Commentary, analysis and opinion.

TV Has to Be at Least 42 Percent Gay?

Posted by ∙ ∙ In Opinion ∙

Brent Bozell, President of the Media Research Center, describes the ways in which Hollywood continues to promote homosexuality. He points out that radical homosexual and lesbian activists insist on indoctrinating young children with “gay” propaganda through movies and TV. The problem, says Bozell, is that “Gay characters never face any real opposition to the gay agenda on these so-called ‘inclusive’ programs.” He begins:

The media elites glowed as they reported a judge had forced New Jersey to become the 14th state to honor and celebrate the “gay marriage” concept. When homosexuals marry in Hoboken, the gay left will be — should be — thanking Hollywood.

View article →

Sin Is at the Heart of What Is Wrong in Your Life

Posted by ∙ ∙ In Opinion ∙ , , ,

Marsha West begins her article with a stern warning from A.W. Tozer:

No one has any right to believe that he is indeed a Christian unless he is humbly seeking to obey the teachings of the One whom he calls Lord. Christ once asked a question that can have no satisfying answer, “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?”

Marsha then illustrates an important aspect of Christianity that is largely ignored by many professing Christians: Repentance. Sadly, believers have failed to realize that every sin we commit is first and foremost against the “One whom we call Lord.” Moreover, God is “independently, infinitely, immutably holy;” therefore our sins separate us from God and in some cases He will turn His face away from those who persist in sin.

View article →

George and Barbara Witness a Wedding—When a Private Act Sends a Public Message

Posted by ∙ ∙ In Opinion ∙ , ,

Dr. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has some grave concerns over former president George H.W. Bush and his wife Barbara’s recent attendance at a lesbian wedding as they have clearly come out in support of same-sex “marriage.” Dr. Mohler writes:

The news coverage of the Bushes’ attendance at the same-sex wedding points to a reality that must be understood—and fast. Attendance at a wedding is not a neutral act. The history and context of the wedding ceremony identify all those present as agreeing to the rightness of the marriage and acting as witnesses to the exchange of vows. This is why the venerable language of The Book of Common Prayer, used in the overwhelming majority of Christian weddings, calls upon anyone with knowledge that the proposed union is invalid to speak, “or forever hold his peace.” Anyone remaining silent at that point is affirming the rightness and validity of the marriage, and all who are present are counted as both witnesses and those who celebrate the union.

View article →

Chris Pinto Sort Of Apologizes

Posted by ∙ ∙ In Opinion

Chris Rosebrough, this morning on his Facebook announced that Chris Pinto had publicly apologized to Alan Kurschner and Dr. James White during yesterday’s Noise of Thunder radio program. After listening to Pinto’s apology, I am convinced that it was clearly a step in the right direction but that it was vague, unspecific and didn’t address what Pinto had done wrong.

Here is the audio:

Here is the transcript of Pinto’s apology:

“I want to address an issue that has occupied a certain amount of controversy in recent weeks that many of our listeners are familiar with. On august 28th, during the show in which I spoke about the faith of Andrew Jackson, that was the topic, certain comments were made after the break, and I discussed the education background of Alan Kurschner. And the fact that he has contributed to the research of Dr James White. Now without going into too many details, details which many of you are familiar with already, my comments had an inflammatory impact on some. And were taken to mean something other than what I intended and for this I sincerely apologize both to Alan Kurschner and to Dr. James White. And I want to apologize to our audience for any confusion or discord that came about as a result. Just so you know I have sent private apologies to both men, before making this announcement today. My desire is to encourage from this point forward, I hope, a God fearing approach to our discussions and I apologize for any comments that I’ve made at any point that fail to uphold that standard.”

My greatest concern after hearing Mr. Pinto’s apology is that he hasn’t specifically confessed the sinfulness of his statements but has apologized that they were “taken to mean something other than what” he intended and “caused confusion”. Rather than being a true, from the heart apology, Pinto’s words sound more like a rationalization. He didn’t apologize for what he said, which was truly slanderous. Instead, he apologized that people misunderstood him. In other words, he’s apologizing for the reaction of the people who heard his statements rather than apologizing for making them. That’s not a sincere apology but a rationalization.

To help explain the difference between true apologies and insincere apologies I would point you to an excellent blog post written by Tim Challies in February of last year entitled, Lessons in Forgiveness. In that post Challies addresses the lack of sincerity in apologies that attempt to rationalize sins. Said Challies,

Don’t Rationalize Your Sin

I try to teach my children that an apology does not include the words but or if. We do not say, “I’m sorry if I offended you.” We do not say, “I’m sorry I did it, but if you hadn’t…” We apologize sincerely and from the heart (or we try, anyway). If we cannot apologize without rationalizing our own sin, we are not truly apologizing. It is a good discipline to examine your heart before attempting to make a true and sincere apology. Do not allow yourself to make an apology that is actually an attempt to rationalize the wrongs you’ve committed. Rather, apologize sincerely and apologize from the heart, not as an attempt to clear your own record but as a step of love and obedience.

