Michael A. Cox ‘s Inclusivity Of Scripture Taken Out Of Context | SBC Today

A Biblical Critique of CalvinismPart 1c: The Inclusivity of the Gospel Invitation | SBC Today.

One of the respondents Mike Davis says:

Proof-texts, proof texts. Both sides can proof-text.

And it is plainly possible to reject God’s grace. We must allow no root of bitterness to spring up, cause trouble, and defile because bitterness rots the bones. Bitterness, like sin itself, is contagious. We are herein told to uproot bitterness in our life. When the weed of bitterness rears its ugly head it poisons everyone around it. We must prevent this. Does this verse not demonstrate that God’s grace is both resistible and accessible to all? I believe that it does.

So are you exhorting the unregenerate sinner to overcome their sin nature and root out their own bitterness in order to be able to not resist the gospel? Hmmm…

Moreover, propitiation, in my estimation, is not appeasing an angry God, it is removing the cause for alienation.

Propitiation is a turning aside of God’s holy wrath, a satisfaction of His just anger. It demonstrates that His justice will be satisfied (Romans 3: 25). This is not a Calvinist vs Traditionalist issue.

Calvinists seem to be theoreticians who rarely reflect upon the serious theological and anthropological implications their system of thought necessitates.

Calvinists have been accused of a lot of things but this may be the first time I’ve seen them accused of not being thoughtfully serious. I’m not sure how a statement like that benefits the debate.

To which I will respond here: Actually, Mike, Rick Patrick accused Calvinists of being non-thinkers. It is nothing new among the anti-Calvinists. Cox uses ad hominem to discredit his opponents before they respond. You’re wrong before you respond and they have poisoned the well for all who come from their camp or any who are passing by. But you’re right, Cox has taken Scripture out of their context. He most appropriately fits 2 Peter 2:1, which he is back-handing against Calvinists, who in his estimation, though he would deny making any such accusation, are falsely teach predestination leading their hearers to destruction. Peter more appropriately addresses him, as will be shown. He offers no exegetical work and just proof-texts, as you say, and then after offering his polemical theories has the audacity to accuse others of what he himself has done.

One of the glaring examples of Cox’s failure as a teacher is the failure to take into consideration audience, but more, to consider all of what the Scripture is saying to them. For instance, Cox denies that some are destined. After mentioning 2 Peter 2:1 without its context, he leaves behind what 1 Peter 2 says:

So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation—if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good. As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture:

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”


“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. (1 Peter 2:1-12 ESV)

Cox’s disdain is for those who believe that God destines. But here we have Peter rejecting Cox as an example of those in 2 Peter 2:1, as a false teacher bringing in destructive heresy denying that Christ has bought a people for himself. The fact is, as Peter has said, that the chosen stone was sent to crush those for whom it was destined and to provide salvation for those chosen to be living stones. There are those who either directly deny that (Cox) or those who teach other contrary doctrine which leads others to behavior which denies it. The entire passage is about the cornerstone and his chosen generation. Believers are a new creation, a new generation, as Peter says, born again, by promise. Peter is warning against any behavior which would deny the Lord. Peter should know! He was once guilty of the very duplicity. As is clear, Jesus’ generation is the new creation, created to give praise and glorify God as opposed to the world which cannot except by their condemnation on the Day. It is a chosen creation. Believers are of a chosen Seed. Peter begins with the announcement of the promise, according to which some are predestined to life, others he are destined to condemnation. Peter does perfectly echo John 3:16, but also:

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:18 ESV)

