If you make $50,000 per year, you pay....

This was posted by a FB friend.

Let's look at the real numbers. Please note that the above post is calculating the allocation of taxes paid for wage earners at a specific level of income, while I am calculating the burden of government for the entire population. Of course, my method makes it even worse for the those who are making these claims.

First claim, that it costs $247.75/yr for defense. Actual budget for defense is $839.9 billion (shown below). With a population of 322.4 million, that works out to about $2605 for every person in the US, per year.

Second claim, $3.98 for FEMA. FEMA's budget request for 2015 is $10.38 billion, which works out to $32 per person, per year. 

Third claim, $22.88 for unemployment insurance. Montana unemployment tax rates are found here on page 16. The average tax rate is 1.92%, which for a $50,000 wage is $960. Federal spending on unemployment insurance was $93 billion in 2012, which equals $288 per person, per year.

Fourth claim, $36.82 for SNAP. Total federal spending for SNAP in 2011 was $78 billion, which is $241 per person, per year.

Fifth claim, $6.96 for welfare. According to the below pie chart, 10% ($390 billion) is spent on welfare, which equals $1209 per person, per year.

Sixth claim, $43.78 for government pensions. From the chart below, that amount is $969.7 billion, which is $3007 per person, per year.

Seventh claim, $235.81 for Medicare. Planned spending for 2015 is $530 billion, which equals
$1645 per person.

For the eighth claim, it's difficult to know what is being measured. I presume it is tax breaks for corporations. We need to note that every tax dollar paid by corporations filter down to the end user, you and I. Taxes are simply another expense included in the price of the products and services you and I purchase. All taxes are paid by people. Nothing is or can be paid by corporations.

One final note. The total planned spending for 2015 is $3.901 trillion. That is $12,100 per person, per year. If the point of the post was to point out how cheap government is and how evil corporations are, well, we can see that this is just not the case.

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

GDP: $18,219.4 bln GO: $32,178.5 bln	United States Federal State and Local Government Spending	US CA > Pop: 322.4 million
-5yr -1yr   Fiscal Year 2015 in $ billion   +1yr +4yr

View: people old default radical census programsaltprog COFOG				Fed	Gov. Xfer	State	Local	Total
[+]	Pensions			969.7	0.0	221.2	47.1	1,238.0
[+]	Health Care			1,044.5	-358.1	499.5	146.4	1,332.4
[+]	Education			130.7	-69.3	301.0	692.7	1,055.1
[+]	Defense			839.9	0.0	0.7	-0.1	840.6
[+]	Welfare			385.8	-113.2	142.8	80.5	495.9
[+]	Protection			34.1	-5.1	70.2	165.4	264.6
[+]	Transportation			97.8	-67.0	127.2	162.2	320.2
[+]	General Government			49.7	-4.1	52.9	71.3	169.7
[+]	Other Spending			97.0	-16.3	70.6	326.7	478.1
[+]	Interest			251.9	0.0	50.7	66.9	369.4
[+]	Balance			0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
[+]	Total Spending:  Start chart			3,901.0	-633.1	1,536.8	1,759.1	6,563.8
[+]	Federal Deficit			563.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	563.6
[+]	Gross Public Debt			18,713.5	0.0	1,227.7	1,956.2	21,897.3

No, Your Ancestors Didn’t Come Here Legally - by Ben Railton

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. FB friend S.B. posted a link to this article.

First my comment, then the article, followed by the FB conversation.
--------------------------

This is a case of using an innocuous phrase (“My ancestors came here legally”) to divert the conversation to impugning an idea not presented rather than evaluating the issue at hand, illegal immigration. The objective is to suggest a group of people are stupid for having the idea. The author does this by imposing an implication not warranted by the statement in question.

The author asserts that absent a law, your behavior is neither legal nor illegal. However, laws always restrict the range of what is available. Laws never, ever broaden available choices, unless they modify an existing, more restrictive law. 

The total absence of law means nothing is restricted, aka anarchy. The first law passed necessarily limits unrestricted choices to "everything minus this one thing."

Illegality does not define legality, because legality is the default state. If the body of law is silent, that is, it hasn't restricted a range of choices, then every choice is definitionally legal. 

Laws make us conscious of what is wrong to do. Interestingly, the Bible makes this very point: "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." (Rom 3:20)

Here's the article:
------------------------------

I guarantee you’ll hear the phrase “My ancestors came here legally” in the aftermath of President Obama’s immigration address. It’s almost impossible to find any conversation about immigration—between elected officials, pundits, online commenters—in which at least one participant doesn’t use the phrase. It’s an understandable position, through which the speaker can both defend his or her family history and critique current illegal immigrants who choose to do things differently. It helps deflect charges of hypocrisy (since most Americans are descended from immigrants). It’s hard to argue with. And it’s also, in nearly every case, entirely inaccurate.

Prior to 1875’s Page Act and 1882’s Chinese Exclusion Act, there were no national immigration laws. None. There were laws related to naturalization and citizenship, to how vessels reported their passengers, to banning the slave trade. Once New York’s Castle Garden Immigration Station opened in 1855, arrivals there reported names and origins before entering the U.S. But for all pre-1875 immigrants, no laws applied to their arrival. They weren’t legal or illegal; they were just immigrants.

Moreover, those two laws and their extensions affected only very specific immigrant communities: suspected prostitutes and criminals (the Page Act); Chinese arrivals (the Exclusion Act); immigrants from a few other Asian nations (the extensions). So if your ancestors came before the 1920s and weren’t prostitutes, criminals, or from one of those Asian nations, they remained unaffected by any laws, and so were still neither legal nor illegal. This might seem like a semantic distinction, but it’s much more; the phrase “My ancestors came here legally” implies that they “chose to follow the law,” yet none of these unaffected immigrants had to make any such choice, nor had any laws to follow.

