to appreciate the true humanity of Jesus. But it's not necessary to get vulgar in order to communicate the truth about His humanity.

This is the first time I have ever posted anything critical of Driscoll. I have appreciated his defense of the atonement and his willingness to confront the neo-liberalism of other Emerging leaders honestly. But I don't think his perpetually coarse language in the pulpit and his apparent preoccupation with off-color terms and ribald subject matter are merely minor flaws in an otherwise healthy ministry. It is a serious shortcoming.

No, it's actually worse than that, because it blatantly violates the clear principle of Ephesians 5:3-4. It is shameful (v. 12) and therefore a reproach. It's characteristic of the old man and one of the fleshly behaviors we are expressly commanded to put aside (Colossians 3:8). Scripture even seems to indicate that unwholesome language signals an impure mind (Matthew 12:34). And yet this seems to be a deliberate, calculated, and persistent practice of Driscoll's. It is practically the chief trademark of his style.

That's troubling, and even more troubling when I see young Christians and older believers who ought to know better mimicking the practice. If this is the direction even the very best Emerging-style ministry is headed, it's not a trend any Christian ought to find encouraging, much less one we should follow." (Bold Emphasis Mine).

The point is obvious: when Driscoll (who represents the best the Emerging Church Movement has to offer) produces this kind of garbage, it makes ya wonder why anyone chooses to associate with the movement.

For years, advocates of Mark Driscoll who choose to ignore Driscoll's Emergent-ness, have recommended that I listen to his sermons (no, not everyone who's recommended his sermons falls into this category - there's my safety net =)), as if to say that I'll be proven wrong about the man after listening to him preach. Yet when I listen to his sermons I am repulsed. Mark is known as "the cussing pastor" for a reason ... because he cusses during his sermons! He cusses outside of church. But also, he is crude. My challenge to Driscoll advocates - listen to the recent sermon Phil Johnson discusses and tell me you're not repulsed by some of the things he says. It is distasteful. And that's being kind. Where is the reverence in Driscoll's sermons? I wonder how seriously Mark Driscoll takes the eldership?

Again, why do I bother writing about Driscoll? I'll get straight to it: I want to warn folks about the dangers of Driscoll's kind of ministry. I want to warn folks about the poor example Driscoll sets. I pray that Pastor Driscoll cleans up his ministry so he honors Christ in all that he does.

Dba dba dba dba dba, that's all folks

Stay kewl kats,
Case of Base

Piiiictures!!!

2006-10-25T07:00:00.000-07:00

It's about time I post some pics from a birthday parte' for this guy:

Some of my fav pics:

My parents said to me later on in the week, "You sure do have some wonderful friends, Casey." Amen to that. God has blessed me with many wonderful friends. Thank you to everyone that adds so much to my life. Ya'll are a blessing from our triune God.

Check out all the pics, and in their original size, here.

Rusty

8 days

2006-10-23T07:00:00.000-07:00

Oct 31st.

7pm.

My apartment.

Halloween / Reformation Day Parte'.

RSVP via phone-age if you would like to come. If you've already confirmed, you're good to go. If you don't have my phone #, get it from someone who does =)

I can't wait.

Lots of candy.

Good times, great oldies.

Rusty

Bucks and the Trinity

2006-10-18T07:01:00.000-07:00

Last night I was at Bucks doing some reading when I bumped into Matt Torres. He sits down and asks me some questions a Pentecostal asked him. It took me all of 60 seconds to realize that Matt was dealing with a Oneness Pentecostal (Modalists are so easy to identify =)). I told him to set all the issues (continuationism, baptismal regeneration, perseverance of the saints) aside and focus on the Trinity. So we started talking about it.

We spent about 40 minutes talking about the Trinity and how to explain it to a Modalist. What really impressed me was Matt's desire and passion to get a real handle on this important doctrine. It was clear that he loves the Trinity and wants more than anything for his Oneness friend to worship the triune God.

It is so rare to find Christians who care about the doctrine at all, much less one who wants to be clear in his presentation of the doctrine. Matt definitely wanted to be able to say more than, "God is one in three. Get me???" =)

Matt, you r0x0rz buddy. God used you to refresh my love for our triune Lord. Thanks, brother.

Rusty

"Belong to the church, then believe in Jesus"

2006-10-18T07:00:00.000-07:00

The entry’s subtitle that would be too long had I included it in the title: “Dating the Church”

Those of us who have kept a close eye on the Emerging/Emergent Church Movement (ECM) over the past few years have been fascinated by its rise to stardom, and now its popularity sort of plateauing out – meaning that most of those who are susceptible to the liberal post-modernism of the ECM have already embraced it. One of the founders of the ECM, Mark Driscoll, has always created an unusual amount of buzz (I think he prefers it that way =)). Driscoll was arguably the unofficial leader of the movement, until about 18 months ago when he offered criticism of some Emergent leaders. A great deal of new buzz is floating around the blogosphere about Driscoll (check out Phil Johnson’s blogspotting over recent months). It seems that people (particularly Continuationist/Charistmatic Calvinists) tend to be much more charitable towards Driscoll’s Emergent-ness because he is a Calvinist.

There is a great misunderstanding among folks that goes something like this: “Mark Driscoll isn’t really Emergent anymore. I mean, he cares about doctrine. What’s more, he’s a Calvinist!”

The logic used to reach this conclusion is as follows: (1) The Emergent/Emerging Church Movement is “bad.” (2) Mark Driscoll is not “bad” because he believes in doctrine. (3) Therefore Mark Driscoll is not part of the ECM.

The error with this line of logic, as well as the conclusion it reaches, is that whether one teaches doctrine or not does not define you as Emergent/Emerging. What defines one as Emergent is your view of the local church and evangelism. Mark Driscoll succinctly describes these views from his popular book Radical Reformission:

“In reformission evangelism, people are called to come and see the transformed lives of God’s people before they are called to repent of sin and to trust in God. Taking a cue from dating is helpful on this point. If we desire people to be happily married to Jesus as his loving bride, it makes sense to let them go out on a few dates with him instead of just putting a shotgun to their heads and asking them to hurry up, put on a white dress, and try to look happy for the photos. Reformission evangelism understands that the transformed lives of people in the church are both the greatest argument for, and the greatest explanation of, the gospel. Therefore, it welcomes non-Christians into the church, not so much through evangelistic programs as through informal relationships like Jesus developed with his first disciples. In our church in Seattle, as lost people become friends with Christians, they often get connected to various ministries (for example, helping to run concerts, helping to guide a rock-climbing expedition, taking a class on biblical marriage, helping to develop a website, joining a Bible study, serving the needy) and participate in them before they possess saving faith. In this way, reformission evangelism depends on friendship and hospitality as conduits for the gospel” (Driscoll, Mark. Radical Reformission. Pgs 68-69).

See? Compared to other Emergent books out there this is EXTREMELY straightforward and well written.

“In reformission evangelism, people are called to come and see the transformed lives of God’s people before they are called to repent of sin and to trust in God.”

People are called to see the transformed lives of the saints before they are called to repent of sin and believe? I agree with this in part. I believe that often-times the elect do have the opportunity to get to know Christians before justification – but this is not always the case. As we see later, Driscoll informs us that he means to have unbelievers become actively involved in his church before they know Christ. This is a fundamental difference between the Biblical model where professing believers making up the church, and the Emergent model.

“Taking a cue from dating is helpful on this point. If we desire people to be happily married to Jesus as his loving bride, it makes sense to let them go out on a few dates with him instead of just putting a shotgun to their heads and asking them to hurry up, put on a white dress, and try to look happy for the photos. Reformission evangelism understands that the transformed lives of people in the church are both the greatest argument for, and the greatest explanation of, the gospel. Therefore, it welcomes non-Christians into the church, not so much through evangelistic programs as through informal relationships like Jesus developed with his first disciples.”

