Category: Culture Page 15 of 20

Obama’s Appeal to the Younger Generation

On January 5, 2008

Obama and his staffers have done a tremendous, uber-intelligent job at marketing to the younger generation. All of his speeches, short video clips I’ve seen on the internet, and other various audio clips where he speaks make it sound as if he’s bi-partisan and not like other politicians out there. “I’ll do things differently in Washington, unlike those other politicians, uniting this country instead of dividing it,” is basically all I’m hearing from him. Yet, if he wins the Presidency, he will encounter the same red tape the Democrats currently in control of congress have encountered, though they said the same thing he’s saying. He will have the same pressures coming down upon him in the White House just like every other President before him, preventing him from accomplishing wall he desires. He’s done great at marketing himself as a “third” “uniting instead of dividing” option over against the Republicans and Democrats, so he claims. He’s also popular because he has such a short political track-record; he basically does not have the dirt other older politicians may have from decisions they’ve made that may not have been the wisest.

But no one realizes that Obama’s short voting record in congress is one of the most liberal of any Senator! He’s not just a liberal Democrat, but a very liberal, far-left leaning Democrat. However, he presents himself as a middle of the road, “bridging the gap” type of politician that will move us in a new direction. Yes he will do just that potentially, and it may not be for the long-term good (though maybe, perhaps, for the short-term). But no one thinks in those terms anymore, so that’s why he’s so popular with the younger generation; they don’t think long-term, just the here and now (haven’t we all at some point in life though?). Anyway, I suspect Obama will win the Presidential race (though I very well could be wrong) as his appeal to people on both sides makes him prime to go all the way to the top. And yet it seems people from my generation would vote for him simply because he is charismatic, young, “trendy,” articulates himself very well, and can get a crowd all emotionally charged. The Republicans could learn a few things from him for sure about presentation. Sometimes they’re just boring, I do have to say. But I’ll take boring and traditional over socialist and trendy any day.

The other day on talk radio though, I heard someone say about Obama’s speech after he won the Iowa Caucus for the Democrats (and his speeches in general), that they’ve never heard someone say so much, with no actual content pertaining to the issues, so eloquently. I agree. He’s great at saying nothing very well. The other night was simply a pep rally speech after the Iowa Caucus. He said nothing of actual value, addressing any issues, but simply spoke from emotions. And that’s exactly what people like about him. He connects with the people’s hearts and emotions. And man, isn’t that what our culture bases almost every decision on now? “How does this or that thing or person meet my felt needs?” (Which is also how the evangelical church is preaching to a large degree, which is another issue). Obama is dynamic and presents himself very well, and I have to hand it to him, he’s brilliant in that regard. And I will not be voting for him, mainly over abortion, socialist healthcare, increasing taxation (which will just kill the economy), amongst a host of other issues. And this whole deal about “change”? Yeah, guys like him want to bring the same kind of change that’s coming to Europe right now: the nanny-state; the government invading into our personal lives, dictating what can and cannot be done on a micro-managerial level. Check this out … http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iPF … Bp0IvlPkDw … where does it stop? That’s right, it doesn’t. Just watch the movie Children of Men to see where the nanny-state could potentially lead.

The Democrats would make it sound like Bush is the one imposing the government in all of our lives with the NSA warrant-less wiretapping (of, might I say, suspected terrorists communicating with other terrorists overseas who want to do us harm, like that of 9/11?), and yet, the Democrats are the ones in favor of bigger government, higher taxes, turning over more and more private services to government control. Makes no sense. Norway’s people are hating the choices they made now where the tax rate is like 75% or higher. The average person there is getting to the point where they cannot buy necessities because they have no money and the government is inefficiently handling the services they need. And Obama’s the forerunner of this type of neo-socialism in the US! This whole thing is really showing me how much people in my generation do absolutely no fact-checking on candidates. “He’s culturally popular, trendy, young, speaks to my heart, speaks on behalf of the poor and the working-class, not like those other politicians who can’t change things; therefore, I vote for him.” I will not be.

Peace Child by Don Richardson – A Review

By David Westerfield

On December 18, 2007

In Christian Culture, Culture, Reviews, Theology

This true missionary story is such an excellent picture of how the Gospel can come in to even the most morally backward culture and transform it from the inside out. It seemed Don and Carol Richardson were up against impossible odds; indeed they were. How can a stone-age tribe who valued treachery more than sacrifice possibly comprehend, let alone believe the sacrificial message of Christ’s redemption for sinners? Only the Holy Spirit alone could make this possible. And at the same time, the Holy Spirit used the difficult work of the missionaries to clearly communicate this message to the Sawi people in Netherlands New Guinea.

To start off, Don and Carol had to learn their language. Then they had to attempt to communicate the Gospel, and in so doing, the Sawi people wound up valuing Judas’ betrayal of Christ more than Christ’s sacrifice! How in the world could they possible communicate the Gospel now? Little did Don know God had foreordained redemptive analogies within the Sawi culture long ago that would be used to display the wondrous work of Christ. In order for the tribe to make peace with another tribe nearby where there had been enmity for quite some time, each tribe had to offer a peace child: one of their own children was given over to the other tribe in order to establish peace. And as long as the children lived, there was peace between the tribes, no matter what one did to the other. However, if one of the children died, peace no longer reigned between the tribes.

Don realized he could use this analogy to communicate that Christ is the Perfect Peace Child, the one who was given on behalf of sinners to create peace between us and the true God, forever; and He is the One who will never die, unlike their frail children, in an environment thick with diseases and no cures. Once the Sawi people saw this beautiful display of the Gospel in a way they could finally comprehend and see as valuable, by the work of God’s Spirit alone through the message preached, many believed, and slowly the tribe began changing from the inside out. Over time, through the continued communication of the Gospel, they no longer valued treachery, but rather they valued the Ultimate Peace Child who was given on their behalf so they could be at peace with God. In addition, the Gospel message spread to many of the other tribes and there was unity that had not been there for possibly eons. Not only did the Gospel come in and save their souls from eternal destruction, but it came in and revolutionized the culture, their ethics, value systems, and it reversed the curse of Satanaic darkness that had held this people in spiritual bondage for so long. Praise God for such a wonderful picture of how the Gospel can come in and not only revolutionize individuals but also entire communities!