The fact is, this is why the Father sent the Son into the world, that the believing ones who are part of the new creation would believe, and by that the world would be saved. It also means that, as Peter is reflecting on the very same, Jesus came to pass judgement on the unbelieving, of which Peter says, they were destined to such as condemned already. Election and predestination is all over Peter’s writings and that is why it so closely parallels John, because John likewise is clear about Jesus coming for his own, and not for the world, John 17. There is no doubt that judging between them comes by the word preached. The believers are sanctified by the word while the precious stone crushes its enemies. That is the point. Jesus tells of Judas, one of those who is predestined to the condemnation that Cox rejects. Though he had the same word preached to him it does not penetrate salvifically because there is nothing in him for it to appeal to as his nature and judgement is fixed by Scriptural revelation, Jesus said. In Cox’s estimation, Judas’ free-will determined God’s plan, but it leaves one without an answer as to how God’s fulfilling Judas’ desires meets the criterion of fulfilling Scripture which is God breathed. Did Judas’ desire his own eternal destruction? Did Satan enter into him by Judas’s desire? Did Jesus know Judas’ was going out to betray him, or not? Just how does prophecy work in Cox’s theories? In Cox’s estimation, Judas is an enemy we should love, because Jesus loved him, because he loved the world so much, even knowing that he was a devil from the beginning. Did the Father so love the world that even Judas’ could change prophecy and make God a liar?

Cox’s hates what the Scripture teaches, there is no doubt, so one wonders what he really thinks of God.

Double Predestination | The Poisoned SBC Table | SBC Voices | Hobbs And The Lost Soul Of The SBC

At SBC Voices the author of the following piece points out the poisoning of the well and the name calling of the Traditionalists whose sanctimonious attitudes are all so evident. One commenter’s response was

Adam and Eve were given the choice to obey or disobey God.

via Double Predestination and My Seat at the SBC Table | SBC Voices.

Just one of the many blasphemies found in the Traditionalist’s defense of their heresy in the SBC is the claim that God tempted Adam and Eve with choice. Where in Genesis 2-3 is man given choice? To the contrary the choice of evil is forbidden, not given. And more than just forbidden, it is condemned. To make a matter of free choice those good choices which God provided was the very evil Satan introduced. Free will choice is the opposite of the intention of creation. Now, some might think that choosing life for doing good or death for doing evil is a choice. But only the depraved would think of death for doing evil a rational choice. Adam and Eve were created rational, not irrational, righteous not depraved, or a mixture. They were not created with the propensity to evil in them, rather the propensity to do good. Not only that, they were created perfect in knowledge in as much as God had endowed them, as is demonstrated by Adam’s ability to name all the animals of the Garden. To say that mankind was created in the image of God with the ability within themselves to choose evil is to say that the image of God is both good and evil. God created them in his image to choose good. It was Satan that deceived Eve placing before her choice. She in turn, placed before Adam evil as a free will choice.

The following, along with additional comments, is an edited old post of mine on the heresy of H.H.Hobbs:

Only of man is it said that he was made in God’s image. Since God is Spirit, this image relates to man’s spiritual nature. This divine image means that God created man with a rational, emotional, and moral nature. He possesses a will with the freedom of choice. In his original creation, man was in a state of innocence with the possibility that he might choose righteousness or sinfulness, pg.51 TBFAM, c. 1971.

[In the current controversy you can see that Hobbsian influence is at work. Hobbs’ statement about innocence rules out man created in God’s image as righteous. Hobbs’ view is Pelagian.)

It cannot be mistaken that Hobbs intends in this quote to establish that God’s image is being described. Hobbs states three times that it is. He then defines it. So, it is that definition that we will look at. It is actually a single thought. God is moral with will; free to choose good or evil. As I discussed before, the innocence of God in Hobbs finds its establishment in the “first choice” that God made.

[Prior to that, God is neither good, nor evil, and afterward good but with the capability of evil within, as we shall see]

Hobbs defined virtue as that which must proceed from choice. Innocence is neutrality then; having done neither good nor evil. It was discovered [according to Hobbs] that the first action of God was to establish laws outside himself that he could possibly violate.

It is here that we encounter a problem with Hobbs’ Theology. God is transcendent, not just timeless. Time has no reference in God who is eternal. The problem then is how does it eventuate in God that an action happens? Time is bound in creation. In God, time is seen as complete just as all that is God is a divine simplicity and impassable. Each attribute and characteristic of Deity is at once and One, not without the others. He is not a complexity; he is undivided perfection of perfections. Time is complete in the mind of God just as a line does not proceed from point A to point B but is AB. It conjoins logical order. At the same time, however, God does not comprehend it in process moving from A to B. The result of process is time, and as I said time is within creation, bound by it, and more specifically, the resultant of an object’s (created matter) motion in space.