Is it true “that the transformed lives of the people in the church are both the greatest argument for, and the greatest explanation of, the gospel”? No, I do not believe this is true. The evidence of God’s sanctifying work in the lives of His people is not an argument to prove the truthfulness of the gospel. It is an evidence of the gospel not an argument for it.

Next, it is apparent that by “argument” Driscoll means this is an argument we should offer to the unregenerate. An Emergent might say to an unbeliever, “See how our lives are changed? That’s why the gospel is true, and that’s why you should believe in the gospel…” This is an ineffective appeal and is not preaching the gospel.

Notice the direct application Driscoll then makes: “Therefore, it welcomes non-Christians into the church, not so much through evangelistic programs as through informal relationships like Jesus developed with his first disciples.” Non-Christians can come to church. They are welcome to visit our church. But they cannot and should not be publicly identified by that church as part of the assembly. I think it goes without saying that when an unbeliever walks through your church doors you should go out of your way to preach the gospel to him – using words and pointing them to the Scriptures. But we should not treat him as though he was a believer by letting him serve the church and being part of various ministries (which Driscoll says sentences later).

The problem I have with Driscoll comparing “Reformission Evangelism” with Christ and His 12 disciples is that Christ was not proselytizing them. In fact, Christ sent them out to proselytize.

Obviously then, I don’t believe unbelievers ought to date Christ or His church. Frankly, his analogy disgusts me. “If we desire people to be happily married to Jesus as his loving bride, it makes sense to let them go out on a few dates with him instead of just putting a shotgun to their heads and asking them to hurry up, put on a white dress, and try to look happy for the photos.” I’m honestly not sure if Mark is somehow saying that non-Emergent churches force people to “hurry up” and try to be happy members in their churches. Finally, individuals are not said to be married to Christ. The Church is said to be the bride of Christ.

“In our church in Seattle, as lost people become friends with Christians, they often get connected to various ministries (for example, helping to run concerts, helping to guide a rock-climbing expedition, taking a class on biblical marriage, helping to develop a website, joining a Bible study, serving the needy) and participate in them before they possess saving faith.”

Again, the unregenerate have no business serving in Christ’s church. Are you noticing the fundamental mark of Mark Driscoll’s view of the local church? It is that the gatherings of the local church are meant for both believers and unbelievers. But Biblically speaking, a person must have a valid profession of faith, been baptized, and submit to elders at a church before becoming part of a church.

I’d like to say once more that I recognize that believers should be good witnesses to unbelievers. This includes our conduct and behavior outside of church meetings. We should interact with the unregenerate when we have the opportunity. But fundamentally, I believe evangelism primarily takes place outside of the meetings of the local assembly. Mark Driscoll believes it takes place primarily during the church’s meetings.

“It’s all comin together” – Cronk

“In this way, reformission evangelism depends on friendship and hospitality as conduits for the gospel.”

Let’s say I was preaching the gospel to an unregenerate co-worker (off the clock – because I don’t get paid to waste time preaching =)). Let’s also say I have been a jerk to this person every chance I’ve had. Do you think this co-worker would give me much time to explain what I believe? Proooobably not. So then, my actions are very important. I should be a good friend to my unbelieving co-workers. I should be hospitable to my unbelieving co-workers. Yes, I do recognize that even though we sin in front of unbelievers, we ought to do our best to have good reputations so that our lifestyle does not contradict the message we proclaim.

But for the umpteenth time, where Mark Driscoll goes wrong is his view that all this takes place primarily in the gatherings of the local church.

Shazaam! We’re making progress.

Now that I have spent much of this entry criticizing Mark Driscoll and his Emerging/Emergent views, I would like to add that I am so very glad for the positive things Mark Driscoll does. I am glad he is a Calvinist. I am glad he does emphasize doctrine. I am glad he is against post-modernism (as a philosophical system). I am thankful he is a professing believer and has good intentions towards our unbelieving world. We do not need to throw out everything he says because he is Emergent … just throw out his Emergent-ness =)

Happy almost Friday.

Case of Base

We now have a nuclear North Korea

2006-10-13T07:02:00.001-07:00

North Korea claims to have conducted a nuclear weapons test. This is presently being disputed. Most believe the North Koreans tried to set off a nuke but it somewhat fizzled out. But you know what, it doesn't matter whether they succeeded or not. The reason is that the very attempt and desire for the North Koreans to possess nuclear weapons poses a serious threat to the world community.

The U.S. has proposed a strong resolution - go us. Russia and China don't want us to be too harsh. ...

... yeah, that's what I thought too.

"Earlier Thursday, China expressed regret that a draft resolution circulated by the U.S. focused on punitive measures without providing incentives to draw Pyongyang back to the negotiating table. North Korea should understand it had made a mistake, but "punishment should not be the purpose" of any U.N. response, said Liu Jianchao, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry in Beijing." (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220079,00.html).

Sometimes you've gotta wonder what other nations and other peoples are thinking. I mean, a nuclear North Korea cannot be good for anyone (unless you just want to see the U.S. and her allies destroyed at any cost). In the meantime, I am so thankful to God that we have the current administration in power. Why? Because the only thing they are consistently strong in is national defense. President Bush, Condi, and the rest of the administration genuinely cares about the well-being of our country's security.

Were our Lord not sovereign I would have reason to fret.

Perhaps ... a bit much?

2006-10-13T07:02:00.000-07:00

I had the privilege of teaching the junior high class at church last niters. We continued through our study of the book of Romans. We finished chapter 1! I intended on getting into chapter 2, but we ended up dealing with some of the things the Apostle says in 1:24-32. Here is the text:

“24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.” (NASB).

A great deal of our time was spent on definitions. The more words we defined (degrading, impure, envy, strife, deceit, malice, slanderers, insolent, arrogant, boastful, unmerciful) the lower their jaws slipped to the ground in shock.

How could Paul describe human beings with such colorful adjectives? Isn’t that over the top? Perhaps a bit much? I think the exact question, asked by one of our fifth graders was, “That’s harsh. Won’t some people find that hard to swallow?” LOL. Excellent question!

My answer to the class was that Paul understood something important: God has defined good and evil. But more than that, God has defined how His creatures are to live. It is with that in mind that Paul penned these words.

I was then able to segway (sp?) into the gospel – because, you know, I never want to leave my class with such despairing words =). Ahh, Romans.

Rusty

Compromise Compromise Compromise

2006-10-13T07:00:00.000-07:00

Steve Camp has amazed me over the past year with his ability to succinctly and clearly point out the errors within the Emergent/Emerging Church Movement (ECM). Today, Campi wrote the following:

“Current evangelicalism is obsessed with the latest of benign buzz words - contextualization. It is a central theme to Bible conferences; it is the focus of books, blogs, pulpits and preachers.

This word can be summed up in the following phrase: "we don't want to be seeker sensitive, but seeker sensible; we don't want to argue for relativism, but relevantism." This appears to be nothing more than mere double-talk beloved: sensible for sensitive - relevantism for relativism. In reality, it is exactly the same thing just clothed in different rags. And here is why: the "contemporary emerging missional model" still treats the audience as sovereign forgetting that it is the message that is sovereign." (http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2006/10/spurgeons-burden-wasnt-to.html).

This is one of two core deficiencies that make up the Emergent/Emerging philosophy of ministry. Emergents spend a cyclopean amount of time adapting their message to catch up to an ever-changing culture so as to be more relevant. Unfortunately, what gets lost in the way is the gospel.

I mean … think for a second: if our primary concern is to make our proclamation “fun” and “cool” for the world’s culture, how can you not compromise the gospel? I have been massively disappointed with the ECM from the very beginning (as some long-time readers of this blog can testify) because they say one thing but mean and do another.

What's funny to me is that years after I became aware of this movement, I still stand by my initial gut instincts of where Emergents were headed. I wish I couldn't say "I told ya so." The EMC is basically nothing more than a repackaged version of the Seeker-Sensitive Movement with a post-modern twist to it.

(By the way, does it bother anyone else that Emergents focus on reaching the culture and not individuals?)