The 1892 opening of Ellis Island didn’t change these fundamental realities. Ellis arrivals had to wait in line and answer a list of questions, and could be quarantined if they had a communicable disease or were visibly insane. But if they weren’t in those aforementioned few illegal categories, they still weren’t affected by any law, made no choice of how to immigrate. Moreover, many arrivals during this period came not through Ellis but across the borders, which were unpatrolled and open.

Only with the 1920s Quota Acts did Congress establish national immigration laws encompassing most arrivals. But those acts were overtly discriminatory, extending the Exclusion Act’s principles by categorizing arrivals by nationality and drastically limiting certain groups; South Carolina Senator Ellison Smith put it bluntly: “It seems to me the point as to this measure is that the time has arrived when we should shut the door.” Since immigrants had no control over their nationality, it’s difficult to argue that post-1920s arrivals “chose” to immigrate legally or illegally. And since the borders remained largely open and there were multiple entry points, it’s hard to say that any individual arrival was under the quota and thus legal or illegal.

The 1965 Immigration Act ended national quotas, instituting preferences based on less overtly discriminatory categories such as family connections and educational/professional training. Subsequent laws (such as the 1986 IRCA) further adjusted national policy. But as the ubiquitous “my ancestors” phrase proves, current immigration debates aren’t just about present policies—they’re always informed by ideas about history, and specifically about legal and illegal immigration in our past. So it’s vitally important that we begin to use those terms accurately—to recognize that for so many of us, our ancestors were neither legal nor illegal immigrants. That they came in the same way contemporary undocumented immigrants do: by crossing a border.

Ben Railton is an Associate Professor of English at Fitchburg State University and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.
---------------------------
And here's the FB conversation:

Me: "... the phrase 'My ancestors came here legally' implies that they 'chose to follow the law...'” No, it implies no such thing. It implies they violated no laws when they came.

C.K.: But there were no laws to follow. So it is still hypocritical.

Me: No, there were no laws to violate. Definitionally, violating no laws means legal. A law creates illegality, not legality.

C.K.: So maybe we should go back to the way things were when your family arrived so that we all get treated the same. The point is that at no point did you family jump through the same hoops today's immigrants have to go through so you are in no position to judge them.

Me: Agreed. However, in the meantime, let's just continue to ignore existing law as it suits us.

Me: And no one has issued any judgments.

SUPPLEMENTARY REVELATION? BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------------------------

The author recycles his arguments periodically, presumably because he needs to have something to post. Thus, we have already dealt with his arguments elsewhere.

However, there is a persistent misapprehension present here that is worth discussing. We shall attempt to explore that. 
--------------------------------------

Is God supplying additional revelation to express His commands for mankind? No He is not. God has not been adding to His word since the Bible was completed. All of the Scriptures found in Bible were written by 100 A.D.. All that men need to know in order to receive salvation and live the Christian life is found in the Bible. There is no need of SUPPLEMENTARY REVELATION! (The author helpfully includes most every misstatement, non sequitur, and failure of logic in one paragraph. Those are:

1) additional revelation = adding to His word

2) additional revelation = adding to the Bible

3) Bible compiled = revelation ceased

4) additional revelation = additional requirements

It is clear to us that the author is unacquainted with what the charismatics actually believe and teach about the prophetic gift in the modern church. He prefers to discuss characterizations that have nothing to do with the subject in order to vilify those with whom he disagrees.)

An analysis of church leadership - a pastor's teaching on having a head pastor

This was written by someone as a teaching for the local church. We think it is flawed, so we're offering this rather long analysis. Our comments in bold.

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

Local Church Leadership

By Pastor Bob

1. Purpose of an Elder

• Care and protection of the flock.

1 Peter 5:2 (AMP) Tend (nurture, guard, guide, and fold) the flock of God that is [your responsibility), not by coercion or constraint, but willingly; not dishonorably motivated by the advantages and profits [belonging to the office], but eagerly and cheerfully;

• To alleviate the burden of the leader of the flock so that they might be cared for more effectively. Ex 18:13-27
***
Here’s a quote from that passage: 

Ex. 18:19-21 “Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You must be the people’s representative before God and bring their disputes to him. Teach them the decrees and laws, and show them the way to live and the duties they are to perform. But select capable men from all the people — men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain — and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.”

This is a specific corrective action that was taken because Moses’ father in law noticed a problem. It is not prescriptive to how the Church leadership should be organized. It is not a model of leadership to be implemented by the Church. Moses, a workaholic, had to be told that governing a entire nation by himself was not possible.

In addition, Moses' position over the nation was typical for the ancient world, one man over a kingdom. And importantly, the biblical role of elder does not describe it as alleviating the burden of a singular leader.

Thus, this account does not presume to instruct us about anything other than Moses’ flaw.
***

2. Leadership structure

a. "Appoint a man over this community!"

Numbers 27:16-17 (NIV) "May the LORD, the God of the spirits of all mankind, appoint a man over this community to go out and come in before them, one who will lead them out and bring them in, so the LORD’s people will not be like sheep without a shepherd."
***
Here’s a more extended quote so we can get the context: 

Nu. 27:15-23 “Moses said to the LORD, ‘May the LORD, the God of the spirits of all mankind, appoint a man over this community to go out and come in before them, one who will lead them out and bring them in, so that the LORD’s people will not be like sheep without a shepherd.’ So the LORD said to Moses, ‘Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand on him. 19 Make him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. Give him some of your authority so that the whole Israelite community will obey him. He is to stand before Eleazar the priest, who will obtain decisions for him by enquiring of the Urim before the LORD.

“’At his command he and the entire community of the Israelites will go out, and at his command they will come in.’ Moses did as the LORD commanded him. He took Joshua and made him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole assembly. Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the LORD instructed through Moses.”

The first thing to note is that this was a prayer of Moses (“Moses said to the LORD…”), and the purpose was to ask God to choose Moses’ successor. God responded by telling Moses to commission Joshua. This method of succession is not prescriptive; it is not the way leaders are chosen in the church, and it does not tell us how the Church should be structured. Also note Moses’ reason: “…so that the LORD’s people will not be like sheep without a shepherd.” Jesus echoed this language in Mk. 6:34: 

“When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things.” 