The Gospel and its message is no different in our Western culture. Though we come from a Judeo-Christian background (or really post-Christian in many respects), we have value systems, beliefs, understandings of reality, that all need healing and reversal by the work of the cross. In the same way the Sawi people were held in bondage by ideas of reality that were lies of Satan (doctrinal error, if you will), so also, our culture has ideas that need reversing by the message of the Gospel. This book is a great illustration of contextualizing the Gospel to a unique people group so they can see the light of Christ. And at the same time, this is exactly what we need to be doing with the Gospel in our own increasingly secularized setting we find ourselves in. With the missionary ideas of Gospel sharing and preaching presented in this book, it is my hope we all realize we too are missionaries in our respective settings and that we have the message of eternal life to present to many who just assume they are Christians because they are Americans.

Insightful Quote on Theological Liberals – R. Scott Clark

By David Westerfield

On December 17, 2007

In Audio, Culture, Theology

“Most [theological] liberals don’t start out as liberals; they start out as well-meaning evangelicals, and they only become liberal by the way that they make use of scripture.” – Dr. R. Scott Clark in this lecture (MP3)

And I ask, is this not true of most of those leading the emerging/emergent movement(s)/conversation? And again, while I agree with their critiques of modern evangelicalism, their applications to solve these problems are historically dangerous for the Gospel itself, and thus people’s salvation. The only guys I’m really in agreement with at all who are still involved in the conversation are Mark Driscoll and Matt Chandler because they uphold the critiques of modern evangelicalism (that I hold) while standing by propositional truths in the Scriptures, as well as holding to Scripture itself as the infallibly authoritative Word of God. However, Rob Bell, for instance, though I feel he is very well-meaning in what he does, in an article in Christianity Today (here), states he has, “‘[discovered] the Bible as a human product,’ rather than the product of divine fiat”. This is quite dangerous. In a similar fashion, theological liberals in the early part of the 20th century were saying something very similar, to the effect of, “There is no way to empirically prove the Scriptures as God’s divine word to man. Therefore, though we believe it be such personally, it is not necessary to believe this.” That thinking gutted the Gospel in the 20th century to where most mainline denominations in our day are now void of any Gospel truth so that people may be saved. It is a Christianity made in their own image.

Nowadays, the argument goes, “We cannot know anything for sure, with absolute certainty. Therefore, we cannot know the Bible is the word of God. So let’s look at it in terms of a human product rather than a product of divine [Holy Spirit] inspiration.” If the Bible is no longer upheld as an infallibly authoritative word spoken to us by God through the pens of men, then what final authority does it have over our lives, to intrude and cut against us as sinners so that we may be rescued from His wrath to come? If the Scriptural foundation is corrupted from the very beginning, then all other doctrines (of the Gospel) follow in its corrupted wake and the whole house falls, thus incurring the eternal wrath of God for failing to obey the Gospel. This is what happened with liberalism in the 20th century, continuing even to this day.

On this point then of the Scriptures (according to the emerging conversation), everything is up for debate and reinterpretation. In fact, ultimately the very Gospel itself can be redefined in “what I personally think it is” sort of terms (versus what it actually is) and is thus reduced from the “power of God unto salvation” to just an individually interpreted message [amounting to idolatry], with no divine power unto salvation at all. The Gospel message is then turned from salvation by God’s grace to the default mode of the human heart – salvation by my goodness and self-wrought righteousness. Lose the Gospel and we lose all hope of salvation for people. And the Gospel starts with absolute propositions and truth. And those truths are clearly set forth as the definitive Word of God. May we take the glaring warnings from history and apply them in our day and hold fast the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Though it is unpopular, may we continue to hold our confessions, though the world calls it absurd and antiquated.

In No Sense is Mormonism Christian

By David Westerfield

On December 6, 2007

In Apologetics, Culture, News, Politics, Theology

“I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind.” – Mitt Romney (Today in College Station)

While I stand politically next to Romney on pretty much every issue (as well as Glenn Beck who is also a Mormon) and would vote for him as President of the nation, more importantly than mere politics, I depart from him when it comes to Christianity. In no sense is Mormonism “Christian” really by any true, historical, theological definition, other than the fact that they borrow phrases, terminology and figures from Biblical history as mere “examples”. In addition, they totally redefined who these figures were and what they said. In the same way Unitarian/Universalists really aren’t Christians in their beliefs (denial of the Trinity and the just punishment of God against sinners in Revelation), so also Mormonism stands at odds with the historical, Biblical faith. This is where, once again, doctrine is vastly important to believers! That cannot be overstated. Look at what Romney said above. How many based on that definition would say he was a Christian who has been born of the Spirit of God? I would say the majority of modern evangelicals would probably say he’s a believer indeed. (And I can hear it now, “Who are we to judge?”) And yet, there is a lot implied in this statement of his, as well as a whole lot that is not said. And this is the case for when you have a Mormon come into your home, evangelizing you to enter their church. They are slippery and evasive. They will affirm historic Christian doctrines and then in the same breath deny them by qualifying all they say.

So how is this religion not Christian in any sense?

1) Well for starters, amongst the many absurd theological inventions introduced by Joseph Smith in the 1800’s (i.e. 1700 years after the last book was written within the Christian canon of Scripture), not only did they add a book to the canon of Scripture (the Book of Mormon), but they also re-translated the Bible itself (and interpreted into the translation-it is an “eisegetical translation”). For instance, in John 1:1 we read (in most common, accurate translations from the Greek and Hebrew that is), “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.” However, Mormonism’s Bible translation reads, “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was a God.”