Emergents have forgotten that the power of God is in the gospel, and not in any fancy presentation. God saves. Man does not save. God was pleased to save sinners through the foolishness of preaching (1 Corinthians 1:21).

Finally, I just have to say this: Paul was not Emergent. Christ our Lord is not Emergent. None of the prophets of old were Emergent.

Why write about this? Because like it or not, the ECM has affected American Evangelicalism over the past few years ... and for the worse. It is likely that someone you know is either personally influenced by the ECM, or you know someone who knows someone who's been influenced. For some odd reason I know lots of Emergents - might the Lord be liberal in granting me love and patience =). We might as well be on our toes. We should have a ready response to their regurgitated views of how ministry ought to be done. Our response should bring them to the Scriptures. Personally, I'll take them through 1 Corinthians 1-2.

Be encouraged that long after the ECM has come and gone, the gospel will still go forth. Christ will still be victorious. And we, as the people of God, must continue to faithfully proclaim the oldtime message of Jesus Christ.

Thanks Campi. I’m always encouraged with your entries.

Rustoleum

For those trials that go on and on

2006-10-05T07:00:00.000-07:00

Pastor Fry preached another incredible sermon this past Lord’s Day evening. His text was from Numbers 15:1-21. I’d like to post a few of my notes and thoughts from his sermon.

To quickly familiarize ourselves with the context, in chapter 14 the Israelites grumbled against the Lord, Moses and Aaron. Even after having seen all the miraculous works of God before their very eyes they tried to appoint a different leader and march back to Egypt! Because of their disobedience the Lord tells them that all those 20 and older would die and not enter into the Promised Land. They were instead going to wander throughout the wilderness for 40 years. FORTY YEARS!

Can you imagine the desperation they would have felt hearing those words? Can you imagine having to experience those 40 years? Imagine how weary they must have become, year after year, wandering without a country to call their own.

For those who were 19 and younger, they would see the land that was promised to their fathers. How many funerals would they have gone to? Grandparents, parents, uncles, aunts, cousins, and friends. They wouldn’t have borders for 40 years! Oh how easy it would have been to despair.

Then in chapter 15, God gives His people a promise: “1Now the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2"Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'When you enter the land where you are to live, which I am giving you, 3then make an offering by fire to the LORD, a burnt offering or a sacrifice to fulfill a special vow, or as a freewill offering or in your appointed times, to make a soothing aroma to the LORD, from the herd or from the flock.’” (NASB).

“When you enter the land where you are to live, which I am giving you, then make an offering by fire to the Lord…” (emphasis mine). What beautiful words these must have been for them to hear. Even though they would be facing this terrible and burdensome trial for 40 years, there was something to look forward to: the promise that God would one day bring them into the Promised Land.

Again, we pick up again in verse 18, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'When you enter the land where I bring you, 19then it shall be, that when you eat of the food of the land, you shall lift up an offering to the LORD. 20'Of the first of your dough you shall lift up a cake as an offering; as the offering of the threshing floor, so you shall lift it up. 21'From the first of your dough you shall give to the LORD an offering throughout your generations.”” (NASB).

“When you enter the land where I bring you…” (emphasis mine). God is again reminding them of His promise to them. You can bet they meditated on this promise, and all of God’s promises to them.

My pastor brought out that it is the same for us when we face our own trials. Even in the midst of the storms of life, we ought to remember the promises of God. When your trials seem to go on and on, and you find yourself asking: “When will this all be over?!” then you should dwell on the promises of God. For it is in the promises of God that the believer finds comfort.

Just as those 19 year-olds wandered in the wilderness for 40 years, and were delivered, so will the Christian be delivered from his trials.

The Lord promised to the Apostle, and I believe to us as well, “...My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness…” (2 Corinthians 12:9, NASB).

To boast about my pastor for just a moment – he preaches sermons like this all the time … even from the book of Numbers for goodness sake =).

Thanks for reading yos (the plural form of “yo”).

Rusty

Emails to a Mormon (somewhat borrowed title) - Part 7

2006-10-03T07:00:00.000-07:00

Well, I hate to admit defeat. But, I cannot prove it. Nice job! All I can do now is ask that you kneel down in humble prayer to your Heavenly Father and ask if there are others exalted to godhood in existence. But, I doubt that will happen, being that I'm a Mormon asking you to do that... lol. But, nice work, you beat me in the text. I fly my white flag.

-Danny

--------------------------------------------------------------

My reply:

Danny,

The only question I have for you is this: how can you go on believing in polytheism (the belief in many true gods) now that you know that at least three passages in the Bible support monotheism (the belief in only one true god)?

You said, "Well, I hate to admit defeat. But, I cannot prove it. Nice job! All I can do now is ask that you kneel down in humble prayer to your Heavenly Father and ask if there are others exalted to godhood in existence. But, I doubt that will happen, being that I'm a Mormon asking you to do that... lol. But, nice work, you beat me in the text. I fly my white flag."

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm? Maybe I'm reading you wrong. If so, I apologize. If not, you should know that the only reason I would have a discussion with you about monotheism vs. polytheism is because it is my desire that you turn from worshiping the god of Mormonism (as well as turning from the belief in other true gods) and worship the one true god of the Bible (who has no gods before him, and none after him). I imagine you would say the same for me - only the positions being reversed.

In any case, if this is where you choose to end our discussion, I will continue praying for you. If you would like to continue our discussion now or at any time in the future, you need only provide your exegesis of the three passages we've looked at.

Thanks Danny,
Casey Ryan
AOMin

Carpe Diem

2006-10-02T07:00:00.000-07:00

That means "seize the day."My brother and a bud came over to watch the Dead Poet's Soceity, one of my favorite flics. Carpe Diem can easily be described as its major theme. Professor Keating inspired some boys to make the most out of life. Wonderful story.

And now, some quotes:

*ding* "No. Thanks for playing Mr. Dalton."

"Don't just walk off the desk like lemmings, look around you"

Finally, I gotta props to Knox Overstreat.

Hey, did you know it's my birthday in 14 days??? =)

Rusty

Finally, a good movie

2006-09-29T07:01:00.000-07:00

After a glance at the poster I knew I would enjoy this film. Flyboys is the story of the Lafayette Escadrille - the first Americans to fight in World War I. The Lafayette Escadrille was comprised of a few dozen young men who became fighter pilots to serve in the French army.

The incredible thing about Flyboys is its historical accuracy, even down to the nitty gritty details. To describe this film as pro-American would not do it justice. Rather than making these men look like pathetic victims, or killers of civilians, they are here portrayed as war-heroes ... as those who should be honored.

Many have described the movie as having the feel of an WW2 film made in the 50's. I would agree with that assessment.

The director also manages to include a convincing romance (more reason for all the ladies to see this movie =)).

It's clean. Good action. CGI effects are spectacular. I loved it. Four out of five stars.

and verily, much w00tage did thus fill the land (an oldie but a goodie)

CoB

Emails to a Mormon (somewhat borrowed title) - Part 6

2006-09-29T07:00:00.000-07:00

Casey,

So, wait. If our argument is based on how many gods are actually in existence... It's a stailmate. I have already admitted in believing in more than one being//personage in a state of godhood. So, assuming that you aren't going to give up you're belief in only one god namely God himself; and I'm not going to give mine up of believing that humans can and have reached a state of godhood in the afterlife, then this conversation is pointless. Haha!

But, notice one thing you said, and had corrected me upon doing so myself:

"I believe that 1 John 3:2 is talking about the Christian's hope in the resurrection when Christ returns to earth."

"I believe" in this context is not exegesis. This is stating an opinion about the scripture. But, let's not turn this into an English Literature discussion.

So, I hope to hear what you have to say about this first paragraph. If you agree? If you do, I would be more than happy to continue on in our "doctrinal jousting", if you will. It's very interesting to hear what you have to say! I appreciate it! Well, hope to hear soon!