Although I think Pinto’s apology is a step in the right direction. He needs to take responsibility for what he said.

The Pintonian Inquisition: Scholarship or McCarthyism?

Posted by ∙ ∙ In Opinion

One of the darkest chapters in American history occurred in the opening years of the Cold war. From 1950 to 1956 Senator Joseph McCarthy conducted what would later to become known as “the Communist Witch Hunts.”  McCarthy and those on his committee were experts in the art of accusation. Their tactics included guilt by association, broad brushing, the use of the most superficial and flimsy of evidence against those whom he suspected of being Communists. McCarthy recklessly defamed his victims’ characters and destroyed the reputations, careers and lives of many. So notorious were McCarthy’s tactics that a new word was added to the English language. That word is McCarthyism and it means 1) the practice of making accusations of disloyalty in many instances unsupported by proof or based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence. 2) the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or criticism.

A prime example of McCarthy’s malicious use of guilt by association is his ruining of the reputation and career of American diplomat, John Service. The details of his case are as follows:

“Foreign Service Officer John S. Service was dismissed from the Department of State on Dec 13, 1951 following a determination by the Civil Service Commission’s Loyalty Board that there was “reasonable doubt” concerning his loyalty to the United States. Service was one of a number of so-called “China hands”—State Department officials who were experts on China and the Far East—who saw their careers ruined during the 1950s by Senator Joseph McCarthy and his cohorts. McCarthy targeted Service and several of his coworkers… for criticism and investigation. McCarthy charged that Service and other State Department officials had effectively “lost” China to the communists, either through incompetence or, more ominously, through sympathy with the communist cause…McCarthy singled out Service as one of what he called “the 205 known communists” in the Department of State. In short order, Service’s case was reviewed once again, and this time he was dismissed.

Service fought the dismissal, and was eventually reinstated in 1957, but his career never recovered from the damage.”[1]

Chris Pinto Master of the McCarthyistic Arts of Accusation & Guilt by Association

In this portion of my article I will provide three examples of Chris Pinto employing the use of McCarthyism. One of the examples will be from his documentary, Tares Among the Wheat and two will be in response to critics. In each example Pinto casts suspicion and doubt on his victim through the use of accusation and/or guilt by association. Sadly, I could provide literally dozens more examples than these.

Exhibit #1 – Tischendorf’s Mysterious Audience with the Pope

In the documentary, Tares Among the Wheat, Pinto attempts to build a case that Codex Sinaiticus is not an authentic 4th century manuscript but is instead a 19th century text penned by Constantine Simonides. The film itself spends an inordinate amount of time discussing the sins of the Vatican and the Roman Catholic church. The reason for this is that Pinto believes that this provides the historical context that must be understood in order to properly interpret the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus by Tischendorf in 1859.

One of the “interesting” pieces of evidence that Pinto believes is critically important information regarding Sinaiticus’ authenticity is the fact that Tischendorf had an audience with the Pope and other prominent Papal leaders during one of his trips to Egypt. The relevant scene begins at the 58:26 mark and continues until 1:09:18

.

Note that Pinto believes that Tischendorf’s audience with the Pope is vital evidence pertaining to Codex Sinaiticus authenticity. Yet, all he has done is cast suspicion on Tischendorf by documenting that he is guilty of associating with the Pope. In Pinto’s mind this is proof that something sinister is a foot and that something ominous is in the air. But, this is not relevant evidence. This is McCarthyism!



The authenticity of Sinaiticus in no way hinges on whether or not Tischendorf met with the Pope, shook the hand of Stalin or had lunch with Hitler. There are no textual scholars who are struggling with doubts about the authenticity of Sinaiticus due to the fact that Tischendorf met with the Pope.

Exhibit #2 – Dr. James White Attended Fuller Theological Seminary

Recently, on Facebook, a fan of Chris Pinto alerted him to an episode of Dr. James White’s radio program in which he offered criticism of Pinto. In predictable McCarthyistic fashion, Pinto responded by associating Dr. White with that notoriously liberal, Fuller Theological Seminary as if that somehow actually proved something about Dr. White. Here is Pinto’s response.


white

Ironically, Dr. White who was unaware of Pinto’s comment at the time, actually anticipated this tactic and commented about it on his radio program. Here’s the audio.