We must note that the elders in the church are to be the shepherds, and Jesus is the Chief Shepherd: 

1Pe. 5:1-4 “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow-elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers… And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.”

Therefore, the elders (plural) are to shepherd  and oversee the flock, and Jesus is the Chief Shepherd. There is no leadership position between Jesus and the elders of the church. In fact, as we will read later, Paul writes to Timothy to tell how an elder is to be chosen, and it’s not like this passage in Numbers at all.

***

• There is ultimately one man over the local church - the angelos, Rev 2-3

In Re. 2:1 we read: “To the angel of the church in Ephesus…”
***
Seven churches are mentioned, and each has a letter addressed to the “angel of the church.” We need to do two things. One, we need to know how the angel is related to the specific church; and two, we need to know what is meant by “angel.”

First, angel (Angelos, a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God) is used 181 times in the NT, like Mat. 4:11 (“Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold , angels came and ministered…”) and Mat 11:10 (“For this is he, of whom it is written , Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.”). There is only one time in the N.T. where “angel” ever refers to anything other than a celestial being, and that is John the Baptist.

So who are these angels? Re. 1:20 informs us: “The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.”

It seems pretty clear that these angels are of special note, for ”one like the Son of Man” holds them in his hand. He also walks among the seven lampstands, the seven churches. This is a picture of the Supernatural presence in the Church of the One with the two edged sword (the Word) coming from His mouth.

These seven churches were literal churches who were appointed to receive a message from the Alpha and Omega. Indeed, we find John telling us in Re. 1:4 that he is writing to the seven churches. John then proceeds to tell us the story of how the message came to him. He then tells each of them the message, which continues to the end of chapter 3. The message is delivered to the messengers (angels) of each church. These angels were told the message and they were to tell these churches.

Various angels continue to appear throughout Revelation. When we get to Re. 21:12 we find this: “It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel.” So not only are there angels who represent the seven churches, there are angels who stand for the twelve tribes. 

God uses angels to do a variety of things, including, I believe, watching over churches. And we who believe have angels as well, who minister God’s grace to his people: He. 1:14 “Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?” Apparently we even meet them from time to time: He. 13:2 “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.” 

The conclusion is these seven angels are ministering spirits to those churches, and clearly not the pastors of those churches.
***
• First and Second Timothy were written to one man (Timothy) giving him instructions about elders, deacons, and church life.
***
Timothy indeed was dealing with a group of believers. But Scripture does not tell us that Timothy was a pastor! Timothy was actually a valued associate of Paul, who labored alongside him, went to various churches on assignments, and generally did his bidding.

Paul and Barnabas was one such partnering in this work:

Ac. 14:23 “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.”

And Timothy also worked with Paul:

Ac. 17:15: “The men who escorted Paul brought him to Athens and then left with instructions for Silas and Timothy to join him as soon as possible.”

Timothy was sent to various places at Paul’s behest:

1Co. 4:17: “For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.”

In fact, at one point Paul told him to stay in Ephesus and correct some errant believers:

1Ti. 1:3 “As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer…"

Some of Paul’s epistles were co-written with Timothy:

Ph. 1:1 “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi…”

Paul commends Timothy to the Philippian church:

Ph. 2:22 “But you know that Timothy has proved himself, because as a son with his father he has served with me in the work of the gospel.”

Paul tells us why he was writing to Timothy:

1Ti. 3:14-15 “Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

Paul was planning to come himself, and the purpose of his instructions was to help Timothy deal with this particular church until Paul arrived. 

1Ti. 4:13: “ Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.”

Paul points out to Timothy that it is the elders who lead the church:

1Ti. 5:17 “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honour, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.”

And lastly, Paul counsels Timothy that Paul has trusted him with the assignment. Paul wants Timothy to keep the church intact and on the right path.

1 Ti. 6:20 “Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.” 

In sum, there isn’t a single passage that indicates that Timothy was pastor or head of this particular church. Rather, it is reasonable to conclude that Timothy was on assignment from Paul as a young church planter charged with setting up elders and correcting doctrine in this church, and Paul was advising him how to do it.
***
b. Decision making process in the early church: Acts 15:1-29

• 15:5, Apostles and Elders meet to discuss.
• 15:7 -11, Peter shares his revelation.
• 15:12, Barnabas and Paul share their experience.
• 15:13, James brings it to conclusion by summing up and relating it to scripture, (15:13-18)
• 15:19, James makes a final judgment. (19-21)
• 15:22, The apostles, elders, and the whole church make application.
• 15:23, a letter is unanimously sent.
• 15:28, This was the leading of the Holy Spirit!
***
In this account we find that there was a problem in the church in Antioch. This church decided to send Paul, Barnabas, and some other believers to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders.

Ac. 15:1-2 “Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: ‘Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.’ This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.”

So they arrived and described the problem to the apostles and elders:

Vs 4-6 ” When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.’ The apostles and elders met to consider this question.”

Peter has some input to the apostles and elders:

Vs 7 “After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them…”

Then Barnabas and Paul started telling stories about the great things God was doing among the gentiles:

Vs 12 “The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.”

Then it was James’ turn:

Vs 13-18 "When they finished, James spoke up: ‘Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: `After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’ [Amos 9:11,12] that have been known for ages.”

James then expresses his insight and opinion:

vs 19-21 “‘It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.’”

Then the apostles and elders consult with each other to render their decision:

Vs 22-25 “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul…”

Clearly, James did not make the decision. A reading of the passage indicates a plurality of leadership listening to the evidence brought by various parties, then rendering a decision, which was communicated back to the Antioch church. There is no singular leader in any part of this text.

To conclude, in my opinion this teaching offered by Pastor Bob does not demonstrate its intended thesis, that a single leader is a scriptural position.