-Danny

----------------------------------------------------------------

My response:

Daniel,

A simple statement "I believe" followed by reasons for my interpretation is not eisegesis. You have yet to provide any interaction with the three texts of Scripture we have gone over. Our conversation cannot move forward until you have done so. You need to prove that Isaiah 43:10, John 10:34 and 1 John 3:2 support your belief that more than one true god exists. I have already offered my exegesis. Your turn =)

Thanks,
Casey Ryan
AOMin

Way to go 7-Eleven!

2006-09-27T07:00:00.000-07:00

"A week after Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called George W. Bush "the devil," convenience store chain 7-Eleven Inc. said Wednesday it will stop selling gasoline from Venezuelan-controlled Citgo Petroleum Corp."

""Regardless of politics, we sympathize with many Americans' concerns over derogatory comments about our country and its leadership recently made" by Chavez, 7-Eleven said in a statement."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216079,00.html

I think I'll be filling up my tank at 7-Eleven in the upcoming months. Finally, someone who's not willing to take crap from evil dictators.

Btw, did anyone see the HP5 pics I linked to lasterday???

Yay for blogspotting yourself!

"Good morning! Nice of you guys to drop by!",
PizzaTheHut

Once we blur the line there is no line

2006-09-26T07:01:00.000-07:00

Same-sex marriage advocates have denied that the legalization of same-sex marriage would open up the door to polygamy.

But more than that, once you blur the line, and once you stop discriminating against what marriage is and is not, then marriage can be anything you want it to be. Marriage could be between a woman and a dolphin (which happened in the Middle East a year or two ago). Marriage can be between a man and his dog. Marriage could be between 20 men and 20 women, their favorite animals, and their big screen TV! Think I'm joking?

Listen to this polygamist advocate's arguments:

"The [Supreme Court] found no compelling state interest in criminalizing homosexual sodomy based on a long history of states and/or a majority of society finding the practice immoral. Similarly, the state of Utah can offer no compelling justification for criminalizing polygamy" (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215812,00.html).

Iiiiinteresting. Did you catch his argument? "See! They couldn't find any real reason to make sodomy illegal. And they can't find any real reason to condemn plural marriage! You're imposing on my freedom of religious expression, which encourages plural marriage. That might not be your religious belief, but it's mine. So there! *sticks tongue out*"

I'll give it 10 years. 10 years until polygamy is legalized. If we can't discriminate against anything, anything goes.

Discrimination is not always a bad thing folks. We discriminate all the time. We discriminate against murder. We discriminate against public indecency. All we are doing is setting a boundary.

I am proud to discriminate against any form of marriage that is not between one man and one woman.

The Case

HP5

2006-09-26T07:00:00.000-07:00

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=16645

Emails to a Mormon (somewhat borrowed title) - Part 5

2006-09-22T07:00:00.000-07:00

That's a good point. But, as we read in St, John 10:34, "Jesus answered them, Is it not writtenin your law, I said, Ye are gods?" Jesus is telling us we are gods. And again, in the First Epistle of John 3:2, "Beloved, now we are sons of God, and it doth notyet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear , we shall be like him; fo we shall see him as he is."Two very clear accounts telling us that we are entitled to godhood. Which means there are gods. My church believes there are gods. We do not worship more than one, as it were. One quick question: How is it that churches that believe in the trinity, (as I believe you do, I cannot quite recollect, though), call themselves Christians. They do not believe in Christ. They believe in one being that has a role as God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. If they were Christian, would they not believe in Christ, not someone who takes his name, along with two other names? For one to believe in Christ, and call themselves true Christians, would one not have to believe that there is an individual being Christ?I look forward to your response! -Danny

----------------------------------------------------------------------

My response:

Hey Danny,

You said, "That's a good point."

So you agree that Isaiah 43:10 cannot teach both that there is only one true god (monotheism) and many true gods (polytheism)? If so, does the text defend monotheism or polytheism?

You then raised John 10:34 and John 3:2 as examples of passages that you believe teach us there are many true gods - specifically that men can become gods. What purpose did you have in citing these texts? ... are you trying to prove that Scripture is at odds with itself, as though Scripture would contradict itself by defending monotheism in one place and polytheism in another place?

I believe that since the Holy Ghost inspired the text of Scripture, the message is consistent with itself. God will not contradict Himself. So then John 10:34 and John 3:2 must agree with Isaiah 43:10.

Regarding John 10:34 you said, "But, as we read in St, John 10:34, "Jesus answered them, Is it not writtenin your law, I said, Ye are gods?" Jesus is telling us we are gods."

First off, notice the context of this passage, verses 22-42. Jesus asserts a number of things about his role in salvation.

"24The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, "How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly." 25Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me. 26"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30"I and the Father are one."" (John 10:24-30).

Quick recap: The Jews ask Jesus to tell them plainly if he is the Christ. But Jesus has already plainly told them that he is. The works that Jesus does in His Father's name testify of him. The Jews do not believe because they are not Jesus' sheep. His sheep hear his voice; he knows them and they follow him. He gives eternal life to them, and they will never perish. In fact, no one will snatch them out of his hand. The Father gave them to Christ, and no one is able to snatch them out of his Father's hand. Jesus and the Father are one with regards to the work of salvation.

At this statement, the Jews pick up stones to stone Christ (vs 31). Jesus asks for the work they are choosing to stone him for (vs 32). Pay close attention to the Jews' reply: "The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."" The Jews were stoning Christ for claiming to be God! (by the way, I will provide a lengthy explanation of the Trinity and what I believe about God at the end of this email =) ).

It is at this point that Christ cites Psalm 82:6 and applies it to the Jews. Why did Jesus apply Psalm 82:6 to the Jews? Well let's look at the preceding five verses of the Psalm: "A Psalm of Asaph. God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers. 2 How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked? Selah. 3 Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. 4 Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked. 5 They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are shaken."

Psalm 82 describes unjust judges who were ruling in Israel. These judges were partial to the wicked. They did not defend the weak and fatherless. They did injustice to the afflicted and the destitute. They do not know or understand, and walk in darkness. THEN we get to the verse Jesus cited: "6 I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High."" God is mocking these unjust judges by calling them gods! Did you catch that the present tense is used to describe these unjust judges? God calls them gods in the present tense, not in a future tense! Obviously God was not calling them true gods, but was mocking them. In fact, look at verse 7: "7 "Nevertheless you will die like men And fall like any one of the princes."" These "gods" will die like men, and will fall like one of the princes.

So when Christ cited this verse he was accusing the Jews of unjustly judging. In no way was Jesus declaring the Jews to be true gods. He was certainly mocking these unjust Jews who were falsely accusing Christ of blasphemy!

You said, "And again, in the First Epistle of John 3:2, "Beloved, now we are sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.""

So you understand "we shall be like him" to mean: "we shall become eternal gods just as Jesus Christ is an eternal god"? If so, what in the text leads you to this conclusion?

I believe that 1 John 3:2 is talking about the Christian's hope in the resurrection when Christ returns to earth. 1 John 2:18, 28 provide a discussion about Christ's coming before we even get to 3:2, and clearly has this in mind.

I understand that you believe that you worship one god. But if you believe in the existence of other true gods - gods before God; gods after God - then you cannot believe in the god that I worship, because my god is the only true god that has or ever will exist. This is why our discussion is of such great importance =).

To adequately answer your question about what I believe about God and the Trinity, here is a lengthy, but clear answer. Please read the whole thing as it will greatly benefit our discussion.

...

The historic definition of the Trinity can be summed up with one sentence: Within the one Being that is God, there eternally exists three coequal and coeternal persons; namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

There is obviously a lot of information packed into this summary statement. At its core is the belief in monotheism - that there is only one true God. In Isaiah 43:10 we read: "10 "You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me." Yahweh ("LORD") declares that there were no Gods before Him, and there will be none after Him. Indeed, as Isaiah 44:6 tells us, Yahweh is the first and the last, apart from Yahweh there is no God. This is Biblical monotheism: Yahweh, the only true God.