Anyone familiar with the ministry of James White would never believe that Pinto had actually proved anything about Dr. White’s theology, reliability or fidelity to the truth by merely pointing out that he graduated from Fuller. In Pinto’s mind, however, just the mere mention of Dr. White’s association with Fuller is sufficient enough to cast doubt and suspicion on him. This is not evidence this is McCarthyism!

Exhibit #3 – Alan Kurschner Attended Pro-Homosexual Harvard Divinity School

This last exhibit speaks for itself. In the audio below you will hear a quintessential example of McCarthyism being employed by Pinto in order to cast suspicion and doubt on Alan Kurshner and Dr. James White.




Rather than comment on Pinto’s unsubstantiated allegations, let me instead remind you of the definition of McCarthyism which is 1) the practice of making accusations of disloyalty in many instances unsupported by proof or based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence. 2) the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or criticism.

What Pinto needs to explain to everyone is if Alan Kurschner has been somehow compromised by exposure to pro-homosexual liberalism by taking a course on textual criticism at Harvard, why does he publicly write and speak out against the pro-homosexual agenda?

Concluding Thoughts

McCarthyism is not scholarship nor is it honest journalism. Instead it is a smear tactic that slanders its victims without regard for the truth. It is employed by conspiratorialists and witch hunters but should never be employed in the service of Christ, His Kingdom or His Gospel. As Jesus Himself taught us, it is satan who “does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44)

McCarthyism is a tool of the devil.



I pray that Chris Pinto repents.


The Slips and Follies of the Pintonian Inquisition – Part 2

Posted by ∙ ∙ In Opinion

Yesterday, Dr. James White wrote a blog post that gave us a peak into the thinking of one who possesses a conspiratorial mindset. Aside from being a fascinating read, the post demonstrates how conspiratorialists will not – or maybe a better way to say it is, cannot – view evidence objectively and rationally. This then causes them to interpret every shred of evidence through the lens of conspiracy. On the one hand, the conspiratorialist will always accept proof that supports his conspiracy theory, no matter how flimsy the source. On the other, the conspiratorialist will automatically reject any evidence that challenges or disproves the conspiracy and, oftentimes, the conspiratorialist will retaliate against those who challenge his theory by casting suspicion on them and associating them with those whom the conspiratorialist believes are plotting the conspiracy.

A textbook example of this type of conspiratorialist retaliation was documented by Chris Rosebrough on the 29 August 2013 episode of the Fighting for the Faith radio program. In that episode, Rosebrough played audio from Chris Pinto’s Noise of Thunder Radio program, in which Pinto put forward a series of guilt by association (GBA) arguments against two of his critics, Alan Kurschner and Dr. James White. Because the conspiratorialist mindset always interprets data through the lens of conspiracy, the only plausible explanation in Pinto’s mind for Kurschner and White’s having criticized him is that they are theologically compromised and, either knowingly or unwittingly, working to promote liberal gay-affirming ecumenical apostasy. What was most fascinating about that program was that Rosebrough documented the fact that, more than a month prior to Pinto’s retaliation, he had engaged in an identical GBA argument against Alan Kurschner. At that time, Kurschner personally responded to Pinto’s allegations and answered every one of them by giving primary source testimony demonstrating conclusively that Pinto’s claims were patently false. However, conspiratorialists always reject evidence that does not fit the conspiracy. True to form, Pinto dismissed Kurschner’s evidence out of hand and re-employed the same GBA attacks one month later, expanding them to implicate Dr. James White and to cast doubt on his scholarship.

Noise of Thunder: The Lost Episode – A.K.A. Pinto’s Papal Pickle

Another fascinating piece of evidence that gives us a peak into the conspiratorialist mindset of Chris Pinto involves the missing 5 August 2013 episode of Noise of Thunder. In that episode, Pinto led off his program by reading and commenting on a news story that he believed was real, but which was in fact a satirical story from Newslo.com, a competitor to The Onion.

PopeCriminalizes

The satirical news story is entitled Pope Criminalizes the Reporting of Sex Crimes, and there are many offhandedly silly, off-color and outrageous statements within the piece that are clearly designed to elicit a chuckle from the reader. What is striking is the fact that these jokes were not seen as jokes by Chris Pinto, but instead as real news! Here is the audio of Chris Pinto reading this satirical story as if it were real:

Why would Chris Pinto fail to see that this was satire? Why didn’t he take the time to vet his news source and corroborate the story before going on air? If the jokes within the story weren’t obvious enough to identify the piece as satire, a simple glance at the right column of Newslo’s website reveals links to their most popular stories, including headlines such as Pat Robertson Unveils Gay-Repelling Necklace and Syrians Enjoy Day Off from Gas Attacks to Enjoy Miley Cyrus Twerk. The reason Pinto thought it was a real news story is because it fits his conspiracy. It was just one more piece of proof to add to his growing pile of carefully screened and highly selective evidence. It fit his conspiracy template, therefore it had to be true!

