There’s some problems with StraitGate right now, and the Dividing Line for December 30th isn’t working there yet. So, you can listen to it right here!
As well, here’s the New Year’s Day episode:
December 31, 2003
last night on the dividing line
heos who?
While I find the whole “heos hou” debate very facinating, I really don’t see the point. Don’t get me wrong, I think Eric Svensen has done a great job in researching the issue and made some excellent observations. However, folks like Robert Sungenis continue to flame Svendsen with claims that they’ve found an example of “heos hou” used in the first century which does not terminate the action of the preceeding clause – as if that proved absolutely anything other than the simple fact that every Greek rule has exceptions.
Folks like Sungenis quickly whip around and say stuff like, “It is Svendsen’s claim that, since heos hou, by all accounting of the use of the phrase in the time period between 100BC and 100AD, does not serve to continue the celibate relationship of Joseph and Mary, then, ipso facto, Mary gave birth to other children besides Jesus.” Please note that Svendsen does not make his arguement against the perpetual virginity of Mary based on the use of “heos hou” – he simply uses that as another supporting evidence. Sungenis makes this statement as if the entire issue rested on “heos hou” and it doesn’t. Not at all. The fact remains that it is the Roman Catholic who has to apply the most foreign meaning to words throughout the New Testament in order to maintain that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a perpetual virgin. I believe Sungenis’s desperate plea to 4 Maccabees 7:3 merely makes this fact that much more apperant.
The facts are these:
- The Roman Catholic Church has defined the perpetual virginity of Mary as a dogma which you must believe. Gerry Matatics goes so far as to say it is as much a historical fact as the ressurection of Christ.
- The POSITIVE evidence for the perpetual virginity of Mary is an appeal to a symbolic interpretation of Ezekiel 44:2 where a gate of the sanctuary that the Lord has passed through must remain shut. That, and some late church fathers.
- The NEGATIVE evidence AGAINST the perpetual virginity of Mary is simply the application of the plain meaning of the Greek words used throughout the New Testamant refering to Joseph knowing Mary (eginosken – singular 3rd person imperfect indicitive active verb form of ginosko), as well as the repeated references to the brothers & sisters of Jesus (adelphos & adelphe). THIS INCLUDES the plain, normal application of heos hou in Matthew 1:25 (Joseph kept her a virgin until (heos hou) she gave birth to a Son)
- Note that Protestants don’t say that you must believe Mary had other children – Rome, however, states that you must believe she didn’t.
Given these facts, who is taking the more rational position? I think it’s pretty simple, myself.
December 30, 2003
thumb wars
Someone I know has been begging me to show them “Thumb Wars” which is like the funniest thing in the whole world. You can now get the whole series on DVD at O Entertainment.
Anyway, you can watch Thumb Wars by clicking the link below, but you need RealOne player to make it happen..
December 25, 2003
afterglow
Well, it was an awsome Christmas all ’round. We enjoyed a great relaxing day, with no outside obligations. Among the gifts that we shared today, Marsha really loved her gift-certificate to the Clay Ground. That’s this little ceramic/pottery place next to Tim Horton’s in Wolville where you can spend some time doing some ceramics or whatnot, with Enya playing in the background, without having to invest in all sorts of matrials. Marsha could spend hours there.
My beloved had a hoodie-sweatshirt made for me, because I’m facinated with the Greek language. I really want to get in some classes soon. Anyway, it was Ephesians 2:8-9 silkscreened on there:
…and below it, the KJV translation: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
I hope you all had an awsome Christmas! God Bless!
joy to the world!
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6 – Authored some seven hundred years before Jesus was born
MERRY CHRISMAS!!
December 24, 2003
two thirds of teens who’ve had sex say they wish they’d waited
Teens today may be more cautious toward sex than generally believed and may be paying more attention to their parents’ warnings, according to survey results released Dec. 16 by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.
The study finds that 67% of sexually experienced teens say they wish they’d waited longer before having sexual intercourse. The breakdown by gender indicates 77% of girls and 60% of boys regret becoming sexually active too early.
Eighty-five percent of teens agree sex should occur only in a long-term, committed relationship, and only 26% say it’s embarrassing for teens to admit they’re virgins. Teens credit their own morals, values, religious beliefs and concerns about the future for influencing their attitudes about sex more than concerns about pregnancy or STDs.
The opportunity to test those attitudes is significant, considering 42% of teens in high school say they had been at a party in the past six months with boys and girls where no adults were present.