Before I continue, I need to define two terms that are crucial when talking about the Trinity. The terms are "being" and "person." Let me use an example to help with my explanation ... Here I have in my hand my cell phone. My cell phone has being. This is to say that my cell phone exists. But my cell phone has no personality. I can talk to my cell phone all day long and it will never once understand what I am saying. It cannot think. It does not have the ability to speak of itself as "I" or "Me."

I, on the other hand, also have being. I exist. Though unlike my cell phone, I have personality. I have personhood. I can communicate, think, and reason. I can use personal pronouns of myself. Obviously then, being can exist without personality (like the cell phone), or being can exist with personality (as is the case with human beings).

Unfortunately, the term "person" many times carries with it a lot of baggage. This is because in our experience as human beings, each human being has one personality within his/her being.

Now we are ready for the next part of our definition ...

There are three divine persons within the one being of God. These three persons are coequal, as to their divine nature. Though the persons have differing roles, this in no way makes one person greater than another as to their nature. Another way of saying this is that difference in function does not mean inferiority in nature.

The three persons are also coeternal. This simply means that each of the persons have eternally existed. There was never a time when the Father was not, the Son was not, or the Holy Spirit was not. They have eternally had fellowship, and a loving relationship towards each other. One was not before the other. Each of the persons is eternal. By "eternal" I do not mean the LDS understanding of "eternal" matter. Since God is spirit (John 4:24), He is not physical, and therefore has existed before the creation of matter and the universe.

Yahweh's being is undivided and indivisible. This means that God's being cannot be "divided up." Obviously then, the Trinity does not teach that God's being is "split" into thirds: the Father making up one third, the Son another third, and the Holy Spirit the remaining third. Rather, each of the divine persons fully share God's being as they are each fully God. For the sake of this discussion I will also add that each of the persons shares the being of Yahweh. Therefore, the Father is Yahweh, the Son is Yahweh, and the Holy Spirit is Yahweh. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit fully share Yahweh's being. (Repetitive, I know. But I want to be clear).

As a side note, it would be innapropriate to say that the Trinity teaches "Three Beings are one Being," or "Three Persons are one Person." Rather, the Trinity teaches that there are three persons within the one being of God. Again, the difference between "being" and "person" must be distinguished in our discussion.

One last side note, Trinitarians do not believe that the Father is the Son, or that the Son is the Holy Spirit, or that the Father is the Holy Spirit ... or any way you want to put it =). We recognize the distinction between the three persons. Yet these three divine persons share the one being of God.

I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity because the Bible teaches it. I do not believe the Trinity because of church councils, creeds or confessions. I believe the Bible teaches the triunity of God. In fact, I believe the gospel is Trinitarian - in that each of the persons is involved in the salvation of God's elect people.

There are three "foundations" to the doctrine of the Trinity: (1) Monotheism – the belief that there is only one true God; (2) there are three divine persons within the one Being of God; (3) the three persons are coequal and coeternal.

There you have it - a brief summation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Many fine works have been written on the subject, but this should suffice for our discussion.

Whew =).

Danny, at this point we have now discussed three passages in the Bible: Isaiah 43:10, John 10:34 and 1 John 3:2. I have demonstrated how each of these passages teaches absolute monotheism - the belief in only one true god. Therefore there cannot be a plurality of gods - polytheism. I hope to hear your exegesis and interaction with these texts. I would also like to hear your response to my exegesis and interaction with these texts. Before we move on to other topics, please only interact with these three texts.

I look forward to your response =)

Casey Ryan
AOMin

Emails to a Mormon (somewhat borrowed title) - Part 4

2006-09-20T07:00:00.000-07:00

Casey,

I surely do understand your point. But, for those of us that read the bible, I'm sure there can be different meaning to different people behind what Isaiah said. For me, it's telling us that there will be no gods worshipped besides me. And, I believe that Joseph Smith is saying that we do believe in their godhood, forgive me for any mistake on the Holy Spirit and his godhood, but I'm still learning. But, we do not worship any other god besides "Yahweh", if you will. We only worship one god; follow the teachings of God and the Son, Jesus; and listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Again, I do appreciate you bringing up that point. It put me into thought! Haha! Hope to here soon from you! -Danny

-----------------------------------------------------------------

My reply:

Hello again Danny,

Thanks again for the quick reply.

You said, "I surely do understand your point. But, for those of us that read the bible, I'm sure there can be different meaning to different people behind what Isaiah said. For me, it's telling us that there will be no gods worshipped besides me."

When the Holy Ghost inspired Isaiah's writings (as well as all of Scripture) He did so guiding the words of Isaiah. The Holy Ghost used men to communicate to men, and yet the Scriptures say exactly what God wanted them to say - for the Holy Ghost carried men along as they wrote (2 Peter 1:19-21). So when you said that the Scriptures can have different meanings for each individual, do you believe that Isaiah 43:10 has more than one meaning? Or just the interpretation that you offered?

And if you argue that Isaiah 43:10 teaches that you only worship three gods, though one in purpose, could Isaiah have also meant that there is only one true god? Wouldn't it be a contradiction for this text to mean that there is only one true god (as I believe) AND many gods (as you believe)?

I believe that to properly understand the Scriptures one must apply sound rules of exegesis - "exegesis" being the rules used when reading literature. Exegesis involves grammar, syntax, the context of a passage, it considers the author's purpose in writing, even the original languages a text was written in (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek for the Bible).

The purpose of exegesis is to draw the meaning from the text.

I have provided a brief exegesis in my previous email. I believe that the Bible is consistent with itself, especially that there is only one true god.

So when Isaiah 43:10 declares that there were no gods formed before Yahweh, and no gods formed after him, what else could that mean? Notice what the text does not say: "no gods were formed before me [that you are to worship], and no gods were formed after me [that you are to worship]." The text just doesn't say that. You are reading your interpretation into the text. That is not exegesis =)

I look forward to your response.

Casey Ryan
AOMin

It's the Pope's Fault

2006-09-15T07:00:00.000-07:00

“ISTANBUL, Turkey — Pakistan's legislature unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of reviving the mentality of the Crusades.” (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213930,00.html)

Okkkaaay. What new reason are Muslims around the world condemning the Pope? …

“By citing an obscure Medieval text that characterizes some of the teachings of Islam's founder as "evil and inhuman," Benedict inflamed Muslim passions and aggravated fears of a new outbreak of anti-Western protests.” (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213930,00.html)

Let’s take a stroll down Memory Lane. Islam’s founder, Mohammed, converts using the sword. Once Mohammed dies, Muslims start killing each other because they can’t agree how their new religion should proceed. Muslims continue killing non-Muslims and forcing conversions. They conquer nations and become a threat to Western Civilization. So yea, I’d say that some of Islam’s teachings are evil and inhuman.

Let me again cite an important statement: “And in Turkey, the ruling party likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of reviving the mentality of the Crusades.”

The ruling party in Turkey is comparing the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church to Hitler and Mussolini? Give me a break. Now, maybe the Popes responsible for burning countless numbers at the stake during the Middle Ages could in some ways be compared to the vile dictators during WWII. But not Pope Benedict XVI (though ironically, he used to be part of Rome’s Inquisition).

What I also find disgraceful is the accusation that the Pope has a Crusading mentality? I’d like to know what implications are behind this accusation. I’m willing to bet they’re based on a false understanding of the Crusades themselves. Most Muslims living in the world today believe that the Crusades were a Western offensive, when in reality they were defensive in nature. The Crusades were necessary against Islamic aggression. In fact, were it not for the Crusades, Western Civilization would not exist. We’d all be speaking some form of Arabic.

Finally, if the Pope’s latest comments incite violence by Muslims in the Middle East, I will scoff at such ridiculous behavior. They get all up in arms over silly cartoons. Now comments by the Pope. Yet every single day in Muslim newspapers there is a call for the killing of Westerner’s children. There is a call for the death of Jews and Christians.