2) Notice that right at the end there? “A God”. Amongst how many? As many as work really hard according to Mormonism’s principles, and thus earn the right to become gods themselves and inherit their own planet of sorts. So yes, Mormons are polytheists. So Jesus was the son of God (just like we can be if we work for our salvation under the Mormonistic principles of faith, but Jesus was not the One, the Only, Son of God who made an effectual payment for sinners on the cross. He was merely an example of how we should work for our salvation, just as he did, and that according to Mormonism. He was someone like us, in the sense that we too are sons of God and should follow his example. So from the outset, Mormonism is at odds with Christianity in the monotheistic versus polytheistic sense. They believe in multiple gods, true Christians believe in one God (“The Lord our God, He is one”?). Mormonism has the rather large underlying presupposition that there are multiple gods. So you have to read Romney’s statement through that filter to get what he is saying.

3) In addition to the polytheistic nature of their religion, Jesus was not eternally begotten of the Father, but begotten of the Father in the flesh, meaning the Father, Elohim, physically had sex with Mary and thus conceived Jesus. There are many modern day LDS’ who deny this is their doctrine, but as James White clearly documents in the articles below, this is indeed the case. So their religion is in error Christologically, or in their understanding of who Jesus is from the Scriptures. They deviate, just as the Arians and Gnostics did, on the point of Christ (denying His preexistence as God, denying His being The God from all eternity (not just a god), denying His oneness with the Father), and thus are preaching an absolutely different gospel because their Jesus differs from that of the Scriptures.

4) Something else that I just learned of today, actually on CNN, is that they believe Jesus ministered in the America’s, something that in no sense can be historically shown to be accurate, both from the original text of Scripture itself as well as extra-scriptural texts.

I mean the absurdities don’t stop. I won’t go through all of them, but just wanted to give you a flavor of what they believe, because it is uniquely non-Christian, and with the exception of phrases and terminology, we as believers in Christ as the only way to God share nothing in common with Mormons. We do not worship the same God together with them. They worship a god created in their own image (or rather that of Joseph Smith).

Here are a series of theological articles on Mormonism entitled Mormonism’s Embarassing Theology by Dr. James White over at www.aomin.org if you want to go deeper:

The Only Begotten of the Father in the Flesh: Mormonism’s Embarrassing Theology #1
The Only Begotten of the Father in the Flesh: Mormonism’s Embarrassing Theology #2
The Only Begotten of the Father in the Flesh: Mormonism’s Embarrassing Theology #3
The Only Begotten of the Father in the Flesh: Mormonism’s Embarrassing Theology #4
The Only Begotten of the Father in the Flesh: Mormonism’s Embarrassing Theology #5
The Only Begotten of the Father in the Flesh: Mormonism’s Embarrassing Theology #6

Democracy Makes For a Great Country, But Terrible Theology

By David Westerfield

On November 28, 2007

In Culture, Philosophy, Politics, Theology

The concept of democracy for a society, where the people rule the government and its leaders, has been a huge blessing to mankind in a world struck with unbelievable suffering at the hands of wicked men in power over people. One of the reasons democracy is so great is because of its checks and balances in place, where no one person or group gains control over others. And leaders only hold positions for a limited amount of time (as opposed to places like Cuba where Castro has been in power for decades). Within a democracy, instead of leaders being selected by a singular person or group in power (as in so many nations), leaders are selected by majority vote of the people. And this whole system works really well in a sinful, broken world.

One of the reasons communism will not ever work in the long-run is because of the sinfulness of man. I believe the fundamental idea of communism is great, where everyone gives of themselves for the benefit of everyone else. Sounds great! This is in fact what the first church did within the book of Acts. However, societies and cultures are made up of sinners, people who are greedy, lustful, selfish, arrogant, and unfortunately, someone or some group at some point assumes power over others and oppresses them. That is why I do not like the idea of communism in a sinful world: it will never ultimately work because of the proneness of men’s hearts to sin and assume power. However, a democracy, where everyone participates in the process, works great in a sinful world where people are greedy and want power over others. It keeps them from assuming that power. I’m thankful for this nation where we are not prevented from gathering together to worship Christ, to have Bible studies, and so on, being oppressed by people who hate us. Praise God for the political freedoms of this nation.

How does the idea of democracy make for terrible theology though? Think about this with me. We live in a society where being a self-starter is prized, looked upon with favor. Individualism, freedom, self-expression, just Self really, are encouraged and worshiped in our culture. If you pull yourself up out of some terrible, poverty-stricken situation, worked really hard to get through school, started a business, and you are now very successful (i.e. successful in worldly, monetary terms), you are worshiped as an icon of what good, honest, hard work can do. Yes, that is a great example of someone who overcame their circumstances in a merely worldly sense. We have a Bill of Rights that protects our political freedom and gives us certain “inalienable” protections, by law. As a society, we think in terms of how everything affects Our Freedom. We think of ourselves as pretty good people, without much moral decay, like those other “pagan” nations who are less advanced. (I’m being facetious of course.) And this thinking has largely entered the spiritual side of things as well, even in the church.

Many read the Bible through the “freedom” lens of our own political theory and even contort Scripture to this end to make it fit their sin-bound, cultural understanding of God. Scripture confronts every culture though in all of history with the Gospel, because every culture is flawed and in bondage to sin, doing the will of Satan, and in need of supernatural healing by the Gospel. It is important for us to understand that God does not rule by referendum or majority vote. He is the Ruler of rulers, the King of kings. He does not get voted out of office, nor does his time in office expire, nor is He thwarted in His plans and purposes, in all realms of existence, including evil. None can stay (or hold back) His hand from doing what He wants to do. None. That includes we Americans. In addition, it is evil for us to assume we are owed salvation. No one is owed salvation. We talk about our rights so much, that as a society, we assume we are owed a good place when we die because, well, life is hard, so there’s gotta be something better. And there is, only through Jesus.