The Case Against Liberal Compassion - by William Voegeli

This is good stuff, from Imprimis, Hillsdale College.
----------------------------

WILLIAM VOEGELI is a senior editor of the Claremont Review of Books and a visiting scholar at Claremont McKenna College’s Henry Salvatori Center. After receiving a Ph.D. in political science from Loyola University in Chicago, he served as a program officer for the John M. Olin Foundation. He has written for numerous publications, including the Christian Science Monitor, City Journal, Commentary, First Things, the Los Angeles Times, National Review, and the New Criterion. He is the author of two books, Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State and The Pity Party: A Mean-Spirited Diatribe Against Liberal Compassion.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on October 9, 2014, sponsored by the College’s Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship.
**

Four years ago I wrote a book about modern American liberalism:Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State. It addressed the fact that America’s welfare state has been growing steadily for almost a century, and is now much bigger than it was at the start of the New Deal in 1932, or at the beginning of the Great Society in 1964. In 2013 the federal government spent $2.279 trillion—$7,200 per American, two-thirds of all federal outlays, and 14 percent of the Gross Domestic Product—on the five big program areas that make up our welfare state: 1. Social Security; 2. All other income support programs, such as disability insurance or unemployment compensation; 3. Medicare; 4. All other health programs, such as Medicaid; and 5. All programs for education, job training, and social services.

That amount has increased steadily, under Democrats and Republicans, during booms and recessions. Adjusted for inflation and population growth, federal welfare state spending was 58 percent larger in 1993 when Bill Clinton became president than it had been 16 years before when Jimmy Carter took the oath of office. By 2009, when Barack Obama was inaugurated, it was 59 percent larger than it had been in 1993. Overall, the outlays were more than two-and-a-half times as large in 2013 as they had been in 1977. The latest Census Bureau data, from 2011, regarding state and local programs for “social services and income maintenance,” show additional spending of $728 billion beyond the federal amount. Thus the total works out to some $3 trillion for all government welfare state expenditures in the U.S., or just under $10,000 per American. That figure does not include the cost, considerable but harder to reckon, of the policies meant to enhance welfare without the government first borrowing or taxing money and then spending it. I refer to laws and regulations that require some citizens to help others directly, such as minimum wages, maximum hours, and mandatory benefits for employees, or rent control for tenants.

All along, while the welfare state was growing constantly, liberals were insisting constantly it wasn’t big enough or growing fast enough. So I wondered, five years ago, whether there is a Platonic ideal when it comes to the size of the welfare state—whether there is a point at which the welfare state has all the money, programs, personnel, and political support it needs, thereby rendering any further additions pointless. The answer, I concluded, is that there is no answer—the welfare state is a permanent work-in-progress, and its liberal advocates believe that however many resources it has, it always needs a great deal more.

The argument of Never Enough was correct as far as it went, but it was incomplete. It offered an answer to two of the journalist’s standard questions: What is the liberal disposition regarding the growth of the welfare state? And How does that outlook affect politics and policy? But it did not answer another question: Why do liberals feel that no matter how much we’re doing through government programs to alleviate and prevent poverty, whatever we are doing is shamefully inadequate?

Baptism - is it required for salvation?

I’ve been thinking about the doctrine of baptism. we tend to think that we understand what the Bible teaches because we've thought it out, studied, and researched. But that isn't necessarily so. So much of what I thought I believed was simply because someone told me so. A sermon is too often substituted for personal study.

The doctrine of baptism is one such thing. What does the Bible teach about baptism? Perhaps not what we think. Baptism has a long tradition, including among the Jews, who ritually washed themselves. The practice of water baptism continued into the church as a ordinance or sacrament of the faith. Importantly, the idea of being washed in both blood and water has both natural and spiritual implications.

So, I'm going to explore some of the ideas surrounding baptism. This is by no means a thorough exposition, nor is it necessarily scholarly. I am not a Bible scholar.

The Old Testament

We well know that the offering of blood for the remission of sins is a crucial part of Jewish understanding. Large portions of the O.T. are instructions and references to blood sacrifice. All of this, of course, was pointing to the ultimate sacrifice for sin, given once for all in the person of Jesus Christ. But not as clear to me was how baptism connects to this.

The earliest biblical mention I could find regarding something akin to baptism is Num. 19:20-21:

"But if a person who is unclean does not purify himself, he must be cut off from the community, because he has defiled the sanctuary of the LORD. The water of cleansing has not been sprinkled on him, and he is unclean. This is a lasting ordinance for them. The man who sprinkles the water of cleansing must also wash his clothes, and anyone who touches the water of cleansing will be unclean till evening."

Like the blood sacrifices, this "water of cleansing" was a carefully described ritual act. Someone who was not clean could not enter the Temple to worship, and was actually an outcast, not part of the people. Of course, such a person could be restored to the community by becoming ceremonially clean, but until then they were unfit for worship and unfit to be part of the people.

David's famous statement in Ps. 51:7, "Cleanse me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow" ties in here as well. Hyssop was used to place blood on the doorframe so as to be passed over. Moses sprinkled the people with blood at the giving of the commandments. Hyssop also was used to sprinkle water for ceremonial cleanness. Nu. 19:18: "Then a man who is ceremonially clean is to take some hyssop, dip it in the water and sprinkle the tent and all the furnishings and the people who were there."

And as an interesting aside, a hyssop branch was what carried the sponge with sour wine to Jesus' lips as He hung on the cross.

This "sprinkling,"is a physical representation of the spiritual cleansing God intends. The Messiah, the Lamb of God, is offered for the sins of the world, and His blood washes those who are unclean because of sin. That sin prevented us from coming in worship, and also separated us from the Body of Christ. What is particular to the Jews in a physical manifestation is a picture of what God intends for all men, both Jew and Gentile. Is. 52:15:

"... so will he sprinkle many nations, so will many nations marvel at him and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand."