Western Civilization and Islam continue to clash. The sooner we recognize Islam for what it is, the better.

Yup.

It’s days like these I’m thankful that the Triune God is Lord of all the earth, and He does right. We have no need to fear.

PTH

Let the Good Times Roll

2006-09-14T07:00:00.000-07:00

Golly gee it has been a while since I’ve updated my audience about the life of yours truly. Where I’m at, where I’m going, … my favorite Starbucks drink, etc.

My life in a nutshell: church, working full time, full time student, gym and some chill time with friends fits in there somewhere.

Church is going well. Our Deacon, Jim Broyles, has said on more than one occasion, “I cannot express how much I have been blessed because of you all at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.” I wholeheartedly agree with Jim. Oh how refreshing it is to have fellowship with likeminded believers! Week after week they are there for me – I do my best to do the same. Pastor Fry’s sermons are as rich as ever, filled with the sound exposition of Scripture. I’m still taking the junior high class through the book of Romans, which means: the gospel. One of our favorite hymns (along with many Reformed Baptists) about the local church body is “How Sweet and Aweful is the Place” by Isaac Watts. Here is the first verse:

“How sweet and aweful is the place
With Christ within the doors,
While everlasting love displays
The choicest of her stores!”

Good stuff =)

Between American Family and Starbucks I’m working around 45-50 hours a week. But it has been a very growing experience for me. In fact, I feel like a real man. It feels good to work hard. My schedule isn’t as predictable as it was pre-Starbucks. On top of working mid-afternoons for AmFam I now open and close during weekdays, and work weekends. This has forced me to learn to spend my free time wisely. And I am soo much more productive during that time.

Finally, I’m getting the hang of my job at Starbucks. Got all the drinks down. With Fall and Winter right around the corner, I’m diligently trying to increase my speed in making hot drinks. Steaming milk is the key =). Which brings me to my favorite Starbucks beverage: an iced single venti non-fat light ice tazo chai tea latte. It’s basically a chai latte with a shot of espresso. The official nickname for this modification is a “dirty chai,” or at my store: a “Casey.”

Skewl is insane, but doable. Homework doesn’t appear to be a struggle this semester. I’m just ready to be done =).

The gym – I’m having to work hard to maintain my body fat percentage while at the same time increasing muscle mass. It’s a challenge. But I handle these kinds of challenges well. John and I are still pumping some serious iron. I’m enjoying seeing results from a year’s hard work. It’s addicting folks, no two ways about it.

Life at the apartment is fantastic. We have our big screen TV, our sound system, much of our furniture – though we still have posters/pictures to hang up. I went and bought some movies last night: Ferris Bueler’s Day Off, The Princess Bride, and the original-as-seen-in-theaters version of Starwars: IV-VI. Scott and I are having a blast.

These days I’m chillaxin with the same ol’ crew (you know who you are), as well as some of the Bucks crew.

Reformation Day is just around the corner, and I am pleased to report that my costume is nearly ready to go! If anyone remembers from last year, I wanted to be Harry Potter in his Quidditch uniform, but couldn’t pull it off. The robes, the sweater and the pads had to be custom made. So yea, just wouldn’t’ve (“wouldn’t’ve” = “wound not have” … don’t you love how I just make up new contractions???) worked. This year I have my sweater, and the robe and pads being custom-made. w00t! I will be hosting a costume party, so let me know if you’d like to come =).

Anyone else excited for Christmas?! I’ve decided to go all-out in decorating.

I’m still studying the KJV Only Issue, Justification, the Trinity, and will be delving into Church History soon.

God has been very merciful to me.

Dba dba dba dba and that’s all folks!

Rusty

Emails to a Mormon (somewhat borrowed title) - Part 3

2006-09-13T07:00:00.001-07:00

Hi, sorry I haven't gotten back to you. And the answer to if we believe our Heavenly Father, His son, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three gods is no. We acknowledge Heavenly Father as God, and His son, to have just as much power being in a state of godhood, but the holy spirit is different. We believe the Holy Ghost to be more of a messenger, he helps us discern right from wrong when occassion happens that we wouldn't know, or we're on the fence. He is referred to by our church as a "still small voice." And yes, we do recognize that there are other "gods" in existence, including Jesus Christ holding all the power of which his and our Father in Heaven holds. We also believe that if one lives his/her life in such a way that permits, at the judgement, Jesus and Heavenly Father will grant powers of godhood. Over-all, we believe in two supreme beings, a Heavenly Father, and His son, our eldest brother, Jesus Christ.

---------------------------------------------------------

My reply:

Hello Danny

Thanks for getting back to me.

In Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph is recorded as saying:

“I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! We have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural; and who can contradict it?” (Pg. 370).

Joseph Smith declares that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three Persons and three Gods.

I am glad that we agree that the Latter-day Saint Church teaches that there are many other true gods in existence. To once again provide a contrast with my position, I hold to absolute monotheism - that there is only one true god in existence.

The reason I believe in absolute monotheism is because I believe the Bible teaches it. One passage that clearly teaches absolute monotheism is Isaiah 43:10, ""You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me."

I will note that this is the LORD speaking. "LORD" is how our English translations render the Tetragrammaton (YHWH ... Yahweh) from the Hebrew text. The Tetragrammaton would be very familiar to Isaiah's audience because the Jews said the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) every morning - the Shema includes the Tetragrammaton. But Isaiah continues quoting Yahweh as stating that there were no gods formed before Him, and there will be no gods formed after him.

Indeed, there have been no gods before Yahweh. And there will not be any gods formed after Yahweh. Yahweh is the only god, and He will always be the only god. Absolute monotheism.

I'm sure you understand my point, and I look forward to your response.

Casey Ryan,
AOMin

Emails to a Mormon (somewhat borrowed title) - Part 2

2006-09-11T07:00:00.000-07:00

I'm sorry that I had said these things to you. It was out of mere haste of words. I now understand. I'm sorry for the language I used. And, I believe in the God of Abraham, and in his son, Jesus Christ, and in a holy spirit. I believe in two "gods", a Heavenly Father (God Of Abraham) and His son, Jesus. I apologize.

Danny

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

My response:

Danny,

Don't you believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three gods? Furthermore, don't you recognize that there are many other gods that exist? - gods that have existed before the Father, and gods that have been exalted to godhood after the Father?

I believe there is only one true god in existence. This is called Monotheism. Your view is called polytheism, the belief in more than one true god.

I look forward to hearing from you =)

Casey Ryan
AOMin

Emails to a Mormon (somewhat borrowed title) - Part 1

2006-09-07T07:00:00.000-07:00

The following is a conversation I'm having with a Latter-day Saint via AOMin emails. We started out rough but has turned out to be a profitable conversation.

Hey, I just want to say that I'm sorry you and other "Apologetic" groups are so hard-hearted toward the LDS faith. In no manner have we bashed on your churches or other churches; yet, we put up with it all day, at work, school, in the news, and from you guys. We try to keep peace, and yet you guys bring upon so much contention among religions. We have nothing against other religions, we just know that ours is the true church. Isn't that what all Christian churches believe. So, here's a way you can walk the walk bestowed upon you by your name... Say you're sorry, and try acting "Apologetic" to the oh so many churches (being that I'm not only here in behalf of the LDS fgaith) that you have caused contention among. So, I hope that you have a turn of heart. So, damn it, get a move on! Danny

-----------------------------------------------------

My response:

Hello Danny,

"Hey, I just want to say that I'm sorry you and other "Apologetic" groups are so hard-hearted toward the LDS faith."

If by “hard-hearted” you mean that we are not Latter-day Saints or do not believe in the teachings of the LDS faith, then you are correct. To be fair though, are you not also in the same position when it comes to our faith?

"In no manner have we bashed on your churches or other churches; yet, we put up with it all day, at work, school, in the news, and from you guys."