Then we can see the dilemma. If God is a moral agent in the same way that man is, then God is not Spirit, but has a body which traverses distances experiencing change and therefore time. That is not the case as Hobbs himself admits, “God is Spirit.” God cannot change and so there never was a “time” when God was merely innocent and by action chose the good, gained virtue and became righteous. But, this is the moral agency that Hobbs has introduced in God’s image in man. And one that is necessitated by God will to choose to obey his own laws.

I will digress a short bit to examine man in the original creation. If in God there was no time in which he was not righteous, and he being the perfection of perfections, created man in his image, then man was not innocent at any time. Here again I remind the reader what Hobbs’ definition of innocence is:

Created in a state of innocence, man was neither righteous nor sinful. Before becoming either he must exercise the right of choice, hence the temptation experience… pg. 51-52

Of God Hobbs states:

Thus the “righteousness of God” is not an attribute of God, but an activity… pg. 59; This is God’s self-affirmation…connotes what God is in his nature, pg. 37; …God has placed certain limitations upon himself…to act as he wills in keeping with his own laws and accordance to his nature as righteousness… pg. 66.

This may seem confusing, and I agree, Hobbs was confused. As I have discussed elsewhere on this subject and furthered here, Hobbs proffers libertarian freewill in God and by doing so confuses the eternal righteous nature of God with action. He said:

He is active, progressive, free to choose… pg 36.

When put together, eternality becomes something quite different in Hobbs than in Scripture. His image is of a changing God, whose methods change. Thus God is seen in reference to time, viewing the creation as an externality, progressive, because the nature of God is itself internally progressive and time bound in some unexplained way such that God has the power of contrary choice so that he might attain virtue (righteousness). Hobbs’ said, “Created in a state” and we do not have to look far in Scripture to see that the “state” was the image of God and is exactly what Hobbs meant.

But, is that the way man was created? Scripture reveals that man was created good and in the image of God who is eternally blessed; the perfection of perfections, the Highest Good. Created with rationality and able to understand right from wrong, man was created without the power of contrary choice, if what is meant by that is that man was free to choose evil. He was created with a nature that was good (righteous). In the creation each kind produces only after its own kind. His mind was perfect in order that he might bring glory to God. Genesis three tells us that man was deceived. How could that be?

Unlike God, who is Good and the perfection of perfections, man is a created being and all that does not apply to God, applies to man. That is, man is time bound, progressive and changeable. He is changeable by the very nature of what it means to be created. The confessions of the past say things like malleable, unstable and so forth, to express the idea that man can change. Being a rational creature, Satan did not approach with contrary choice. He did not present “evil” to Eve, but good. He did contradict God and challenged the veracity of God’s Goodness. That is the whole point. What first appeared as right became wrong and wrong became right. Satan presented good and accused God of evil. Eve chose what she saw to be good, perfectly in keeping with what God had created her to do. In opposition to what libertarian free will would postulate, Eve’s will was bound to choose the good. The natural liberty of the will inheres in the very nature of will, but not in the nature of the mind, for it was founded rationally sound not both rational and irrational. Natural liberty of the will is not of the righteous nature of man’s spirit into which he was created, either. For what fellowship has unrighteousness with righteousness. Will is the act of choice and is result, not the cause of its action. Understanding, then as Edwards did, the will is the mind choosing. Eve saw that the fruit was good and choose according to her nature with a rational mind. She did not choose thinking that what she was doing was evil and that it would kill her. Scripture testifies she saw the fruit as good for gain, not loss.

[In other words, the freedom of the will is not due to a mixed nature of good and evil within as if the nature is at both at once. Nor is the will. Indeed, the will is the action of the nature not the nature itself.]

The power of contrary choice does not enter in until the fall, being the very nature of Satan to contradict what is good by lies. When I say that contrary choice was introduced the proper subject here is evil versus good. Man was not given a contrary choice. He was forbidden to choose. It was Satan that deceived Eve not God. Satan provided the choice. Evil entered into man in the temptation, meaning that an out of order desire was introduced. Namely, that Eve saw the fruit as good when it was in truth evil.