“All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?’” (Daniel 4:35)

Sadly, for many Christians today, these underlying fundamental political presuppositions of freedom (in all respects) are applied to the spiritual/Scriptural realm, in terms of our freedom from God. And it usually comes in the form of free will theology, something Martin Luther wrote against in Bondage of the Will, which he considered his most important work. Now to be clear, it must be stated that men do have wills, they do indeed choose what they desire most. But what does a sinfully corrupted will desire apart from the grace of God? Wickedness, in all its colorful forms. Is the will not in bondage to sin? This is what Luther addresses in Bondage of the Will and Edwards goes on later to extensively demonstrate in Freedom of the Will. What part of our existence is left untouched by the fall? Free will theology does not stand in light of Scripture. The whole book of Job (read the last several chapters to sum up God’s point), John 6:44, John 6:63-65, Romans 8:5-8, Romans 9, Ephesians 1, Exodus 33:18-19, amongst many other places, will not let it. This is not the way the Scriptures speak, in terms of Our Freedom. What kind of freedom does a child of wrath, in bondage to sin have? Sure, we have a freedom to choose whatever we want. But all we want apart from God’s work in us by His Spirit is wickedness. The Lord attests to this in Genesis 6:5, “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Man, that is how bad we are! We are bent on destruction. What kind of freedom is this? Freedom to go to hell, as George Whitefield famously said.

We as sinners are so arrogant to think in terms of our freedom from God. Is this not the mark of rebellion? Is this not what the people at the Tower of Babel did, the very reason God confused their languages in order that they may not accomplish their purpose? Seems to me to just prove the case of our total depravity all the more that we would even speak like this, even as believers. The Bible is very clear about speaking in terms of God’s freedom to do as He pleases, and speaks of us only in terms of our bondage to sin (our wills, hearts, minds, tongues, flesh, thinking, reasoning, desires, emotions; all facets of our existence are under bondage to sin and its power). And even then it only speaks of our freedom in terms of salvation brought about by God in the supernatural work of Christ to raise us from spiritual death. To think that you, in your sinful bondage, can think correct thoughts about Christ or conjure up saving faith from within your unregenerate, dead, sinful human nature is the very fundamental mark of legalism and the fundamental philosophical basis for all other religions, that we produce something to give to God as payment for our bad deeds against Him. This right here is what Luther fought tooth and nail against in the Reformation against Erasmus in particular in Bondage of the Will. Nothing is outside the grasp of sin in our lives. It has completely and utterly corrupted, destroyed, and taken hold of every part or us, blinding us from the knowledge of the truth of God in Christ.

“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.” (Matthew 16:13-17)

So many times from the pulpit, on the radio, and on the internet in America, the Gospel is presented to people as if they lived in a cosmic democracy. Their version of the Gospel goes something like this: “God votes for you, Satan votes against you, and you cast the deciding vote.” That is arrogant to talk like that and clearly evades the implication of the new birth. That is the American way to think though and the presupposition when teaching the Scriptures so often. Who do you have to thank for why you are saved in this scheme? Yourself. And really it is the humanly natural way to think about religion. You do something to get in good with God. Unfortunately now, this very deceptive, insipid version uses Christ as the means to self-salvation, and it is my estimation that many are duped into thinking that just merely superstitiously uttering a prayer, “asking Jesus into your heart,” (which is nowhere spoken in the Scriptures) they are indeed saved, without ever being born again of the Spirit of God. The thinking goes, “I got myself in the door of Jesus,” or, “I pulled myself up by my boot-straps to choose Jesus.” (This is semi-pelagianism, a heresy condemned at the Council of Orange in 529 A.D., long before America even existed, and yet this heresy prevails in much of American Christianity today sadly.) What exactly did God do to save you in this scheme? You casted the deciding vote! God did most of the work, but you got yourself in the door. I cannot for the life of me see how God gets glory in this. Who do you have to thank in heaven for being saved? This is why we must see that we are utterly dependent upon God for every step of salvation.

This American Gospel is no gospel at all, but rather a very deceptive form of legalism using the slain Son of God as its stepping stone so you can basically save yourself and the very thing Martin Luther fought against with Rome in the Reformation. It is funny how most evangelicals nowadays, at least on the level of God’s sovereign grace in salvation, have more in common with Roman Catholics than historic Protestants. It is no wonder there is so much talk and confusion now about common ground and unity between Catholics and Protestants when historically, we disagree on fundamental soteriological doctrines. Luther said that God’s sovereign authority, power and right to save whom He chooses is at the very heart of the Gospel itself. Are we going to ignore such a statement? There is no hope in the Gospel without God’s working in us to will and to work for His good pleasure and our good.

“What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Corinthians 4:7) “But by the grace of God I am what I am.” (1 Corinthians 15:10)

All I know is the way the Scriptures speak and from my own experience, God saved (rescued, regenerated, brought to life, resuscitated) my dead, rotten, no good soul that was dead and decaying, that was bent on rebellion and evil from the heart; He did this from Alpha to Omega, encompassing and even preceding my desires, my will, and my faith. And I believe by His grace alone, He will work in me to continue to the end. His regeneration in my heart is the very thing that gave rise to my faith in Him. Apart from Him I could do nothing. What can dead men do? I was helpless and in bondage by the dungeon of my own wicked heart, He reached in through the preaching of the Scriptures and granted that I should see, that I should hear, that I should get up and walk, and thus I did because of His enablement. As Spurgeon has said, “I ascribe my change wholly to God.” He gets all glory for every step of my salvation, including the supernatural origination of faith in my heart. I take no credit for my faith, because it was granted by God Himself. This is the power of God unto salvation. We need faith to be saved, absolutely. Faith alone in Christ alone. But as the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals says, “Faith is not produced by our unregenerated human nature.” Right on. It is a work of God alone. We must be born again, as John said, “Not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13)

If we are saved, having believed in Christ, who do we have to thank but God for working in us to make us what we are? I desired nothing of God prior to my conversion. Why did I just drop the drugs all of sudden and stop hanging out with people Satan was using to hold me down in sin, blinding me from the truth of Christ? Was that change of heart of myself and my deadness or was it God? Where did my faith in Christ come from? From myself, in bondage to sin? No! “Dead in trespasses and sin.” That was me. We need to be born again, born of God if we are to be saved through faith in Christ. What is the new birth? Is it just turning a new leaf, or morally reforming ourselves, or is it just a label slapped on “Evangelical Christians” by the culture? Many pastors and teachers in our society would lead you to believe it is all of these. And unfortunately the message is really no different than other messages of other religions at its heart, though with differing means. No, Biblically speaking, the new birth is a supernatural transformation from the inside out, brought about by the Holy Spirit alone, through the preaching of the Gospel in the Scriptures (and all of this without our help, mainly because dead men have nothing to offer in bringing themselves back to life).