After Pinto posted this program, a listener alerted him to his error. As far as I’ve been able to gather, it looks as if Pinto – rather than issue a formal retraction and apologize to the Vatican for his false reporting – chose simply to delete the program.

More to come in my next article.

Postscript: Because it is highly unlikely that Chris Pinto will acknowledge his conspiratorialist mindset to be the driving force behind the slips and follies that I’m reporting, and because Pinto is most likely trying to figure out how to link me to the Roman Catholic ecumenical apostasy conspiracy, I feel compelled to inform my readers that I am not a Roman Catholic, a Jesuit, a homosexual, a pedophile, or a Mason. Neither am I a member of the Iluminati, the Democratic Party, the Teamsters, or the Council on Foreign Relations. I have never attended Harvard or any other liberal university. I am a dog lover, don’t trust cats, and have never been a vegan.

The Slips and Follies of the Pintonian Inquisition – Part 1

By ∙ ∙ In Opinion

Chris Pinto, host of the Noise of Thunder radio program and documentary film-maker is a man who, as of late, has become something of a self-anointed expert in the field of textual criticism and ancient manuscripts. The problem is that for someone who thinks of himself as qualified to determine the reliability of modern translations and their underlying Greek and Hebrew texts, every time Pinto opens his mouth he demonstrates that he hasn’t done his homework and that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. It’s a lot like that scene in the movie Mr. Mom when Jack Butler, played by Michael Keaton, is explaining the plans he has to renovate and rewire his house to his wife’s boss Ron, played by Martin Mull. Ron asked Jack if he’s going to make it all 220. Jack’s answer is one of the all time great movie lines. Here’s the clip:

In almost an identically comical blunder, Chris Pinto on the 24 August 2013 episode of his radio program demonstrated to anyone who has taken a college level introduction to Biblical Greek and understands even the basic tenets of textual criticism that he has no clue what he’s talking about. Even funnier is the fact that Pinto then uses his comically erroneous evidence as the basis for casting theological doubt on the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible. Here is what Pinto said:

I will focus my comments on this portion of Pinto’s statement:

What nobody seems to want to talk about is that the ESV is based on the United Bible Society Nestle-Aland Vatican-supervised Greek text. That would be the only problem, right there at the beginning. OK, do you really want your Bible to based on something that has been supervised by the Vatican?

When a colleague of mine first played this quote for me, I asked him if it was a joke or if it was taken from a sitcom. When he insisted that it was legit and that Chris Pinto truly believes what he is saying my response was, “God help anyone who listens to this man.”

“220, 221 – Whatever it takes”

If Chris Pinto possessed the education or had taken the time to properly understand the field that he has deemed himself qualified to make such grand sweeping judgments about then he’d know that the Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, is not published by the United Bible Societies (UBS). It is published by the German Bible Society and the Institute for New Testament Research. Neither of which is supervised by the Vatican. As for the the UBS, they publish their own Greek New Testament and the scholars involved in its production come from a wide range of denominations and theological traditions which is a strength, not a weakness. The reason that this is a strength is because it provides a safeguard against theological bias.

For Chris Pinto to imply that the UBS Greek text is somehow tainted by a Roman Catholic agenda and that the Vatican is supervising its work and has to sign off on the UBS text is an ignorant and intentional mischaracterization of the UBS’ oversight committee and policies. Rather than putting forward meaningful evidence that demonstrates that Pinto possesses the knowledge and credentials to offer a substantive criticism of the texts that were employed by the translation committee of the ESV, Pinto instead played on people’s ignorance, fears and prejudices. These are not the methods employed by scholars but the tactics of propagandists and conspiracy theorists. It makes me wonder if Chris Pinto will begin casting doubt on the reliability of the Old Testament portion of the ESV because it heavily relied on the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, which as everyone knows, utilizes the work of Jewish scholars who do not even believe that Jesus is the messiah. It’s not hard to imagine Pinto saying, “you don’t want your Bible to be based on the scholarship of unbelieving rabbis, do you?”

Truth be told, Pinto’s methods are more akin to the same types of guilt by association arguments employed by the Roman Catholic inquisitors than they are to the methods employed by knowledgeable textual scholars.

The truth about the scholarship behind the ESV

The scholars on the translation committee for the English Standard Version reads like a who’s who of the most noted and celebrated living scholars that Protestantism has to offer and it is notable that no Jesuits or Vatican lackeys are listed among them.