In the new creation, man’s will is fixed, not by the inherent nature of the will which naturally is free but by man’s new spiritual nature and mind. And more, those who have been sealed by union with Christ through the gift of the Holy Spirit and are incorruptible. Even the new abode of man is free of any corrupting influence. It was the mind that Satan attacked proposing “good” from without. The spiritual nature of man in the creation was righteous. I was it, and Eve’s perfect mind which bent the will to choose to eat of that knowledge of the fruit of good and evil when she was convinced that it was good to do so.

[Scripture clearly defines the fall as the result of deception. Deception by its very definition is the withholding of free choice, anyway.]

Following what Hobbs has said, it is logical. But it is against what Scripture says. Hobbs says on page 52:

In her innocence the woman showed her tendency toward righteousness by protesting on behalf of God’s purpose.

Now this would be fine if indeed Hobbs believed that righteousness was the eternal nature of God and that man had been created after that image so that only good flows from it. But, Hobbs furthers his thesis on page 53:

It is when man through selfish ambition seeks to be God in his own life and will that he sins. It was this very thing which snared Eve, which shows that she also had a tendency toward sin. And this tendency overcame her tendency toward righteousness.

[Remember, Hobbs doesn’t define man as righteous in the creation, rather as neutral.]

There we have it. The image of God in man according to H.H. Hobbs is man created with a nature that possessed innocence and the tendency to do either good or evil. This neutrality is necessary for the preservation of libertarian free will of which H.H. Hobbs was a proponent, solidly; Pelagian in his creation scenario, semi-Pelagian in his post-fall view of man. And, like most Arminians, he contended of necessity that Christ died for all to restore to man that ability to choose righteousness or unrighteousness. Which in effect, through prevenient grace, balances the scales as if to make man innocent once more- the Pelagian man, needing only to choose Christ to be righteous. As before, this inverts the image, placing righteousness as the outcome of choice rather than the cause of it.

According to H.H. Hobbs, God created man in God’s image, both good and evil. Such is the basis of the Arminianism among the Southern Baptists. As a Southern Baptist, I studied Hobbs twenty years ago and had no idea what it really meant. Where were those who did, or should have, and should have taught me? It has been nearly two generations, fifty years, since his book was printed. That is not all of it. For a century this theology has dominated the SBC landscape. To wit, my former pastor and his assistant both held that God was both good and evil, or at least capable of it, for with God all things are possible and you don’t want to put God in a box… Adults who sat in Sunday School with me were convinced that Adam and Eve both were endowed in the creation with pride-filled lust as Hobbs describes. When challenged, many Southern Baptists will see this as offensive to their own knowledge. The repugnance of the concept of God being anything but Good is revolted against by the Spirit in them. Still, the scope of the influence of Hobbsianism is vast. Try mentioning that a heretical view has been taught in the SBC for one hundred years, that a former President wrote the systematic Sunday School materials that indoctrinated tens of millions, and you’ll be anathematized as a heretic yourself. None one touches the icons in the SBC, be they men or myth.

In the long running debate between the Arminians [Traditionalists, now] and Calvinism, this is where the Arminian perspective leads. Libertarian free will will create the Force, but it cannot reveal the God of Creation. It destroys any hope of a righteousness which is revealed from heaven, and given to us in the person and work of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

Of Unity and Heresy: Can Southern Baptists Be Unified In The Face Of Contradictory Truths?

Of Unity and Heresy | SBC Voices.

The real problems is if unity is to be achieved it must be achieved upon the basis of biblical truth. The SBC cannot stand being in disagreement with itself, can it? Can any house? In stark opposition to the SBC big tent ecumenism is the biblical mandate that what is not truth is to be silenced. There is a cancer eating at the heart of the SBC which is about to explode in its chest. Denial will not heal it. Leaders of the Traditionalist movement have called Calvinism heresy, false teaching, prestidigitation, doctrines of demons. And the reverse has been said of the anti-Calvinist’s Traditionalist doctrines. Whether one side is right and the other is wrong is one issue, but as the title of the piece at SBC Voices indicates, the real issue is what is truth and can there be any unity when opinions stand it truth’s place. There cannot be such unsureness found in Scripture, can there? The Scripture clearly forbids the teaching of the opinions of men as doctrine. Where there is opinion, there is no assurance of the faith and there cannot be.