Regarding teen pregnancy, 84% of teens surveyed say they believe teen pregnancy prevention programs should teach young people to be married before they have a child.
Parental influence is more important in a teen’s life than generally believed. Forty-five percent of teens say their parents most influence their decisions about sex compared to 31% who say their friends are most influential. Religious leaders are only the most influential among 7%, while teachers and sex educators stand at 6% and the media at 4%.
Eighty-eight percent of teens say it’d be easier to postpone sexual activity and avoid teen pregnancy if they were able to have more open, honest conversations about such topics with their parents, and 59% say when it comes to healthy, responsible relationships, their parents are their role models.
Meanwhile, only 32% of adults surveyed believe parents are most influential in their teens’ decisions about sex. Richard Ross, one of the founders of the True Love Waits abstinence movement and professor of youth and student ministry at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, says few youth ministers realize that parents are the most powerful determinants of core values and decisions among teenagers. Most would guess sports heroes or renowned speakers or even youth pastors are the most influential, but research continues to indicate otherwise.
“We absolutely must call and equip our parents to teach biblical truth and to integrate it into the flow of daily life,” Ross said in a statement to Baptist Press. “We must call and equip them to model that same truth before their children. Abdicating that role to the church has just about done us in.”
Ross added another vital element to the discussion of parental influence. “Parents doing an acceptable job of teaching and modeling truth may still lose their children to sexual immorality,” he says. “The missing element often is a heart connection between parent and child. When parents get distracted with making money and other adult issues, the teenagers grow cold and empty. In their immaturity, they often try to fill that void in the arms of an equally empty ‘lover.’”
The majority of adults and teens (87% and 88%) say they’d prefer for the media to show more about the consequences of sex, including teen pregnancy. At the same time, 45% of teens say that in the past year or so, something in the media sparked a conversation with their friends or parents about the consequences of sex.
Regarding abstinence and contraception, 94% of adults and 92% of teens believe that it is important for teens to be given a strong message from society that they should not have sex until they are at least out of high school. Seventy-one percent of adults and 59% of teens surveyed say they believe teens should not be sexually active, but teens who are should have access to birth control.
Two-thirds of adults and teens urge policymakers in Washington to place greater emphasis on encouraging teens not to have sex and greater emphasis on contraception, rather than just abstinence or just contraception. Adults and teens do not consider such emphases a “mixed message,” and only 13 percent of teens said they are getting enough information about abstinence and contraception.
Ross notes the dangers of treating abstinence and contraception equally. “The year before True Love Waits exploded, messages to teenagers were centered on instruction about condoms. We had lots of disease and lots of pregnancies. During each of the 10 years of TLW, we have talked more about abstinence and less about condoms,” he says. “Rates of teenage sexual activity have dropped every year. Teen births have dropped. STDs among teenagers have dropped. To those who want to go back to indiscriminate condom discussions, I just say: We tried that. Kids got hurt by the hundreds of thousands, and society is still paying the costs of the consequences. Why would we go do that again?”
If condoms are going to be a part of the dialog at all, Ross says, they should be presented as an alternative only for those who fail at abstinence. He emphasized that educators should be aware that introducing condoms at all is problematic.
“I would want a teacher to say, ‘The following discussion is for those of you who are choosing to reject what you likely sense to be right, and you are choosing to bring great pain into your life and the lives of those you care about, and you are choosing to miss the joy of relationships that are built on trust and fidelity,’” Ross said. “What’s intolerable is for a teacher or leader to present condoms (and by inference, promiscuity) as simply an alternative lifestyle equal in value with any other.”
The National Campaign survey questioned 1,000 young people ages 12-19 and 1,008 adults age 20 and older, according to the news release. The telephone surveys were conducted by International Communications Research in August and September 2003.
(source: www.sbcbaptistpress.org)
December 23, 2003
anglican’s unite!