You seem to imply that we have “bashed on your church.” How have we done this? Or by “bash” do you mean that we openly disagree and seek to peaceably dialogue with the LDS people?

"We try to keep peace, and yet you guys bring upon so much contention among religions."

If by “contention” you mean that we seek to dialogue with others who hold different religious faiths, then yes we do. But then again, are not Latter-day Saints guilty of the same thing? Does not the Mormon Church send out thousands upon thousands of missionaries around the globe? Does this make the Mormon people contentious? Certainly not. But neither are we contentious for proclaiming what we believe.

"We have nothing against other religions, we just know that ours is the true church. Isn't that what all Christian churches believe."

The following is from Joseph Smith’s First Vision account: “18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.””

When you said: “We have nothing against other religions,” did you mean that you hold nothing against other religions except that they are wrong? Consider how the Father, Son and Holy Ghost answered Joseph’s inquiry about which church to join: he should join none of them because they are all wrong, their creeds are an abomination, those who profess these religions are corrupt, and lack true godliness. It seems to me that you should have something against other religions. You should believe that other religions are false – in fact, the First Vision says just that.

I am no different. I believe that the teachings of Mormonism are wrong. I believe that the gods of Mormonism are false gods and not the true god of the Bible. I believe that the gospel of Mormonism is false and cannot save sinners.

"So, here's a way you can walk the walk bestowed upon you by your name... Say you're sorry, and try acting "Apologetic" to the oh so many churches (being that I'm not only here in behalf of the LDS fgaith) that you have caused contention among."

You have completely misunderstood how we are using the term “apologetics.” “Apologetics” comes from the word we translate as “defense” in 1 Peter 3:15. Apologetics is concerned with the defense of Christianity. “Apologetics” has nothing to do with saying you’re sorry. We are not sorry for defending and positively proclaiming what we believe.

There are two reasons we are so passionate about proclaiming our beliefs to those of other religious faiths: (1) First and foremost, out of love for God. We believe that God is glorified in the preaching of His truth. (2) Secondly, we love those of other religions faiths, such as the Latter-day Saints, and want nothing more than Mormons to embrace the one true God of the Bible.

"So, I hope that you have a turn of heart."

I pray the same for you as well, Danny.

"So, damn it, get a move on!"

Ephesians 4:29, “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.”

I would be more than happy to continue dialogue with you, Danny. Might I suggest a topic: how many true gods exist? This is our most significant disagreement.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Casey Ryan
AOMin

Biblical Standards for Entertainment

2006-09-05T07:00:00.000-07:00

Yesterday afternoon I went with two buddies to see a movie. Based on the recommendation of others, we went to see Crank. It starts off pretty cool. Some suweet visual shots. Great music (not sure about the lyrics though). The plot had the potential to be interesting. Then the bad language started comin. F-bombs and other choice words. Within seven minutes there was nudity. My flesh had temporary victory over me as I remember thinking to myself, "Well, HOPEFULLY that was the only nude scene. It should get better now..." Ten seconds later, MORE NUDITY! I whispered to each of my friends that I would be takin off. They joined me within a few moments.

Don't think that I always walk out of bad movies. I don't. But I should. I know I should.

Anyways, I traded my ticket in for a ticket to Invincible. Great flic! Very wholesome, and encouraging, and moral, and it had make-your-eyes-water-moments. I was amazed at the vast difference between these two films.

All of this has really caused me to pause and think about Biblical standards for entertainment. Let's consider movies. How many curse words are too many? What curse words are too bad? Just the F-Bomb? Two F-Bombs?! Dare I say ... THREE F-BOMBS?!?! Do we really want to expose ourselves to violence? How much nakedness is crossing the line? Partial nudity?

The worst question by far, is this: would you feel comfortable watching such and such movie with the Lord Jesus?

If you're like me, you are more than likely thinking along these lines: "So we shouldn't watch any movies then? No TV? Listen to nothing but Christian music? You sound like you're afraid of the world, Case. Don't be so legalistic. Don't be such a kill-joy. Christian liiiiiiiiiberty! I have Christian liiiberty! And that means that just because explitives, nudity, and violence offend you, doesn't mean it offends all of us. You're obviously the weaker brother. So please don't apply your subjective standards onto me."

I just want to say right now that I am not about to stop watching all movies. I still plan on watching TV. I will still listen to non-Christian radio. What I do want to do is "up" the standards I use to filter what I'm entertained by.

John said something that I completely agree with: "Our goal shouldn't be to see how close we can get to the line without crossing it. Our goal should be to flee from immorality." Amen! We are to be a holy people, set apart for good deeds. I understand that we have liberty in Christ. But we better make sure not to cover up our sins under the guise of "Christian liberty."

I need to get better at allowing Scripture to define what is acceptable entertainment for me. So what Scripture says is offensive - I need to be offended by that. What Scripture says is good - I need to enjoy that.

"...but I want you to be wise in what is good and innocent in what is evil." (Romans 16:9) <--- kudos to John for bringing this up.

Just some thoughts folks. Just some thoughts.

In Christ,
CoB

Mmhmm

2006-08-26T07:00:00.000-07:00

Where have all the blog entries gone??? Weeeeeeell, the past two weeks have been crazy busy for me. Moved into our new apartment. Lovin it. Bought sofas, a TV, sound system, groceries (just had to throw that in there, lol). The internet has been out until yesterday!!! Argh! But thankfully, Cox was able to fix whatever the problem was on their end. So now everything’s settled.

Funny story … so we went to pick up our TV yesterday near Deer Valley – which for the folks not from the Valley, Deer Valley is a 45 minute drive on the freeway. Scott and I got up early and made our way out there. Right as we get there it starts pouring down rain. I cannot remember seeing it rain this hard. We hoped it might lighten up after a few minutes. No luck. We were forced to head all the way home and come back later, possibly next week to pick up this TV we’d already waited a week to pick up. On the drive home, the rain was depresingly thick. After a few minutes, I couldn’t help but be reminded of how much I am not in control of my life. God is in control. Everything that happened that morning was part of God’s perfect predestined purpose. Therefore I have no choice but to accept it, and thank God for His goodness to me. Turns out we were able to make the long trek again later that evening to get our beautiful television. Anywho, good stuff.

Right now I’m refreshing on the KJV Only issue because I have a good friend who is KJV Only. I will then be re-reading Scripture Alone by Elder James. Then Disputations of Holy Scripture by William Whitaker about Sola Scriptura! w00t!

That’s it for now. Hope everyone’s havin a jazzed weekend

Rusty

Apple will burn you

2006-08-24T07:00:00.000-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210315,00.html

I won't say I told you so

Life Without the Internet

2006-08-22T08:00:00.000-07:00

Our internet has been out for over a week. It was up for a few hours on Sunday, but other than that ... nada. Cox is sending out another tech. We're hoping they give us a brand new line, or do whatever to get us back onto the World Wide Web. Until then, expect updates few and far betweenly

Case of Base

P.S. - Do not be alarmed at the time of this entry's posting. It signifies the lateness of the customer service from Cox Communications =)

On My Own

2006-08-16T07:01:00.000-07:00

Welp, finally did it! Scott and I got an apartment. Two bedroom, two bath(rooms). Plenty of room. The move went smooth. We're hoping to get our sofas, and every bachelor's top priority: a big screen tv with surround sound ASAP =).

I love it.

Yayage

Rustyrust

Various Trials

2006-08-16T07:00:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was a very very bad day for me. Had some issues with my skewl loans, which caused issues with my class schedule (which is getting more important since I’m near the end of this long journey called an “education”), which led to trouble with my health insurance through the skewl, and on and on we go. It was definitely the most stressful day I’ve had in a long time. But the purpose of this entry is not to whine and complain. I’ve done enough of that to myself already, believe me. I have been terribly convicted by the Holy Spirit of God because throughout this entire difficult day, I didn’t trust God.