Many times, the new birth is presented as being that which comes as a result of faith. Scripture in no way speaks like this. The new birth precedes and gives rise to faith and good deeds, always. Acts and 1 John are great examples. “The Lord opened [Lydia’s] heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.” (Acts 16:14) “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.” (1 John 5:1) “For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world— our faith.” (1 John 5:4) “If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him.” (1 John 2:29) If you are a believer, you are what you are but by the grace of God alone opening your heart to pay attention to what was said by whoever preached the Gospel to you. Or if you were reading the Scriptures and saw the eternal truth of Christ and what they were saying, that was a work of God in you. You can boast in nothing of yourself, pulling yourself up to trust Christ. Why did you heed the message, while someone else rejected it and became a staunch atheist? May I submit to you, that you would have been the atheist if God had not revealed Christ to you. God could have and in all justice would have been right in letting you continue in your sin, blind as a bat to the knowledge of the truth of the Gospel. And yet He reached in and gave you new life. The second, spiritual birth of God is the only answer for why you are saved through faith alone in Christ alone. This new birth is an act of God, where He raises your sinfully dead, hardened heart, soul, will, and mind to new life. He gives you eyes to see Christ and the Kingdom of God, hear the calls of eternal mercy in the Gospel by the Spirit where you cannot help but throw yourself at the feet of Jesus to be saved. This very blessing that is ours was predicted in the Old Testament in Ezekiel 11:19-20, “And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.”

By a deep dependence and trust in God’s sovereign grace, may we set aside our political “freedom” presuppositions when coming to the Scriptures, in order that we may be changed by the shockingly deep and satisfying, all-powerful might of God in the Gospel, revealed to us in the face of Jesus. God is on the throne. We are not. American political thinking must not be confused with the clear teaching of Scripture concerning the work of God in salvation. The essence of God’s glory, as revealed to Moses in the Exodus passage cited, is that God’s saves whom He chooses to save. It is the glory of His sovereign, free, beautiful grace.

As the Family Unit Degenerates Further, More Chaos Ensues

By David Westerfield

On November 17, 2007

In Culture, News, Theology

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071117/ap_ … hild_abuse

This is just proof of the reality that as traditional (may I say Biblical) family units in the West further degenerate into broken homes with no father and mother working together as a team to raise kids, this kind of stuff is the end result. It is very sad, and practical proof of the need for solid Gospel preaching here to revive families, reversing the curse by His work on the cross. The broken people in the world do not need more entertainment in the church (which they can find on TV anyway), but solid, Biblical, expository preaching of the Gospel, for unbelievers to be saved, but also for all progress in sanctification once in the faith. There is a reason God designed the family the way he did. It cannot function without its core elements in place; it is systematic; all elements utilize, work off of, and are dependent upon each other. And therefore, if mankind wants to go and start messing with that design, it is no wonder brokenness is what results. This is good evidence of that fact.

“‘This is the dark underbelly of cohabitation,’ said Brad Wilcox, a sociology professor at the University of Virginia. ‘Cohabitation has become quite common, and most people think, “What’s the harm?” The harm is we’re increasing a pattern of relationships that’s not good for children.'”

The Redefinition of Important Pauline Terms

By David Westerfield

On November 16, 2007

In Audio, Culture, Theology

N.T. Wright, though he has brought very much excellent, historical, scholarly work to the table concerning the early church and Jesus, it is the redefinition of terms like justification, works of the law, righteousness, amongst others, that is of great concern to the modern church. For those of you who do not know, N.T. Wright, along with E.P. Sanders, and James Dunn, amongst others, purport a theory concerning the Apostle Paul called “The New Perspective on Paul.” The issues surrounding this controversy in the church have to do with Paul’s worldview perspective as a first century Jew, converted to Christ. N.T. Wright has gone back to original Jewish writings during the time of Paul to get an understanding of the true cultural context in which he lived. In doing so, he claims to have found that the terms Paul used were vastly different than they way the Reformers (like Martin Luther and John Calvin) and early church Christians (like Augustine) understood them. And so, because of this historical research, Wright, and these other scholars, have concluded we need to read those terms in Paul’s letters in light of the first century Jewish culture to get a better understanding of what he was actually saying.

Historically within the church, for the past 1500 years since Augustine (though it has gone through darkened periods as a result of Roman Catholicisms definition of the term) justification means that as a result of the work of Christ on behalf of the believing sinner, through faith, his sins are imputed to Christ (taken by Him on the cross), and in exchange, he is given an alien righteousness, imputed to us as a result of Christ’s perfect obedience before the Father. We are robed in the perfect righteousness of Christ, just as if we had never sinned and instead fulfilled all righteousness by God’s standards). We are made to stand in the right before God by the work of Christ alone through faith alone, though we are sinners. Wonderful doctrine that sustains my soul everyday!

However, from the “New Perspective” position, justification is about being included in the covenant community of believers, not relating so much directly with God Himself, but with the believing community. For the New Perspective, to be justified means you are included in the community of believers. In addition, according to this new interpretation, terms like “works of the law” are no longer talking about us attempting to “justify” (see above) ourselves outside of the work of Christ. But rather, this term is understood as meaning a badge of honor (and pride) within the Jewish community of believers that excludes those Gentile believers who do not adhere to them (which as he argues is what Paul’s point was in writing to the Galatians). One of the main things that alarms me is Wright claims the Reformers basically got it wrong and we need to go back to the original context, bypassing the Reformers, and even Augustinianism, to get a clearer understanding of what Paul meant in his letters. My questions are: Was not the Reformation a recovery of the eclipsed Gospel from Rome? Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone? And yet we would revert back and change definitions of vastly important terms that define the very Gospel itself? What is the Gospel then in this system? What else is left in this system but an approach to God that is fundamentally works-based? Sounds dangerous to me.