Watching what’s happening in the Anglican church right now is a facinating thing. The schism that is happening over the same-sex controversy is a shining example of what happens when you have one group anxious to be “of the world”, and another group still tethered to the standard of Scripture. I think this same-sex issue proves one thing, definitely: If one wants to, one can interpret scripture any way one wants to, so that “thou shall not” can mean “thou shall feel free to.” I think I might go take a drive, and when I get pulled over, I’ll simply tell the officer, “Hey, don’t oppress my interpretation! I’m convinced that sign meant Stop slowing down, speed up!“
At the same time, I’m encouraged that there’s still some Canadian Anglicans who will stand against sin. Of course, their churches will be closed down because of it… Read this story in the Anglican Journal
December 19, 2003
he ain’t a heretic – he’s my brother
The recent discussion on Calvinism featured on the Bible Answer Man broadcast has got me to thinking about a great many things. Firstly, I echo what was said in the broadcast in that I believe this is an “in house” debate that can be carried out among brothers & sisters in Christ. I recognize fully that the Spirit gifts His people in many different ways, and I know there are many folks who have never been convicted to really look into these issues. I think of a deacon in my church who I know has never investigated these issues, but I also know he is a great man of God, and he’s also the man who taught me how to pray. A very close relative of mine occasionally enjoys engaging in debate on these issues, and he’s also been honest and admitted that he really hasn’t looked into the scriptures we’ve discussed – but that doesn’t make him any less of a Christian.
I am a Calvinist, but let me tell you honestly, sometimes I wish I wasn’t. Sometimes, I’d like to just go with the flow, and just fade into the crowd with the largest chunk of modern-day ecumenical evangelicalism. It would be so much easier! However, when Martin Luther was asked for a straight-up response at the Diet of Worms in 1521 – dude, do you recant of your radical theology or not – he responded, “Unless I am convicted of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us.”
Luther had no real choice, because the Bible teaches what it teaches, with no apologies to man. That’s the real issue – what does the Bible teach? All through the discussion with George Bryson, James White kept bringing up passage after passage for discussion, but Mr. Bryson didn’t respond exegetically to a single one of them. He simply dismissed them on the basis of his interpretation of other scriptures, and his own philosophy. Over and over again, he made the claim that “Calvinists believe this or that” and, speaking as a Calvinist, I can assure you that in each and every case Mr. Bryson was simply wrong. Calvinists do not believe God forces anybody to do anything. We do not believe God is the author of sin. We do not believe man has no obligations. We do not believe man does not have the ability to choose.
Some of the things he claimed were identical to me claiming that he believes people should be able to boast before God for their salvation. Of course he doesn’t believe that, and it would be rude of me to cast that accusation on him. You see, the majority of arguments against Calvinism originate from a misunderstanding of Calvinism, or jumping to illogical conclusions based on those misunderstandings. One could argue, quite easily, that if I did something (exercise faith in and of myself) that John Doe did not do which resulted in my salvation and John Doe’s damnation, then yes – I have a reason to boast over and above John Doe. To turn that around, however and say “George Bryson and those who believe like him teach people to boast of their own salvation” would be absolutely wrong, and a blatant slander against Mr. Bryson and what he believes.
If you want to know what a Calvinist believes, then please, ask a Calvinist. We’re not some psychotic fringe-element of Christianity. If you believe that the Bible is the only infallible guide to God’s will today, then it’s only because of people like Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Calvin who protested (that’s why we’re called “protestants”) against the Roman Catholic Church’s claim to be the ultimate authority of faith and morals. God, through these men liberated, us from oppression, and it’s because of them we now have the civic freedom to follow the example of the Bereans and search the Scriptures daily to see if these things are so. (Acts 17:11) I’m not a Calvinist because of John Calvin – “Calvinist” is just a nickname for a particular viewpoint, kind of like “Baptist” – I’m a Calvinist because I have been convicted by Scripture that these things are so. So if you ever want to debate the issues with me, I’d love to! I think it’s great when brothers and sisters in Christ can get together over coffee and talk about this stuff without fear of offending each other. But make sure that we’re discussing on the common ground of Scripture. Philosophical arguments can be made to prove almost anything because the mind of man can come up with all sorts of fascinating ideas – but Scripture alone is truth, because it is the breath of God. So, if you want to rebuke me, make sure you rebuke me with Scripture.
And just to stir the pot a little bit, I’m going to leave you with a passage that you should feel free to examine on your own, and come to your own conclusions. I think this passage clearly teaches that ONE ACTION can have two intents – one from God, and one from man – thus even in an action that, from the human perspective is sinful, the divine intent is holy. Thus Joseph could say to his brothers, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.” (Genesis 50:20) And just to stir the pot even more, I’m going to use “The Message” so that it’s easy for everyone to read. Let’s look at Isaiah 10:5-19:
“Doom to Assyria, weapon of my anger. My wrath is a cudgel in his hands! I send him against a godless nation, against the people I’m angry with. I command him to strip them clean, rob them blind, and then push their faces in the mud and leave them.