I like that this shown as a revelation, that those with spiritual eyes and ears will discern the glory of God as He offers His son as one sacrifice for all.

Ez. 36:25-27 continues this theme:

"I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws."

This is a greater act than ritual cleansing, it's a change in the inner man, where we receive a tender heart and a new spirit. This washing is supernatural, transformative, and it is so thorough and efficacious that God's own Spirit can take up residence in us. Now we can truly keep the law, be worshipers in Spirit and truth, and take our place in the Body as one of the living stones. That law, the law of Christ, is grace imparted to us, not by virtue of how well we clean ourselves, but by how completely we have been washed by the blood of Jesus and thence filled by His Holy Spirit.

How America Punishes People for Being Poor - by Rebecca Vallas

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
------------------------------------

This post first appeared at TalkPoverty.org.

Before we even get started, we need to discuss the headline. America does NOT punish people for anything, let alone for being poor. This is absurd on its face, as if America is an entity with a singular consciousnesses, setting out to purposely trip up poor people. Instead, America is a country, with no emotions, thoughts, or sentience. It is a geographic region organized by political and cultural features. It does not think, feel, hate, or smile.

In fact, America is a unique political experiment in self-governance, created on the principles of liberty and self-determination in the context of Christian morality. If ever there was a place where people of every status and walk of life could work hard and make something of themselves, America is it. 

It is totally offensive for the author to assert that America punishes the poor.

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

This past weekend, I was part of a panel discussion on MSNBC’s Melissa Harris Perry with New York Times reporter Michael Corkery, whose reporting on the rise in subprime auto loans is as horrifying as it is important.

In what seems a reprisal of the predatory practices that led up to the subprime mortgage crisis, low-income individuals are being sold auto loans at twice the actual value of the car, with interest rates as high as 29 percent. They can end up with monthly payments of $500 — more than most of the borrowers spend on food in a month, and certainly more than most can realistically afford. Many dealers appear in essence to be setting up low-income borrowers to fail. (We have never understood this assertion that banks want people to fail. Why? What possible good is it for the bank to not collect peoples' installments and thus ending up repossessing the car? The bank loses money!

Also, note how innocent, and apparently stupid, people are being taken advantage of by eeevil salespeople and banks. It's as if poor people are being rounded up door-to-door by dealerships and being forced to buy cars. 

Rather than people being responsible for their own choices, even their bad ones, in typical Leftist fashion someone else is always to blame. And because people need to be protected from themselves, in steps government to rescue them from their own consequences.) 

Critiquing a critique - Sandy Simpson on the song Hosanna, by Brooke Fraser

Critique found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

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

The above linked website on the whole does a good job of critiquing the doctrinal content of worship song. I've critiqued songs a couple of times myself. 

However, critiques should not be colored by doctrinal misunderstandings. I picked her (I'm assuming "Sandy" is a woman's name) critique of Hosanna because I like the song, both content and music, and because of the doctrinal issues that impair her critique. 

Ms. Simpson first quotes the lyrics, then provides her critique below:

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

I see the king of glory
Coming down the clouds with fire
The whole earth shakes, the whole earth shakes
I see his love and mercy
Washing over all our sin
The people sing, the people sing

Hosanna, hosanna
Hosanna in the highest

I see a generation
Rising up to take the place
With selfless faith, with selfless faith
I see a new revival
Staring as we pray and seek
We're on our knees, we're on our knees

Heal my heart and make it clean
Open up my eyes to the things unseen
Show me how to love like you have loved me
Break my heart for what is yours
Everything I am for your kingdom's cause
As I walk from earth into eternity

The Bible does not speak of an end times revival (with the exception of when the remnant of Israel finally acknowledges Jesus Christ as Messiah in the Tribulation) but rather a generation the has slipped into apostasy.    This is incorrect. The author mistakes the day of the Lord [an event], with some portion the Church age [a time period].

Part of the mistake comes from her not including the first two verses of the passage, which reads, "Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come." [2 Thess. 2:1-2] Here we see that Paul is telling the church at Thessalonica that the Lord has not yet come to gather His people to Himself, and that day will not come until after certain events have transpired. Now we can understand the context for the rest of the passage, as quoted by the author: 

Appetites - Ann Barnhart - Concupiscible vs.Irascible

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.
-------------------------

2. Let’s talk about Concupiscible and Irascible Appetites, because understanding what they are and how they get perverted explains a lot.

The Concupiscible Appetite is what makes our souls long after things that are pleasant to the senses (like bacon) and avoid those things that are unpleasant to the senses (like Justin Bieber). So, we LOVE bacon, and when we achieve bacon we experience DELIGHT. When we do not achieve bacon, we experience DESIRE. Contrariwise, we HATE Justin Bieber*, and when being exposed to Justin Bieber is possible but not accomplished, we experience AVERSION, and when we actually do experience the evil of Bieber we feel sadness and sorrow. So that’s how the Concupiscible Appetites work.

(* We don’t actually HATE Justin Bieber, and in fact we must pray for that repellant little jerk-wit, because man, it’s not looking good for him if he wraps his Ferrari around a light pole this afternoon. But you have to admit, the Bacon-Bieber thing was a pretty awesome pedagogical device, huh?)

Now the Irascible Appetites. This is what makes our souls long after DIFFICULT goods – in other words, things that require us to overcome something unpleasant in order to achieve something virtuous or good. A very base example that springs to mind is the muscle soreness that goes along with all forms of exercise. Because we are rightly attracted to the idea of being physically sound and fit we exercise in spite of and push through the unpleasantness of the fatigue and soreness in order to achieve the good of physical fitness and strength. The highest example is carrying our crosses through life in this Vale of Tears in order to achieve the very attractive goal of heaven. If our goal is obtainable, then we have HOPE. If the difficult good is something unobtainable, then we experience despair. Contrariwise, when we encounter evils that are surmountable, even though they are repulsive we must have COURAGE to meet those evils and overcome them in order to achieve the good beyond, such as sacrificing material possessions, money or public esteem in order to do “the right thing” rather than capitulate to evil. Yes, the idea of losing all one’s worldly goods, or even one’s life, is certainly repulsive, but courage overcomes the repulsion. This is why Courage is the Fruit of the Third Sorrowful Mystery of the Rosary (the Crowning with Thorns). If the difficult evil is insurmountable, then we experience FEAR.