Paul said to Titus in speaking of ministers of the truth:

He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. (Titus 1:9-11 ESV)

He not only recognizes that there is untruth, he commands that it be silenced. And he admonishes Titus:

But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. (Titus 2:1 ESV)

Doctrine! He leaves no doubt that there is sound and unsound doctrine. He allows for no in-between where oppositional truths can stand and both be sound. Things to be taught and not taught are either right or wrong, not both right. One is to be silenced. The two cannot stand as one. No unity is found where there is not sound doctrine. So, no unity can be found where there is an agreement to let stand those things which are opposed to one another. That agreement itself is an unsound doctrine.

Paul in Corinthians, directly addressing teachers in the church denounces their oppositional doctrine and insists that they do not deviate from the sound doctrine they were delivered, saying do not go beyond what is written and what do you have more than anyone else that you have not received? They received it from Paul, not their own private interpretations of the writings, but his inspired interpretation of them, and they were not to deviate from the one foundation.

Paul goes on:

Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you. (Titus 2:15 ESV)

This is what he says to Timothy in regard to not letting any despise him because Paul had personally taught him. Paul doesn’t teach Titus to let alone and let live, can’t we all just get alongism, you have your truth I have mine. No! Instead, he commands Titus to let no one disregard his teaching. He is speaking to his true child in the faith, just as he was to Timothy. That faith in this context is not the act of believing, rather, it is the corpus of the truth of God’s word.

Is this any different than what he taught Timothy? Let’s see.

Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.” (2 Timothy 2:14-19 ESV)

What things? Paul is speaking of the doctrines of the faith. He charges Timothy just as he did Titus not to engage in foolish babble, rather to study so that the truths Timothy is to teach are supported without shame. He is not to allow disregard or engagement with dissenters, rather he is to silence them. Just as Paul started, a faithful minister without shame in the knowledge of God whom he serves, so he commits Timothy to the same charge.

Paul gives an example of the gangrenous nature of false teaching, and here it is not dealing with the more important soteriological questions, but eschatological ones. If you want to talk of theological triage, Paul knew nothing of the sort. He treats false teaching as heresy, not as freedom of opinion, but the upsetting of the faith. If you don’t get what he is saying then it needs to be emphasized again, he says that what they are doing is iniquity, sin, and being in contradiction of the truth make themselves to be enemies of God and not His (children). Paul’s insistence is that it is only truth which builds up and is commanded to be taught, but that which is not truth ruins the hearers and is forbidden teaching.

What else:

Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. (2 Timothy 2:23-26 ESV)

Again, the admonition is not to engage dissention, but to silence it. There seems in Paul’s commands a required separation. I used to think of these two as being Christians. And they may well have been, though they were acting as servants of Satan. Let us not forget Peter and the anathema Paul attached to his falsehood and with what gentleness he approached him. Even saints can serve the Devil and when they do it is whips of chords to drive them out of the temple. The devil is powerful, even to the devouring of apostles, but we are not unaware of his devices, nor the remedy. He is to be resisted, adamantly and forcefully. Here we see patience required, but no philedelphian spirit. Disturbers of the brethren are not to be treated as brothers but set apart as divisive, that is heretics, as enemies of the cross.

These two which Paul is making an example of may be the same two persons Paul is dealing with in 1 Timothy. The point remains, those who teach contrary to the message that was delivered by Paul and the apostles are to be silenced and if they will not be, then they are to be put out of the communion. There is no unity in falsehood. There can be no convention with error. To allow it to remain breeds dissensions. We can only understand “kindness” within the setting of the Gospel. Jesus took up whips to drive the falsehoods out. Kindness requires integrity in the message and clarity in purpose with the purity and health of the flock as their intended goal. All things which exalt themselves against the knowledge of God are to be demolished. It would be unkind to both the flock and the disruptive to not take strong, definitive action with patience which endures evil by the faithful testimony to the truth. But that requires truth.

 Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work. (2 Timothy 2:20-21 ESV)

People have often credited this as an admonition to Timothy to personal holiness. However, since the portion is about the administration of the church, it assigns itself to the cleansing of it of all leaven of false teaching which can corrupt it. This great house we should presume as nothing other than the Church. This does, of course, mean that the ministers entrusted with the charge of overseers, themselves be cleansed of opinions, able to defend the truth without shame.