Note what God is saying here. God sent Assyria against Israel – It’s God’s wrath that Assyria is manifesting…
But Assyria has another agenda; he has something else in mind. He’s out to destroy utterly, to stamp out as many nations as he can. Assyria says, “Aren’t my commanders all kings? Can’t they do whatever they like? Didn’t I destroy Calno as well as Carchemish? Hamath as well as Arpad? Level Samaria as I did Damascus? I’ve eliminated kingdoms full of gods far more impressive than anything in Jerusalem and Samaria. So what’s to keep me from destroying Jerusalem in the same way I destroyed Samaria and all her god-idols?”
Despite that fact that the only reason Assyria was moved to conquer Israel, and was successful, was because God sent them – those arrogant Assyrians have their own agenda. They think they’re the greatest, and that they can do anything they want. They could care less about giving the glory to God! So, what does God do?
When the Master has finished dealing with Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he’ll say, “Now it’s Assyria’s turn. I’ll punish the bragging arrogance of the king of Assyria, his high and mighty posturing, the way he goes around saying, “I’ve done all this by myself. I know more than anyone. I’ve wiped out the boundaries of whole countries. I’ve walked in and taken anything I wanted. I charged in like a bull and toppled their kings from their thrones. I reached out my hand and took all that they treasured as easily as a boy taking a bird’s eggs from a nest. Like a farmer gathering eggs from the henhouse, I gathered the world in my basket, and no one so much as fluttered a wing or squawked or even chirped.’
What?! He’s going to punish Assyria for doing exactly what he commanded they should do? Why??
Does an ax take over from the one who swings it? Does a saw act more important than the sawyer? As if a shovel did its shoveling by using a ditch digger! As if a hammer used the carpenter to pound nails! Therefore the Master, GOD-of-the-Angel-Armies, will send a debilitating disease on his robust Assyrian fighters. Under the canopy of God’s bright glory a fierce fire will break out. Israel’s Light will burst into a conflagration. The Holy will explode into a firestorm, And in one day burn to cinders every last Assyrian thornbush. GOD will destroy the splendid trees and lush gardens. The Assyrian body and soul will waste away to nothing like a disease-ridden invalid. A child could count what’s left of the trees on the fingers of his two hands.
So, let’s break it down simply:
I think everyone should take some time to examine this passage in whatever translation they use. “The Message” isn’t a translation, it’s an interpretation (and a non-reformed one, at that) and I use it here only to demonstrate that even in “The Message”, the meaning of this passage comes through loud and clear. This passage does not stand alone, however, and I encourage everyone to dig into God’s word daily and test our own traditions, and what we’ve traditionally been taught against Scripture.
bible no-answer man
All three hours of the Bible Answer Man have now aired, featuring the discussion/debate between Dr. James R. White and George Bryson/Hank Henegraaff. You can listen to them right here:
After you listen to them, be sure to let CRI know what you thought of the discussion. You can contact CRI at this webpage or by emailing OPERATIONS@equip.org.
December 18, 2003
response from cri
Myself and many others wrote to CRI regarding the Bible Answer Man broadcast over the past few days. We all recieved the same responce:
Thank you for visiting CRI’s web site and for taking the time to share your comments.
We have forwarded your email to Hank’s office and our Radio staff for review. We realize that the presentation of such a debate would elicit passionate response from supporters on each side of the issue. Our hope was to provide a forum — albeit imperfect — to air the discussion and more importantly encourage our listening audience to obtain the resources (which were equally promoted) from both sides so that they can grapple with this very important topic. The very nature of a debate requires that there is not agreement on the topic and we would ask that grace be extended to all of the participants and especially to the limitations of the radio format. We would further ask that you listen to all three hours of the broadcast before making a final judgment on the format, alleged bias and time allocation. We can assure you that the three participants, despite their obvious differences and passion, left the studio as Christian brothers.
May God bless you.
CRI Operations
Let me clarify as well. I believe both Hank Henegraaff and George Bryson are Christian brothers. I, however, believe they have traditions, and have not really examined the biblical exegesis on these subjects. I also believe Hank showed little respect to Dr. White as a guest, since Hank made it very clear what his position was, and directed the conversation and questions accordingly.
Ultimately, my biggest beef with the whole thing was this: The program is called the BIBLE Answer Man, and yet every time Dr. White tried to direct the conversation to scripture, both Hank and George Bryson would have nothing to do with it. But that does not mean that I believe Hank or George aren’t Christians – I do, and I believe both of them have a strong love for the Lord. I just believe they have some traditions, and have not challenged themselves to really dig in to these things.