Pope Francis is a Modernist and a Materialist. He views the world and human beings as material, economic units. He does not have a proper balance between the Concupiscible and Irascible Appetites. He is focused almost entirely on the CONCUPISCIBLE appetites. This is why he talks almost exclusively about people in terms of their MATERIAL WEALTH. The Poor, The Poor, The Poor. Not the Poor IN SPIRIT, because that encompasses BOTH the concupiscible and irascible appetites. No, with him, being a Peronist-Fascist, which is a subset of Marxism, the world and human beings are framed completely by the concupiscible SENSE appetites. So, give “the poor” more free stuff. The biggest problems in the world today are “youth unemployment” and “the loneliness of old people” – NOT sin or the consequences of sin, namely the loss of heaven and eternal damnation to hell, which are supernatural realities.

What this skewed emphasis on the Concupiscible Appetites leads to, as we see with Francis, is Materialism, which then feeds selfishness, pride and the gaping maw of the ego. Me, me, me. I want to get to go up to Communion like everyone else, because I FEEL excluded. I refuse to believe that anything that makes a person “FEEL GOOD”, including adultery, contraception, fornication and sodomy, could possibly be a sin, because me, me, me, me. But enough about me. Let’s talk about ME. If I give you free stuff, or tell other people that they should give you free stuff, and if I tell you that your sins aren’t sins and OF COURSE you can come up and have Communion because that will make you FEEL good, and then you will like ME! Because who cares about virtue and carrying crosses. Blah, blah, blah. No one wants to hear about sin and judgment and hell and redemptive suffering and old-fashioned Catholic nonsense like that. The only way for man to achieve happiness and thus perfection, is through MATERIAL WEALTH.

This kowtowing to the Sense Appetites to the specific exclusion of the Virtuous Appetites generates the adoration of the teeming throngs (aka “economic units”) and thus feeds the pride and ego, which is the goal of the morally crippled man.

ONE WAY ---- JESUS BY STEVE FINNELL

Originally found here. Suspected source material found here.
---------------------------------------

(There is a ferocity to those who view their job as "defenders of the true doctrine." They are always vigilant, prowling around looking for the slightest deviation from the faith as they see it, then pouncing with full force upon the heretical.

I'll be the first to admit that there is a lot of false teaching out there, and the forces of apostasy and compromise are clearly gathering against the Church. But our pure doctrine will not save us. Nor will these doctrinal policemen be necessarily commended by the Father. Ours is a life-giving faith, where by the power of the Holy Spirit we live lives of prayer, worship, and The Word.

In the below article we see that the author picks out some targets, and based on third-hand information issues condemnation against certain pastors. I doubt the author has actually done any substantial investigation himself. I doubt that he contacted the ministries in question for clarification. And I doubt that the author is interested in helping these pastors in any way. 

I need to note that I am not posting this to defend these men. But notice the theme adopted by the author, that these men are in error for not knowing the hearts and minds of men. 

Read on:
-------------------------------------------------------

The Bible teaches that Jesus is the only way to heaven, the only way to have sins forgiven, the only way to be reconciled to God. Why do so many so-called Christian preachers deny this as the truth?

T.D. Jakes

Question to T. D. Jakes: "Do you feel only Christians could hope to enter Heaven?"

Answer: "When it comes to Heaven, I try to leave that up to God. I certainly believe that Christianity is right, but when it comes to the final test--who goes and who doesn't go -- Jesus said, Other sheep have I who are not of this fold. Them also must I bring. I'll let Him identify who those sheep are and I stay out of the conversation.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him,"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Jesus says He is the only way to Heaven. Preacher Jakes say he has no idea if that is correct. (Pastor Jakes DID NOT say that. He made a very honest observation that it is God's job. Indeed, no one gets to decide who is Christian and who is not. We are not qualified! We might be very surprised at who we find in heaven. Mt. 7:21: “Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." 

And what are we to believe about Abraham? He was not a "Christian." but Paul tells us that same way that we enter heaven, "by faith," is what commended Abraham to God: "This is why 'it was credited to him as righteousness.' The words 'it was credited to him' were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness — for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead." Rom. 4:22-24 

It is clear that the nature and scope of salvation is not so cut-and-dried. Does one need to believe that Jesus died for our sins, and he is the only way to salvation? Yes. Does that mean that thinking you are Christian means you are saved? No. 

One last thing. Jakes said this in 2007. Is there any possibility that Jakes has said something since that might clarify this remark, or show he has evolved on the issue, or perhaps, has changed is viewpoint? Well, we will never know this if the issue is left to the author to discover.)

He cannot say for sure if Jesus is the only way to Heaven. How can a preacher of the gospel not know what Jesus said concerning who is going to Heaven?

Who are the other sheep? (John 10:1-16) The sheep Jesus was talking about were the Jews who were believing and confessing that He was the Son of God. The other sheep are all Gentiles who believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

The sheep of Jesus (Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.) The sheep of Jesus are all who accept Him as the Son of God, Lord and Savior. All converted Jews and Gentiles are the sheep of Jesus.

Joel Osteen

(I offer no defense of Osteen's squishy lack of certainty.) Larry King question: What if you're Jewish or Muslim, you don't accept Christ at all?

Joel Osteen: You know I'm very careful about saying who would and wouldn't go to heaven. I don't know...

Larry King: If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They're wrong aren't they?

Joel Osteen: Well, I don't know if I believe they're wrong. I believe here's what the Bible teaches and from the Christian faith this is what I believe. But I just think that only God will judge a person's heart. I spent a lot of time in India with my father. I don't know about their religions. But I know they love God. And I don't know. I've seen their sincerity. So I don't know. I know for me, and what the Bible teaches, I want to a relationship with Jesus.