More exacting Paul tells Timothy:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV)

Paul has the good work of the church and of the ministers of it in mind.

What presumption and impudence is there when someone speaks in the name of God and yet can only affirm that it is a matter of opinion that they are speaking, and then to be so bold as to justify those opinions with Scripture? Scripture doesn’t teach opinion, nor does it allow them. Surely, to assign to God’s breath double-mindedness, if not heresy, is incredible blasphemy.

Going on demonstrating the criticality of getting the message right:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, (recall Corinthians) and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. (2 Timothy 4:1-5 ESV)

The patience of Paul, who in the face of opposition ran the race with singularity of purpose is not patience with dissension, or contention or dissenters or contenders. It is the patience of the long race in never ceasing to command the brethren to adhere to sound doctrine and to silence those who oppose it. For in opposing sound doctrine they oppose Christ. Paul would not even let his fellow apostle get away with it. That is the patience of the long race, that even the members of ones own body could be enemies.

Notice here patience is not speaking of being patient with the hearer. Rather, it is in view of the Judgement. This is the never-ending calling of a pastor as long as he is in this world. Why is it necessary? Because there are always those seeking to destroy the church who will go on growing worse and worse unless they’re stopped. And it is because of sin in the flock, which is weak and turns to whom ever is tickling their fancy. Unless there is strong and definitive reproof, rebuke, and correction, they will fall to the devil’s schemes, and that from within. Paul calls those schemes myths. They are pits into which the sheep fall, dug by their own hooves. In short, falsehood. And so we have the admonishment to study to prove what is right and good and to stand in its defense so that there is no shame on that Day of Judgement.

The Great Beth Moore Of Babylon: What’s A Little Whoring Among Friends In The SBC?

Sermon Review, “Don’t Throw Away Your Confidence” by Beth Moore.

Rosebrough reviews Beth Moore, beginning a little over have the way into this program. BM (oh so appropriate) is one of the myriads of false teachers around today. She is a darling of the SBC pop-cult circuit. She is simply a prosperity charlatan. Chris begins with an interesting dilemma, what do you call her? She can’t be a teacher with authority in the church, she is not a pastor, she can’t be an elder, and for a non-denominational denomination that ostensibly holds to male headship in the church, it begs the question as to why this changeling is allowed to thrill in the entertainment industry called the SBC. And true to its form, the SBC Cabaret sports all sorts from traveling buffoons and women masquerading as men.

Chris asks why she is so popular. How can such ignorant prosperity teaching have such a pop-cult following and not be identified as such? I think there is an answer.

It is because of the latitudinarianism that is central to the modern SBC’s big-tent ecumenism. You can believe what you want, teach as falsely as you want, make the bible say anything you want, while pretending you’re not telling others what to believe. What a man teaches is what he is the telling others to believe, but not for those in the SBC. Sad, self-defeating compromisers cannot see that the freedom that they think they are extending to others to hold personal opinions and naming it truth is really the enslavement to the opinions of men regardless of how much truth there might be mixed with it. Are there no competent teachers in the SBC? Well, they’re few. But fewer still are those who venture to criticize their own even when they know the truth is not being presented. And why is that? It is all for the sake of the great ethos of the SBC’s very own Erasmus, E. Y. Mullins,  that has controlled the SBC for over a century:

“Can’t we all just get along?”

How fortunate Protestants are that Luther wrote his response to the Erasmus’ Diatribe. And how unfortunate for the SBC that it, by and large, rejects that response. One of the issues that Luther addressed was the shallowness of Erasmus’ beliefs and by extension that of the Roman Church if it was willing to say that its own doctrines were mere trifling with opinion.

There is another Moore Whoring example found here. There is much more that could be said about this sithsda, her travels to the dark side, and how it affects others she has lured into it. But what is mortally important is the fact that this stuff is so ubiquitous even among the so-called conservative resurgents and the emergents within evangelicalism. The SBC is chock full of it, but their disease is not well contained. Instead, it serves as an example to others not even affiliated with it. It is such an acceptable form of blasphemy, and so lucrative, that no one wants to challenge it except the politically incorrect. Element Church in Cheyenne in only the out working of the very thing that was given room to grow in the SBC. It is not surprising that many of the local SBC’ers here in Cheyenne end up there.