I worried … a lot. I let the stress affect me to the point that others around me could tell I wasn’t myself. It wasn’t as though I lashed out at anyone. But I wasn’t cheerful. I wasn’t joyful. Because I sought my happiness from my present situation, I was unhappy.

As I’ve reflected over the past day, one passage of Scripture was burning within me:

“1James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings. 2Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, 3knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. 4And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. 5But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. 7For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord, 8being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways. 9But the brother of humble circumstances is to glory in his high position; 10and the rich man is to glory in his humiliation, because like flowering grass he will pass away. 11For the sun rises with a scorching wind and withers the grass; and its flower falls off and the beauty of its appearance is destroyed; so too the rich man in the midst of his pursuits will fade away. 12Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. 16Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. 17Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. 18In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures. 19This you know, my beloved brethren But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; 20for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God. 21Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls. 22But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. 23For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; 24for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. 25But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.” (NASB, Bold Emphasis Mine)

There is so much in this text that applies to my situation.

The Holy Spirit has reminded me through His holy Word to be thankful in ALL situations. God has purpose in everything that happens in my life – the good and the bad. I need to have faith and not doubt. God is the Sovereign One. He has planned each of my steps, so why should I worry?

The moment my terrible circumstances began to overtake me I should have gone to God in prayer. I should have reminded myself of the promises of God.

Is not our God the Deliverer?

Does not our God have only good intentions for His elect people?

I should have been a doer of the Word, and not a hearer only.

By the kind intention of God, He has granted me repentance and shown me my error. But I am humbled. I’m reminded once more that I need God’s sustaining grace to make it through each and every day.

3 John 1:4

2006-08-08T07:00:00.000-07:00

Sunday afternoon I was able to hang out with my old dgroup from GCC. I’ve said this many times before, and I gladly say it again: those boys were the most difficult part about leaving Grace Community.

We ate some health food (haha, yea right), then spend about an hour and a half talking about the hypostatic union of Christ – and it wasn’t even MY idea =). One of the students had a question about how God can be said to not change (Mal 3:6) if God the Son took on a human nature. Excellent question! I was amazed at the intelligence of the question! Clearly it was something that this particular guy, Joseph, had thought through and wanted to reconcile this issue so as to better understand his Lord. Isn’t that the desire of all Christians – to know more about the triune God?

Once we finished, Dan and I chatted for at least a couple hours. Dan is a dear brother whose friendship I value greatly. He is without a doubt one of my best friends. He took the guys on a service trip to Central America, and had some joyous times with them. As he told me about the trip I teared up more than once … and for different reasons. I was overjoyed to hear of how the Lord blessed their work. I thanked God when I heard of their love for one another. I was moved to hear of how much they have spiritually matured.

Though I have told all of our guys many times over the years how much I care about them, I don’t think they really know the depth of my love for them. I know Dan would say the same thing. I have watched them grow up since they were little sevies. Now they stand ever so much taller than me as seniors in high school! LOL.

Truly they are my glory and my joy.

Thanks for letting me boast about these guys. They are all eternally IT with BLOG TAG, no double tag backs. Aha!

3 John 1:4, "I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth." (NASB).

Because of Christ, the Lord,
Case

Medhead, site updates, and one other thing

2006-08-05T07:01:00.000-07:00

During the presidential election I was totally a Sean Hannity fan. Yes, I was Hannitized. Post-election news-withdrawal hit me hard, and it was then that I realized Hannity has nothing new to say. He was incredibly helpful to me during the election, but now, I can almost predict what he's going to say before he says it, verbatim: "...three hours a day, every day, that's all we ask" =)

Anywho, I've branched out since then: Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager. My favorite by far, is Michael Medved. In fact, today I became a "Medhead" which basically means I can access his show archives anytime. He's informative and really is the best when it comes to politics and pop-culture.

Did you see that I updated some of my links off to the right? I created a "News" section. Before you gasp, please don't despair over my linking to the Communist News Network or MSNBC. With Fox's poor poor coverage of the Hezbollah-Israeli War, I've forced myself to branch out (especially since CNN and MSNBC have had better coverage).

I will still watch FoxNews, because they are definitely more conservative. But man, I am truly disappointed with them.

Welp, good to get that off my chest =)

Big C

My take on the Hezbollah-Israeli War

2006-08-05T07:00:00.000-07:00

CNN: “July 12th, Hezbollah fires a pair of rockets into northern Israel from southern Lebanon, and guerrillas capture two Israeli soldiers during an attack along the Lebanese border between the Israeli towns of Zar'it and Shtula. Eight Israeli soldiers also die in fighting that day. In response, Israeli ground, air and naval forces attack at least eight Hezbollah bases and five bridges in southern Lebanon.”

CNN: “July 13th, Israeli warplanes and artillery strike hundreds of targets in Lebanon including Beirut's international airport and military airports in Riyaq and Qulayaat. Hezbollah fires dozens of rockets into northern Israel, hitting Nahariya, Safed and Haifa. Israel establishes a naval blockade of Beirut, and late in the evening attacks the city's airport again.”

…

The past weeks have gone on and on very much like this. Please take note of who struck first: Hezbollah. Who or what is Hezbollah? Our U.N. Ambassador, John Bolton, describes Hezbollah as a state within the state of Lebanon. They are a militant Islamic terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel.

As I’ve done my best to keep up with the Hezbollah-Israeli War, I have been shocked at how many world leaders act as though Israel is out of line. Hezbollah shoots rockets into Israel, kills and captures Israeli soldiers, and people flip out once Israel begins to defend itself. Talk about a double standard.

If Hezbollah were to lay down her arms, Israel would agree to an IMMEDIATE cease-fire. But what do you think happens if Israel lays down her arms? Hezbollah continues firing!

Does not Israel have the right to defend itself against terrorist attacks? I believe they do. What I find completely horrific is to hear the cries of world leaders blaming Israel for this war. Let’s review: Hezbollah provokes; Israel responds. Hezbollah continues provoking; Israel continues responding.

By the way, these rockets that Hezbollah fires into Israel cannot be aimed like missiles can. They are shot with a general direction … usually towards Israeli civilians. By contrast, the Israeli army is doing everything they can to only attack military targets. Aren’t Lebanese civilians getting killed? Unfortunately, they are. And unfortunately for the Lebanese, Hezbollah uses residential areas to set up rocket launchers. You see, Hezbollah has every reason to want the Lebanese people killed. The more innocent Lebanese die, the more they win to their cause. Hezbollah want both the Lebanese and Israeli citizens to be slaughtered. Israel wants neither Israeli nor Lebanese civilians to die.

I pray that the terrorist organization known as Hezbollah is wiped from the face of the earth. So yeah, I support Israel.

Rusty

Two uber links

2006-08-01T07:02:00.000-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206456,00.html

and

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206553,00.html

Big C

Update: have you checked these yet ppl??? =)

This should be a top story...

2006-08-01T07:01:00.000-07:00

I called my mom Saturday afternoon to say hello. She and my dad are in Seattle on vacation. She asked if I had heard about the latest terrorist attack. I hadn't. She was shocked. One block from their hotel in Seattle, an American Muslim of Pakistani descent went to a Jewish Federation Office and shot six people. One was killed, the others wounded. Before he opened fire he shouted, "I am an American Muslim, angry at Israel..."

Now, I consider myself a news-addict. I try to watch the news every day. I read news online. I'm fairly up-to-date on what's going on in the world. But why hadn't I heard about this??? So I called Scott to see if he'd heard anything. He hadn't either. What in the world was going on!?!?

When I got home from work later that night, my beloved foxnews.com didn't even have it on the front page!!! Thank goodness for CNN and MSNBC (feel free to quote me on this folks) for both listed them in their top stories. But Monday, nothing. Today, still nothing.

Why isn't this a top story? I believe this is being brushed aside because this terrorist claims to be an "American Muslim."

Please read this story. Please tell your friends and family about this. This is a major attack on U.S. soil, and I will not let it go unnoticed.

Disappointed by FoxNews,
Rusty