John 3:18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jesus said those who do not believe have already been judged. Joel Osteen says He doesn't know if non-believers will go to heaven or not. Joel says he does not know if they wrong in their unbelief.

Billy Graham

Robert Schuller: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity?

Billy Graham: well, Christianity and being a true believer--you know, I think there's the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ...I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God's purpose for this age is to call out people for His name. And that's what God is doing today, He's calling people out of the world for His name, whether they they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ, because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think they are saved, and that they're going to be with us in heaven."

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides in him"

The Apostle John said that the that wrath of God abides in those who do not believe in Jesus and who do not obey Him. Billy Graham disagrees. (That remains to be seen. Inelegantly expressed, perhaps, but it is clear that Graham believes that there are people who might not seem like Christians, yet they believe and are saved.) Who are you going to trust?

You will notice that preachers who deny that Jesus is the only way to heaven say. "I do not know if Jesus is the only way, but I think I know more of the truth than God."

John 8:24 'Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins;for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.''

Jesus said men will die in theirs if they do not confess Him. Some preachers say, I don't think so.

Mark 16:16 He who has believed and been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

A question remains, did those who proclaimed that Jesus is not the only way to heaven stop believing Jesus was the only way, first or did they declare that water baptism was not essential to be saved, first?

The gospel should be based on what the Bible teaches, what Jesus said, what the apostles taught. The gospel of what MEN think is no gospel at all!

My near death experience

Written  9/10/02

Having experienced a "near death" event a few weeks ago, I have learned a few things about myself and my faith. It really didn't hit me for some time that I had nearly died. I was in a very serious situation. Maybe it was the peace that surpasses understanding, or maybe I was not thinking too clearly as it was happening, but I just wasn't afraid.

I still don't know what caused my allergic reaction, but I do know that I was going downhill fast until my son prayed for me. I refuse to second guess myself as to what it was I ate or inhaled or what insect bit me. I have to remind myself to not live in fear.

Life is so fleeting, so temporary. It can be snatched away in a split second. However, I have come to realize that something cannot be taken from me if it doesn't belong to me. Scripture says that I died, and my life is now hidden in Christ. I should fix my heart and my mind on heavenly things. This is a reality check from God.

Paul taunts death in 1 Corinthians when he quotes the psalmist: "Death, where is your sting?" In other places he makes it clear that death is meaningless to him (To live is Christ, to die is gain). The grave has no power over God's children! I suspect that what motivates a lot of the self-improvement movement, with its diets, exercise programs, plastic surgeries, and obsession with self is the fear of death.

Therefore, we should not fear death, but beyond that, we should fully embrace life "in Christ." The life I live is really Christ living in me. As I pursue understanding of being "in Christ," or even, asking "in His name," I realize more and more that I need to obtain His heart and see through His eyes. 

Nothing changes dead flesh, but He transforms my spirit. That was the part of me that was dead but He made alive. Someday, this physical body will catch up to the spiritual reality, but for now I would rather nurture my spirit life.

The flesh is what I am commanded to put to death. Improving it is an impossibility. I am the same old guy if I lose 20 pounds or not. But Jesus transforms the real me into something that is pleasing to God. God accepts me into His family, and now I have abundant life, an inheritance, and a hope. 

So, now I have gained a fresh perspective. My life keeps getting better as I come into His presence and allow His glory and beauty to permeate me. I begin to stop the charade of the old man who is dead and start living the reality of Christ. The more I give up, the more I gain.

Here is a song I wrote the day after my "near death" experience:

1) HERE IN THE QUIET PLACE, AS I BEHOLD YOUR FACE;

MY LIFE KEEPS GETTING BETTER.

I FALL UPON MY KNEES, I WORSHIP YOU MY KING;

AND MY LIFE KEEPS GETTING BETTER.

(CHORUS) GOD OF GLORY, AWESOME, HOLY; HIGH ABOVE ALL ELSE!

HOLY, HOLY, YOU ARE HOLY; THERE IS NONE LIKE YOU!

2) I OFFER YOU MY LIFE; AS A LIVING SACRIFICE

AND MY LIFE KEEPS GETTING BETTER.

TAKE MY BODY, TAKE MY WILL, AND I WILL PRAISE YOU STILL;

AND MY LIFE KEEPS GETTING BETTER WITH YOU.

(REPEAT CHORUS AND GO TO BRIDGE)

(BRIDGE) STANDING IN YOUR PRESENCE, BOWING AT YOUR FEET;

ALL I WANT IS MORE OF YOU!

LORD, I LONG TO SEE YOU, WANT TO KNOW YOU MORE;

THE SPIRIT AND THE BRIDE SAY, "COME!"

3) I’M GOING TO RUN THE RACE, MOVING ON IN FAITH

AND MY LIFE KEEPS GETTING BETTER.

YOU ARE FAITHFUL THROUGH THE YEARS, YOU WIPE AWAY MY TEARS;

AND MY LIFE KEEPS GETTING BETTER WITH YOU.

TONGUES AND SALVATION? - BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

It is unfortunate that we are forced to rebut this man again. He seems to mean well. As such, we have no intention of piling on a brother in Christ for his errant views, but when all the world can see your post, you better make sure that you aren't embarrassing yourself.
-------------------------------------------

There is a view that salvation has to be validated by the evidence of speaking in tongues. (We are not aware of a significant number of people who equate salvation with speaking in tongues. However, many charismatics do suggest that that baptism of the Holy Spirit is evidenced by speaking in tongues. We hold neither of these views. Our position is that salvation, the filling of the Holy Spirit, and any variety of gifts imparted, can and and do occur at separate times.) 