John Piper has written a new book that I am excited to read at some point in the future concerning all of this (added to my list of other books I want to read). It is called The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright. Piper argues that we need to be very careful about bringing new interpretations of the Scripture into the thought of the church. This has happened in the history of the church before which resulted in heresy, though many heresies started out like a nice idea initially and gained popularity within the church itself. Here is the description of Piper’s book on Monergismbooks.com:

N. T. Wright, a world-renowned New Testament scholar and bishop of Durham in the Church of England, has spent years studying the apostle Paul’s writings and has offered a “fresh perspective” on Paul’s theology. Among his conclusions are that “the discussions of justification in much of the history of the church—certainly since Augustine—got off on the wrong foot, at least in terms of understanding Paul—and they have stayed there ever since.”

Wright’s confidence that the church has gotten it wrong for 1,500 years, given his enormous influence, has set off warning bells for Christian leaders such as John Piper, a pastor and New Testament scholar. If Wright’s framework for interpreting the New Testament text and his understanding of justification find a home in the church, not only could the doctrine of justification be distorted for generations to come, but the New Testament writers’ original intent could be silenced. So Piper is sounding a crucial warning in this book, reminding all Christians to exercise great caution regarding “fresh” interpretations of the Bible and to hold fast to the biblical view of justification.

As stated on the DesiringGod.org blog, not everyone should read this book, mainly because it is a theological and scholarly response to another theologian. But if you want to understand more of the issues concerning this newly introduced thought into the church, check it out!

– Justification and the Diminishing Work of Christ – John Piper (MP3) – 2007 Evangelical Theological Society
– Free copy of the book!!! (PDF)
– The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright BUY IT NOW!
– Review of the book over at The Shepard’s Scrapbook
– New Perspective Section on Monergism.com for those of you who want to dig deeper and see some great critiques.

Oprah Winfrey, A Gospel-Believing Christian?

By David Westerfield

On November 7, 2007

In Culture, Theology, Video

Oprah Winfrey a Christian? “One of the mistakes human beings make is thinking there is only one way.” “There couldn’t possibly be just one way!” “What if on some remote part of the Earth someone has never heard the name of Jesus … you cannot get to heaven?” Now I want to make clear that I am not in agreement with the apologetic style of these Christians attempting to refute Oprah’s blatant relativism. Christian arrogance and pride never convince anyone of the truth, especially in a PC culture like ours. We would all do well as believers to pay attention to how no one responds well to their attitudes in the video. The arguments made in defense of Christianity are paper thin in this video and really do nothing to actually address the issue at hand (relativism). It may have been more helpful to point out that in order to state all religions lead to the same place that you must have an authoritative, divine, birds-eye view of all other religions above everyone else to be able to say that. Oprah, claiming to be open and inclusive, is claiming to have The Truth of truths, that all smaller truths lead to the one Truth and is arguing for that position against Gospel-Christianity. In an effort to be inclusive she is being very exclusive, just as the video shows. All those claiming there is one way are forced out of the conversation. This is very telling.Based on the Scriptures weighing against what she says in this video, she has denied, “the faith once for all delivered to the saints,” (Jude 3) that Jesus is The Way, The Truth, and The Life, just as Jesus said of Himself (John 14:6). John, in the book of 1 John, shows that there are certain things you can know (as much as one can know from external evidences) to determine whether someone believes or not. In addition, Jesus says multiple times in the Gospels that, “you will know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:15-20) It is not final or divinely authoritative in any manner. We should never conclude someone is finally lost, ever. Only God’s judgment is final and the only one that matters. We are not taking our place as God here when making these doctrinally discerning judgments (as opposed to condemning judgments as forbidden in Matthew 7, Romans 2 and other places). We’re even directed to use good doctrinally discerning judgment! (Colossians 2:8, 1 Timothy 1:3) As believers, we need not be swept away by every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:13-14) that blows our way (in this case a moralistic, works-based religious pluralism as proposed by Oprah).

I bring this up because I have heard something disturbing concerning some women in my church claiming that Oprah Winfrey is indeed a believer in Jesus Christ, simply because some say she claimed Christ when she was younger, the whole “Carnal” Christian thing. Nonsense. Do not true Christians persevere by God’s power in them and continue to confess and believe that He is The Way, The Truth and The Life throughout their lives, that there is no other gate to heaven but through faith alone in Christ? How does this square with what Oprah says in this video? I cannot reconcile it with the Scriptures. If I’m missing something in there, help me find it. I’m not discounting the amazing amount of good she has done in the world; way more influence than I will ever have to help people. I’m merely talking about her counter-profession of faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and He alone is the way of salvation, not one of many to choose from as our cultural climate dictates to us. To say she is a believer in Jesus Christ is simply fallacious. She has abandoned the faith, which means she never truly believed to begin with (because God keeps those who are saved from walking away). To her and all relativists, Jesus was simply a good teacher, maybe even one of the best, but He was not the one Way.

We cannot know her heart through and through, nor should we suppose to know it in this manner. (The heart is deceitfully wicked above all things, especially my own). We can only look at external evidences (like her counter-profession of faith in this video) and conclude her beliefs. Also, John is very clear to us about testing the spirits to see whether they are from God. “Every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.” (1 John 4:3). What does it mean to confess Jesus? Is this just mere mental assent that He existed at some time in history and was a good teacher, just as she says in the video? No, it is a confession of belief in the Gospel of Christ unto salvation to eternal life, “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3) It means you embrace Jesus as The Way of salvation alone, that He accomplished everything on your behalf that was necessary to please God, through faith in Him. Oprah does not do this. To listen to Oprah and believe she is speaking Biblical truth is to stray from the very teachings of the Scriptures themselves. As John states of those who turn away from the faith, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” (1 John 2:19) Read the verse above again and let it soak in. 1) No true believer can lose their salvation. 2) But if someone walks away from the faith, embracing secular relativism as a religion (as with Oprah), which she clearly does, that means she never truly believed. If she truly knew Christ, she would at the very least confess Him as the only way to God. She does not. She does not, as Augustine says, value Christ above all other religious teachers, which is the only way He is truly valued at all.