The list includes such men as:

Dr. J. I. Packer, ESV General Editor
Board of Governors Professor of Theology, Regent College, Vancouver, Canada
Dr. Wayne A. Grudem
Research Professor, Theology and Biblical Studies, Phoenix Seminary
Dr. Robert H. Mounce
President emeritus of Whitworth College
Dr. Vern Sheridan Poythress
Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Westminster Theological Seminary; Editor, Westminster Theological Journal
Dr. Clinton E. Arnold
Professor of New Testament and Chair of New Testament Department, Biola University

These men have distinguished themselves in their respective fields of study when it comes to Biblical Greek and Hebrew and textual criticism. As for the texts employed by the translators of the ESV, here is what they have to say about them.

Each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or overlooking any nuance of the original text.

The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland.

The currently renewed respect among Old Testament scholars for the Masoretic text is reflected in the ESV’s attempt, wherever possible, to translate difficult Hebrew passages as they stand in the Masoretic text rather than resorting to emendations or to finding an alternative reading in the ancient versions.

In exceptional, difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text, or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text. Similarly, in a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition.

The footnotes that accompany the ESV text inform the reader of textual variations and difficulties and show how these have been resolved by the ESV Translation Team. In addition to this, the footnotes indicate significant alternative readings and occasionally provide an explanation for technical terms or for a difficult reading in the text.

Throughout, the Translation Team has benefited greatly from the massive textual resources that have become readily available recently, from new insights into biblical laws and culture, and from current advances in Hebrew and Greek lexicography and grammatical understanding.

Online Source

This hardly sounds like the work of men who are taking their orders from the Vatican. If Mr. Pinto would like to continue challenging the texts utilized by ESV Translation Committee, I suggest that he provide us with real evidence and real scholarship and do more than make mere assertions about the Vatican’s alleged supervisory involvement in the UBS. After all, if the UBS Greek New Testament is tainted by Roman Catholic scholarship why doesn’t it contain passages supporting the perpetual virginity of Mary, prayers to the saints, indulgences, purgatory and the primacy of the Pope? What’s the point of having supervisory oversight of the UBS if you can’t flex that supervisory power to smuggle those Roman Catholic dogmas into the text?

Here is something for you consider: conspiracy theorists, propagandists and fear mongers never have to provide real evidence to back up their assertions. All they have to do is make assertions and imply associations in order to cast doubt and suspicion on those with whom they disagree. But, that’s not scholarship. That’s what the Bible calls, “bearing false witness”.

More examples to come in my next article.

Transgender Politics vs. the Facts of Life

Posted by ∙ ∙ In Opinion ∙

Author and speaker Nancy Pearcey examines the liberal worldview that holds that a person’s sex at birth is merely arbitrary and not a scientific, biological fact.

California has just passed a new law saying school districts may not bar transgender students from same-sex settings, like men’s basketball teams or women’s locker rooms (Assembly Bill 1266). Opponents promptly submitted a referendum to overturn the law. But it will take more than the usual political activism to stop the momentum on what some are calling the next major drive for “equality.”

It will take a serious, sustained program of education in both scientific facts and real respect.

Every law has an implicit worldview, a set of assumptions that justifies it. The worldview implicit in the transgender movement is that our physical bodies have no particular value — that our biology is irrelevant to who we are as persons.

View article →

The Revolution of the Family: The Marxist Roots of ‘Homosexualism’

Posted by ∙ ∙ In Opinion ∙

In a piece posted at LifeSite News, Hillary White examines “homosexualism.”

I have been asked recently “what is homosexualism?” I started using the term in my writing on these issues a few years ago when it became clear that we were dealing not with a group of people, but with a particular ideology that is often held by people who are not themselves homosexuals.

A few days ago in The Guardian, Peter Tatchell wrote a pretty good description not only of that ideology’s goals but its origins. This political ideology, often called “queer theory” by its proponents in academia, is what is being pushed, quite openly these days, by the “gay rights” movement. Despite what we are told all day by their collaborators in the mainstream media, from the six o’clock news to your favourite sit-com, this movement is not about “equal rights”. It is about re-writing the foundational concepts of our entire society. I predict that it will not be much longer before the pretense of “equality” is dropped, having done its work.

View article →

God’s Gospel Was For Christ To Sacrifice Himself For Sinners

Posted by ∙ ∙ In Opinion ∙

By Ken Silva

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” (Matthew 16:13-23)

 God’s Word In The Bible Makes The Gospel Quite Clear 

Let’s do something which is largely unheard in today’s highly subjective postmodern/postevangelical world; we’ll turn to the inerrant and infallible record of Holy Scripture as we examine the critical issue of the vicarious penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ.