Top 10 Solutions to Cut Poverty and Grow the Middle Class - by Rebecca Vallas and Melissa Boteach

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------------------------

Here we have another economically clueless article purporting to solve poverty. Read on:
----------------------------------------

This post first appeared at TalkPoverty.

Last month, the US Census Bureau released its annual figures on income, poverty and health insurance. It revealed that four years into the economic recovery, economic insecurity remains widespread, and low — and middle — income workers have seen no significant wage growth over the past decade. (This is why I used the word "clueless." If we are really in a recovery, how is it that the poor and middle class haven't recovered? Definitionally, in order to have a recovery, people need to be recovering, don't they?)

With the poverty rate at an unacceptable 14.5 percent and economic inequality stuck at historically high levels, one might assume that chronic economic insecurity and an off-kilter economy are the “new normal” — that nothing can be done to fix it. (More evidence there is no recovery.)

But there is nothing “normal” or inevitable about more than 45 million Americans living in poverty. It is the direct result of policy choices. With different policy choices, we will see a more equitable economy — it’s as simple as that. (So here is the identified problem, wrong policy choices. In other words, improving the economy, and therefore, the plight of the poor, is centered on what policies government implements. Government action is the only consideration.)

Here are 10 steps Congress can take to cut poverty, boost economic security and expand the middle class. (Ok, so government action is required. You might asssume that these 10 government actions required will be new ideas, things that have not yet been tried. You would be wrong.)

1) Create jobs.

The best pathway out of poverty is a well-paying job. To get back to prerecession employment levels, we (The ubiquitous "we,: which is never "you and I." "We" is government.) 

must create 5.6 million new jobs. To kick-start job growth now, the federal government (See? "We" is government.) 

should invest (Which means, "spend taxpayer money on.") 

in our infrastructure by rebuilding our bridges, railways, roads, ports, schools and libraries, neighborhood parks and abandoned housing; expanding broadband; develop renewable energy sources; and make other commonsense investments that create jobs and boost our national economy. (This is exactly what the stimuli were supposed to fund, remember? Shovel-ready jobs? crumbling infrastructure? This recommendation is exactly what all those billions of dollars were spent on, and yet the number one recommendation is to simply do it again. Maybe this brand new approach will work this time, hmmm?) 

Has Your Bible Become A Quran? - by Fr. Stephen Freeman

Interesting and informative. Originally found here. 

The most notable thing I take issue with is the author's statement "submission is not a word that passes the lips of Christ," which suggests that we need only be concerned with what Jesus Himself said. There is no precedent for such an idea, however, for then we would be perfectly justified in ignoring Paul's epistles or anything else that did not record Jesus's words. That of course is unacceptable. 

I concede that the author is correct about us becoming united with Christ and becoming children of God, but he wrongly diminishes submission. Indeed, "Christianity is not submission," but submission is critical to Christianity. It's a theme that is found over and over.

Ep. 5:24 "Now as the church submits to Christ..." 

He. 5:7: "During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission." 

He. 12:9: "Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!" 

Ja. 4: "Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."

Read on:
-----------------------------------------------

Those who engage in debates on a regular basis know that the argument itself can easily shape the points involved. This is another way of saying that some debates should be avoided entirely since merely getting involved in them can be the road to ruin. There are a number of Christian scholars (particularly among the Orthodox) who think that the classical debates between Christians and Muslims during the Middle Ages had just such disastrous results for Christian thinking.

Now when engaging in religious debates it is all too easy to agree to things that might make for later problems. It is possible, for example, to agree to a comparison of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and the Book of the Quran. After all, Muslims have a holy book – Christians have a holy book. Why should we not debate whose holy book is better?

It is even possible to agree with the Muslim contention that Christians (and Jews) are “People of the Book.” Of course Muslims meant that Christians and Jews were people of aninferior book, but were somehow better than pagans. Again, it is possible, nevertheless, to let the matter ride and agree that Christians are “People of the Book.”

And it is also possible to give wide latitude to the Muslim claim that the most essential matter with regard to God is “Islam,” that is “submission.” After all, if God is the Lord of all creation, then how is submitting to Him, recognizing and accepting that He is God, not the most important thing?

But each of these proposals had disastrous results in the history of Christianity and may very well be the source of a number of modern distortions within the Christian faith.

Thus, at the outset I will state:
The Bible is not the Christian Holy Book.
Christians (and Jews) are not People of the Book.
Submission to God is not a proper way to describe the Christian faith

INHERIT ORIGINAL SIN? - BY STEVE FINNELL

Originally found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------------------

(I covered the author's previous missive about this very same subject here. We are revisiting this because the author makes some new assertions worthy of examination.
---------------------------------

If the false doctrine of original sin is true how would Christian parents pass it on to their children? (I really don't think the author actually understands the doctrine of fallen creation, as I prefer to call it. As I noted before, all of creation was corrupted by the sin of Adam [Rom. 8:20-22], and Jesus' sacrifice reversed the curse of the law: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us..." Ga. 3:13

So his question becomes nonsensical, because everyone is born as a fallen man and is in need of redemption from the curse.) 


Ephesians 5:25-27...just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish. (NKJV)

How would it be possible for the church to be holy without blemish and be able to pass the inherited guilt of Adam's sin to children of Christian parents? (Persisting in his nonsensical questioning, the author extends his scope to include the entire Body of Christ. Making the "problem" bigger doesn't change the answer.)

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said , "Behold The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (NKJV)

Does Jesus take away all sin except original sin? He did not die for original sin. Original sin inherited by men is not found in the Bible. (Going from nonsensical to the ridiculous, the author bifurcates sin into categories as if Christ died for one kind of sin but not another. However, there is no need to make these artificial distinctions. In Rom. 3:19-28, Paul gives us the nature of sin, the universality of sin, how we came to know that we are sinners, and the remedy for sin: 

"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no-one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. 

"But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. 

"He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished — he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law."

What the author doesn't seem to understand is that sin is a condition, a state of being. It is not only what we do or think or believe. It is our nature as part of fallen creation.)