In response to Oprah’s question about all those who haven’t heard of Christ but who are “good moral people,” (I respond more for the purpose of giving scriptural support for believers reading this) I respond with Isaiah 64:6, “All our righteous acts are like filthy rags,” Romans 3:10, “None is righteous, no, not one,” Romans 14:23, “For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin,” and Romans 1:18-20, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” God’s judgment is His prerogative, not ours. He has chosen His people from the foundation of the world, and they will be saved. That is the hope of evangelism, because we have no idea who He will choose to save! If someone is not saved though, having never heard the Gospel, how can they successfully argue against God, being a sinner before Him? Because of their sin nature, they have offended Him on an infinite level. All that proceeds from sinners is sin (Romans 8:7-8). I do not believe the punishment will be as severe for those who have never heard Christ, but they are still culpable to judgment. However, if He chooses not to send the Gospel to a land via missions, who can argue against Him and demand Him to be merciful on judgment day? He’s God, we’re not. Who are we to question the Creator rights of the Almighty God? The arrogance of our hearts bringing the righteousness and justice of God into question at all! Does He have to save anyone to begin with? No. He would be just and correct to send us all to hell forever. It is simply by His free mercy and grace in Christ that anyone is saved at all. And all of what I have said here is unpacked in Romans 9, particularly verses 6-24, explaining why some Jews believed while most did not. What makes us to differ but the grace of God giving illumination into who Christ really is?

Also, Oprah is a big proponent of The Secret. Here’s an entry I wrote a while back pertaining to that: http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.p … 711-151143

Esteeming Christ vs. Self-esteem

By David Westerfield

On November 3, 2007

In Culture, Theology

We are told everyday by all kinds of voices in our society (particularly Doctors in various psycho-analysis fields, Oprah, Dr. Phil, commercials, and yes, Joel Osteen, amongst others) that our main goal and desire in life is and should be to make ourselves happy, through our own means, for our own self-esteem, to build ourselves up emotionally. Does this square with the scriptures though? I just looked up the word esteem, by itself, to see what the definition was before defining self-esteem. The consensus I came to from several definitions was that to esteem something means to highly regard, make much of, honor, take pride in, etc. So if I esteem someone, that basically means I honor them, find something good in them above others, etc. I realize that in and of itself that is not a bad thing to esteem someone else. We esteem other people all the time. If you esteem someone more than Christ, then obviously that’s idolatry. But what about self-esteem in light that definition of esteem? What does it mean? It would be one honoring, highly regarding, or thinking very highly of oneself.

It is that very thinking that has permeated Western thought on a massive scale, to where it is an assumed idea that we need good self-esteem, i.e. make ourselves feel good by what we do. Now hear me out. That idea of personal fulfillment and deep heart-satisfaction is not apart from the Scriptures. But what does the world say we need to meet this end? Exalt self and you will find the greatest joy. God says exalt Him and you will find the greatest joy in that. The lie of Satan in the Garden was that we can find joy, happiness, peace, fulfillment outside of what God provides in Himself, that we need to create our own happiness and joy apart from Him, hence the taking of the fruit. So the world, by default, thinks that esteeming yourself in a high regard, i.e. making much of yourself outside of God, is the answer. However, what happens when you fail? You get depressed, beat yourself up, and your whole world crumbles, especially if it is a giant mess up. Why? Because you are basing your worth on your performance.

But what do the Scriptures say about esteeming ourselves, or building up our own value and worth? First, here’s a verse from Romans 12:3:

“For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment.” – Romans 12:3

Let’s look at Paul and his ideology concerning himself.

“The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” – 1 Timothy 1:15

Next, let’s view what Isaiah says in chapter 6, the well known vision of God, which I have used on several occasions to illustrate someone broken by their sin before a holy God:

“And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!” – Isaiah 6:4-5

The list could go on. In Romans 12:3 we are told to think of ourselves with sound judgment. What does this mean? It means we analyze ourselves in light of Scripture, God’s law, and His perfections stated therein. What does God say about our state before Him? What would be the sober(ing) response? Scripture is needed:

“The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” – Genesis 6:5

Youch. What else?

“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” – Romans 1:28-32

“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” – Romans 3:10-18

I’ll just stop there. What an indictment against us! What is there to esteem in myself if I’m this awful before God? First of all, it is important to note we are not comparing ourselves to other people out in the world, because in all reality, many of us can look morally good compared to some of the nut cases out there. But we’re not comparing ourselves to other fallible sinners, but to an infinitely holy God. That is important to note the context of which we’re speaking. These verses very poetically and forcefully expose what is in each and every one of us: vile and poison that infinitely offends God. What good can come out of a heart that is poisoned like a water well diluted with cyanide? What is there in man to esteem at all? I have no self-esteem! I am a ruined sinner before God with evil intentions, apart from the saving grace of God in Christ. We must come to terms with this. This is one of the reasons the Gospel is so offensive to the world: because in order to be saved, we must admit our condition as being this bad. We are morally bankrupt, depraved in our heart of hearts. Neglecting to see the radical depravity of our souls is to miss the cross altogether. For on the cross, we are shown how awful we are: we killed the Lord of Glory from all eternity. But also how much mercy there is in God for that radical wickedness. Praise Him that He rose from the grave to give us hope!

What about Paul’s view of himself in 1 Timothy 1:15? “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” Paul had such a vision of God, much like Isaiah, that when looking out upon other men even, he viewed himself as the worst sinner. Paul was not a man who esteemed himself at all. Based on that verse, do you think he thought very highly of himself? He claimed to be the foremost sinner of all. In other texts he even boasted in his weaknesses in order to display the power of God in his messages when preaching.