In our text from the Gospel of Matthew, which remember, is his eyewitness deposition we read in verse 21:

From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.  (Matthew 16:21)

If we approach this verse without postmodern presupposition it’s pretty obvious that the Master is prophesying the sacrifice of His life. The following from J.C. Ryle proves helpful here:

We find our Lord revealing to His disciples a great and startling truth. That truth was His approaching death upon the cross. For the first time He places before their minds the astonishing announcement, that “He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer—and be killed.”

He had not come on earth to take a kingdom, but to die. He had not come to reign, and be ministered to, but to shed His blood as a sacrifice and to give His life as a ransom for many. ((J.C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007], 198.))

However, we still see that the ever ebullient and impetuous disciple:

Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” (Matthew 16:22)

But how could God not allow what He Himself had decreed some 700+ years before:

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.

By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53:4-10)

Yet even within the evangelical community itself we have people denying outright  Christ’s penal substitutionary atonement. This part of liberal theology would slither into the mainstream of Christendom when it made the ill-fated decision to embrace e.g. the likes of  Living Spiritual Teacher and Emerging Church guru Brian McLaren.

For the sake of this discussion I’ll simply point you to McLaren’s ringing endorsement of The Lost Message Of Jesus (TLMoJ) by Steve Chalke with Alan Mann. Leaving aside the cult-like idea of some “lost message,” you need to remember that we were told this seminal book is supposedly really good stuff by none other than “The Rt Revd N.T. Wright.”

Wright says of TLMoJ that:

“Steve Chalke’s new book is rooted in good scholarship,… Its message is stark and exciting.” ((Steve Chalke, Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004,], 1.))

So here following is what McLaren himself says concerning this “good scholarship,” which is so “exciting” to N.T. Wright:

Steve Chalke’s new book could help save Jesus from Christianity. That’s a strange way of putting it, I know. Not that the real Jesus needs saving. But when one contrasts the vital portrait of Jesus painted by Steve with the tense caricature drawn so often by modern Christianity, one can’t help but feeling the “Jesus” of modern Christianity is in trouble. The Jesus introduced by Steve in these pages sounds like someone who can truly save us from our trouble. Brian McLaren, author of The Church on the Other Side  ((Ibid. 1, emphasis mine.))

Note that 1) EC leader Brian McLaren actually does admit this is another Jesus, and 2) he says that Chalke paints “the vital portrait of Jesus”. High praise indeed; and not only that, but McLaren also tells us that Steve Chalke, “could help save Jesus from Christianity.” Has helped introduce the liberal Jesus into the very heart of Christianity is more like it.

Well, to refresh your memory, below is what Chalke writes concerning God’s Gospel of Christ’s sacrifice of Himself for sinners in TLMoJ:

The fact is that the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse — a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the Church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a construct stands in total contradiction to the statement “God is love.”

If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies and refuse to repay evil with evil. The truth is the cross is a symbol of love. It is a demonstration of just how far God as Father and Jesus as his Son are prepared to go to prove that love. The cross is a vivid statement of the powerlessness of love. ((Ibid., 182, 183.))

However, returning to the passage of Isaiah 53, which I cited above, the great Hebrew scholar Dr. Edward Young brings out the truth in his classic three volume commentary on Isaiah:

Despite the innocence of the servant, the Lord took pleasure in bruising him. His death was not in the hands of wicked men but in the Lord’s hands. This does not absolve from responsibility those who put him to death, but they were not in control of the situation. They were doing only what the Lord permitted them to do.

Emphasis falls upon the Lord, for inasmuch as the end to be attained, peace, is founded upon the divine nature, the means by which it was to be attained must also be in accordance with the divine character and of divine appointment. The pleasure of the Lord had in view the accomplishing of the divine will. Hence, all attempts of sinful man to produce a Utopia upon this earth are not only wicked, they are foolish. ((Edward Young, The Book of Isaiah [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965], Vol. 3, 353, 354, emphasis his.))

Satan Speaks In Order To Try And Thwart The Will And Plan Of God

How sad that Brian McLaren et al weren’t paying attention to a real scholar of the Bible. The truth is, by denying Christ’s substitutionary atonement, men like McLaren are actually speaking for Satan. For you see, this is exactly what Peter himself was doing in our text when he rebuked His Creator by telling Him that He was not to go through with this vicarious sacrifice on the Cross — “Lord! This shall never happen to you.”