And Isaiah? He was one of the most righteous men in all Israel. And yet when confronted with the infinite power, holiness, might, majesty, frightening, all-encompassing glory of God, he was nothing, a sinner of sinners. Why? Because he saw himself, not in relation to other men, but to God. And even then when comparing himself to others, he saw himself in the same camp: a ruined sinner, broken to pieces before the throne of God.

So after this analysis, what is there left to esteem in ourselves? After reading the accounts of Paul and Isaiah, I cannot imagine them seeking to build up their self-esteem, but rather to be found in Christ alone and the perfect righteousness He provides.

Praise God He did not leave us without any hope though! If this was the end of the story, we would despair of ourselves even to death. But we do have hope!

“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” – 2 Corinthians 5:21

In great mercy, Christ came to save us from the utter ruin of our souls. The point of the bad news within the Gospel in tearing us down spiritually is so that we quit trusting in our own works and what we do and finding ultimate value, satisfaction, joy, peace, and fulfillment in that/ourselves. To esteem yourself is to make much of, highly regard, boast in yourself and your accomplishments. But is this not the antithesis of the Gospel itself, that we become poor in spirit, confess our wickedness, repent and believe the Gospel so as to be saved? What else does this mean to be poor in spirit but to despair of any hope in yourself so that you find your all-sufficient joy in Christ alone? The worlds’ answer to good mental health and good “self-esteem” is to build yourself up by what you do. This is purely moralism, that I make myself right in my own eyes.

But the answer of the Gospel to all areas of life where we are so utterly deficient, as shown in the passages above, is that we expose what wicked people we really are to God, soberly come to terms with that reality, and then turn to see that Christ succeeded in every area where we have failed. We then look to the forgiveness that is in Christ and see we are accepted with finality and completeness. There is nothing more we can do for God to be found right in His eyes than what Christ has already done. Christ perfectly fulfilled every law of God’s you have broken. Christ, even now, has perfect standing with the Father on behalf of those who believe, because of His life’s perfect work, His substitutionary sacrifice on the cross in the place of sinners, and His triumphant resurrection. The answer to man’s plight is not gaining better self-esteem, but rather looking to the Scriptures, having our self-esteem torn down by the sobering reality of who we really are, and built from the foundation upward by the power of Christ, and finding our worth and value in Him. We esteem Him, not ourselves. Augustine said, “Christ is not valued at all unless He is valued above all.” And that includes yourself. In Him alone will you find true joy, true life, in the midst of whatever suffering, sin struggle, etc, because Christ’s powerful work in the cross transcends all situations and He provides supernatural power and strength in time of need. Praise Jesus for His active obedience on behalf of those who believe in Him. As J. Gresham Machen said, “I thank God for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it.” Esteem the Lord of glory who was slain from the foundation of the world on behalf of His people! He is our all in all!

Making a Terrible Name for Christ, His Church, and Historic Calvinism

By David Westerfield

On October 26, 2007

In Culture, Theology

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/us/26 … nted=print
http://www.eveningsun.com/portlet/artic … siteId=140

This is just unbelievably sad and angering to me for the sake of Christ. The people of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, protesting at the funeral of a soldier killed in action, and calling yourselves believers in Jesus Christ? And then Calvinists? They would be hard-pressed to show how they line up with the tender, loving, compassionate hearts of Charles Spurgeon, William Cary (who was himself opposed by hyper-Calvinists for doing missions), George Whitefield, and Jonathan Edwards, who were themselves Calvinists. I wouldn’t post a link to their website if they were not in the national news, just because these guys are a bunch of wingnuts and need no attention shined on them. However, because they are in the national news and are claiming to be Christians as well as Calvinists on their site, and do things so unloving in His name, they deserve all the attention in the world so they are exposed. If you go to the comments on the news article, you can see those who are already opposed to Christianity making their case even further because of these guys actions (granted, they too have no excuse for denying Christ, but still, I mean if you’re going to reject the Gospel, don’t reject it because of some fanatics).

These my friends are hyper-Calvinists, as well as neo-gnostic Calvinists (only “true” Calvinists are saved; absolutely repugnant). And after viewing many websites of hyper-Calvinist churches, I have never seen more hate-mongering than this church. Frankly, it’s unbelievable how hateful they are toward others and self-contradictory in their teaching. It seems they honestly believe they are without sin based on what they say. Where’s the humility? The poverty of spirit before the throne of God? It is non-existent, at least from what we can tell from a merely external point of view. It makes me angry first and foremost what they are doing to the name of Christ, totally stomping it under their feet. Next they are making an awful name for the church in America. And then finally the awful name they are making for Calvinists. I’m sure some people will hear the phrase Calvinist now and think of these guys, which is just sad.

Did Jesus not abhor the self-righteousness of the Pharisees more than anything else during His earthly ministry? It was so repulsive to Him that he addressed them at almost every turn in the Gospels. These hyper-Calvinists hate all “workers of iniquity” as they say, and yet, based on their actions toward other people who are trying to conduct a funeral for their slain family member, they are just that. They view themselves as being righteous enough to have been chosen by God (conditional election, though they would never say this directly) and are thus on “God’s side” because of how good they are and the rest of us are not chosen because of how morally repugnant we are. Everyone who doesn’t see things exactly as they see them (on every little jot and tittle of theology) are hell bound (myself included), as they say, “end of story, period.”

These people only make Christ, His church (as well as Calvinists) look awful. They reek of lives full of hate and evil toward other people. These are the type of people out on blogs making such hateful comments concerning the sovereignty of God to others who are either struggling with it or opposed to it and just need some more patient, loving, good Scriptural explanations. Were not the Pharisees just like these people in terms of their hate? Claiming to know the things of God, and yet their hearts were far from Him, as Jesus said? He said that you will know them by their fruits. And that is some bad fruit my friends.

I’m very sorry for the name of their site, as this type of hate-speech is not what characterizes true, historic Christianity, but is a fringe, cult-like group:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html
http://www.godhatesamerica.com/