And now look at who Jesus tells us was actually speaking in this denial of the penal substitutionary atonement:

But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” (Matthew 16:23)

As Dr. John MacArthur has written, “Christ came with the express purpose of dying as an atonement for sin (John 12:27). And those who thwart His mission are doing Satan’s work.” ((John MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commentary [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005], 1155)) Then during his own insightful commentary on Matthew Robert Mounce hits the target dead on when he says, “those who oppose the will and plan of God are emissaries of Satan.” ((F.F. Bruce, New International Biblical Commentary [Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1979], 164))

The truth remains that the Holy Spirit has told us with crystalline clarity that the “mission,” as well as “the will and plan of God,” for Jesus was for Him to give His life on the Cross as a sacrifice for sinners. The fact is, as they attack and deny Christ’s mission of the substitutionary atonement on the Cross, duplicitous deceivers like Steve Chalke and Brian McLaren are attempting to thwart our Lord’s work and opposing the will and plan of God.

Therefore, while doing the devil’s work as his emissaries they are absolutely not laboring for God at all. Rather, such as these are actually wolves in sheep’s clothing who truly do speak for Satan himself. So don’t let yourself be taken in by them. The vicarious penal substitutionary atonement is not merely some minor area of Christian theology in which we are free to disagree.

It’s a matter of the gravest importance.

Apprising Ministries

Let the Little Ones Come to Me — Social Justice Gone Awry

Posted by ∙ ∙ In Opinion ∙ ,

Dr. Peter Jones of Truth X-Change weighs in on what liberals refer to as “Social Justice Christianity.” One example Dr. Jones offers is World Vision’s gradual move away from sharing the true Gospel of Jesus Christ with the lost as they instead encourage people to embrace a works-based social justice gospel. Jones writes:

The evangelical church is increasingly aware of the need to witness to Christ in acts of mercy, especially since some evangelicals in the past spoke almost exclusively of individualistic and future salvation. In reaction, some today are adopting “orthopraxy” (right action) as their main emphasis, downplaying or even abandoning “orthodoxy” (right belief). But good works and sound belief cannot be separated. Alas, instead of a biblical balance, we face the serious danger of a new form of the old “social gospel,” which turns the Christian faith into a system of salvation by works, Jesus into a mere example, like the Buddha, Socrates or Lao Tzu, and Christianity into one variant of interfaith good will. But orthopraxy alone cannot preach the gospel. We as redeemed sinners must “confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord.”

View article →

What’s Missing from this Picture?—Fertility on the Rise, Worldview on Display

Posted by ∙ ∙ In Opinion ∙

Dr. Albert Mohler writes:

USA Today reported last week that the United States “is taking baby steps forward” in terms of the fertility rate. According to the forecasting group Demographic Intelligence, the USA’s total fertility rate is likely to increase to 1.90 per woman in 2013, up slightly from 1.89 in 2012. Last year’s figure was the lowest recorded in 25 years.

“The United States has seen marked declines in childbearing in the wake of the Great Recession, but we think that this fertility decline is now over,” Sam Sturgeon, president of Demographic Intelligence, told USA Today. “As the economy rebounds and women have the children they postponed immediately after the Great Recession, we are seeing an uptick in U.S. fertility.”

Sturgeon, like many others, points to economic factors as the main driver of fertility rate fluctuations. Similarly, Mark Mather of the Population Reference Bureau said: “Historically, we’ve seen fertility trends move up and down with economic indicators.”

But, wait just a minute.

View article →

David Barton Says Four Professors Criticized The Jefferson Lies; He Forgot Some

Posted by ∙ ∙ In Opinion

David Barton critic, Professor Warren Throckmorton, challenges the Christian historian’s claim that only four professors criticized Barton’s book, The Jefferson Lies. Throckmorton begins by saying:

Facts are pesky.

On July 19, Steve Deace interviewed David Barton (at 24:12 in hour 3) in Iowa after the big political confab there with Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. Deace asked Barton to describe the controversy over The Jefferson Lies (now approaching a year ago). He also asked if there was any substance to the criticism.

Barton said a bunch of stuff he usually says about it (e.g., publisher Thomas Nelson got scared of the scary professors, etc.). Then he said:

You’ve got about 6,000 universities in America and they found four professors who criticized what I did. Well, 6,000 universities, you probably have 60,000 professors and they found four who didn’t like it.

Well, we all know who two of them are. But just four? I think he forgot some.

View article →

Media Love New Jesus Book ‘Zealot’, Fail to Mention Author is Muslim

Posted by ∙ ∙ In Opinion ∙

According to author John S. Dickerson:

Reza Aslan, author of the new book, “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth” has been interviewed on a host of media outlets in the last week. Riding a publicity wave, the book has surged to #2 on Amazon’s list.

Media reports have introduced Aslan as a “religion scholar” but have failed to mention that he is a devout Muslim.

His book is not a historian’s report on Jesus. It is an educated Muslim’s opinion about Jesus – yet the book is being peddled as objective history on national TV and radio.

View article →

Is Monogomy Unnatural?

Posted by ∙ ∙ In Opinion ∙

Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis, addresses the growing belief that unbiblical belief that monogomy is unnatural for many humans. He begins:

The moral decay continues in our Western culture! As shown again with the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding same-sex “marriage,” there has been a rise in the number of people promoting polygamous lifestyles and behavior.

Recently, CNN featured an opinion column by journalist and author Meghan Laslocky titled “Face it: Monogamy is unnatural.” In the column, Laslocky asserts that “monogamy is not natural for many, or probably even most, humans.”

View article →

National Christian Legal Organization Petitions California Supreme Court to Uphold Proposition 8

Posted by ∙ ∙ In Opinion ∙ ,

According to Christian News Network, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has filed a petition asking that the Court order all county clerks to uphold Proposition 8 and not continue issuing “marriage” licenses to homosexuals. ADF “has been one of the main legal entities defending Proposition 8 in the courts, including in the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to rule on the matter last month. The court had stated that those defending Proposition 8 in Hollingsworth v. Perry did not have legal standing in the case, since California government officials decided not to appeal the lower court’s ruling, which found the state’s marriage amendment unconstitutional.” View article →

What Would Jesus Have You Do?

Posted by ∙ ∙ In Opinion ∙ , ,

The question all Christians must ask themselves in their decision-making process is not so much “What would Jesus do?” but “What would Jesus have you do?” The way in which Christians conduct their lives is to be based on solid biblical principles—what Jesus says—certainly not based on what our corrupt culture deems appropriate. Yet a large number of professing Christians live as if they’re excused from the moral example God has set forth for His people in Scripture.

In this piece Marsha West offers food for thought on the do’s and don’t’s of Christian living. She begins:

No question, we are a culture that loves to be entertained. Even churches have caught on to the public’s desire for 24/7 entertainment. As a consequence, a large number of evangelical churches are now driven by a need to fulfill this desire in their congregants. And what better way to pack the house in ginormous auditoriums than to offer a 90 minute stage show enhanced with state-of-the-art sound, lighting and video systems.

Lights, camera, action!

View article →

Here We Stand

Posted by ∙ ∙ In Opinion ∙ ,

In this article found at The Cripplegate, Mike Riccardi reflects on the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. Now, more than ever before, Christians are being pressed to soften their stance on the Word of God. Many Christians have caved to the pressure. Riccardi gives fair warning that we must not back down—not now, not ever. As good soldiers of Jesus Christ, we are to hold our ground. We have no choice but to stand firm! And when the spiritual forces of evil tempt us to soften on a particular doctrine of Scripture, “we must be ready to look that tempter in the face, to raise our copy of the Word of God, and say, “Here I stand!” View article →

Liberty Baptist Seminary’s Enrollment of Homosexual Activist Called Into Question

Posted by ∙ ∙ In Opinion ∙

Christian News Network reports:

The enrollment of an openly homosexual student at a prominent Baptist theological seminary is being called into question by those who wonder why the institution is seemingly overlooking immoral behavior by those it will be sending out into the ministry.

As previously reported, The Atlantic recently published an essay written by Liberty University graduate Brandon Ambrosino, in which the former student outlined his personal experience of coming out as a homosexual on campus.

View article →

The Fruit of Compromise

Posted by ∙ ∙ In Opinion

A video has been circulating—and drawing mixed reactions—of Andy Stanley discussing creation, Adam and Eve and the infallibility of Scripture. Andy Stanley has shown over and over again that he is a leader in what has come to be known as the “New Evangelism.” In watching this video, one must listen very carefully to what Stanley says about the Word of God and the “reason” he uses to discount it as having any authority in the Church. Sadly, Stanley’s comments did not surprise me except that he actually said this publicly. Please watch the video with all discernment. View article →

The First Word in ‘BSA’ Now Stands for Betrayal

Posted by ∙ ∙ In Opinion ∙

On May 24, 2013, the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) voted to revise its membership policy on the issue of homosexuality. The 1,400 voting members of the BSA voted to allow openly gay boys into its ranks.

Rick Scarborough and Robert Knight are outraged by the decision. They believe “it’s a betrayal of the boys in the Scouts’ care. It’s a betrayal of trusting parents. It’s a betrayal of a 103-year-old institution that has molded millions of boys into men. It’s a betrayal of truth and honor.” Moreover, “It’s a betrayal of God, in Whose name the organization furthered the priceless worth of being morally straight.”

Scarborough and Knight also believe the decision was motivated by the BSA’s greed for corporate dollars and the organization’s fear of being “on the wrong side” of what they deem “an increasingly coarse culture that not only rejects biblical truth but openly attacks it.” View article →