People like Joel Osteen are not anomalies among this crowd. Indeed, he was the hero of my fellows in at Sunnyside Baptist in Cheyenne where was a member for fifteen years. Joel is the son of a former Southern Baptist. The apple of false teaching doesn’t fall far from the tree. His dad followed in the footsteps of a long line of prosperity teachers who promoted methods as king, promised blessing through pragmatic means. Leaders like Elmer Towns and the Blackabys, and even the American Pope, Rick Warren, flow from this self-improvement tradition. The reality is that manipulation of God by means is the pornographic centerfold of the SBC ideology today, and has a long pedigree in it. The fruit of the big tent revivalism is Beth Moore, and as she puts it, the same-o same-o that has been around for nearly a century and a half, produces heresy. No doubt, as we know, the SBC has had wide influence among evangelical churches and individuals, pro-baby-killing presidents and redistributionists have been produced by her loose canons. And that’s the problem. For its part, the SBC is as guilty as any secular influence of letting the yeast of apostasy ferment and the moral indifference of the nation become what it is.

Even those outside the SBC are affected. Methods and means have become either more therapeutic or more product oriented, both providing the “needs” of the serial narcissist, the addictive ecclesial shopper, or simply the lust-filled spiritual thrill seeker with any kind of lascivious licentious leaning. The attractions of the SBC rarely are any different than those offered by secular providers. And why? Because those businesses and attractions are owned by those who belong to the largest protestant denomination. The world surely is less and less likely to believe in the means of sanctification which found in the word and more and more likely to invest in the imaginations of entrepreneurs in pastoral clothing, like Moore or “reformed” perverts like Driscoll. Instead of finding of those who should be dealing with it, we more often than not find more solid teachers supporting these slithers. Like Beth Moore, who should have long ago been caged and disinfected by the watchmen, the passive acceptance of her, continues the spread of the disease of pragmatism.

Check out Chris Rosebrough’s F4F, there be pirates there.

Is there much difference between the SBC and the RCC?

For an examination of Driscoll’s latest porn tome “How To Sell You Wife”.

WHY The Man Series? Jeff Maness’ Element Church Cheyenne A Vision Of Human Potential

WHY The Man Series? « Element Church Insider.

Reflecting back on Maness previously teaching the occult practice of vision casting, here is an excellent look at that by examining another build the church though deception and false preaching preacher.

The Katakrima Rises To The Top

That preacher therefore had no adequate conception of sin who defined
it as, “The wilful transgression of a known law.” The greatest of all sin is a sin of nature. It is not dependent in obligation on our knowledge. (B.H. Carol, THE SUNDAY SCHOOL BOARD of the SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION, 1935)

Furthering his Sunday School lesson:

1. An argument based on our seminal relations to the two Adams — This great doctrine is expressed thus: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (5:12). Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (5:18-19). If we combine the several thoughts into one great text we have this: By one offense of one man, condemnation came upon all men. So by one act of righteousness of one Man, justification unto eternal life comes upon all men who by one exercise of faith lay hold on him who wrought the one act of righteousness.

2. This text startlingly offends and confounds the reasonings of the carnal mind which says:

(1) One may not be justly condemned for the offense of somebody else, but only for his own; nor justified by the righteousness of somebody else, but by his own righteousness.

(2) Condemnation must come from all offenses, not just one; and justification must be based on all acts of righteousness, not just one.

(3) To base a man’s condemnation or justification on the act of another destroys personal responsibility.

(4) The doctrine of imputing one man’s guilt to a Substitute tends to demoralization, in that the real sinner will sin the more, not being personally amenable to penalty.

(5) The doctrine of pardoning a guilty man because another is righteous turns loose a criminal on society.

(6) The whole of it violates that ancient law of the Bible itself: Thou shalt justify the innocent
and condemn the guilty.

If the Gospel plan of salvation, fairly interpreted, does destroy personal responsibility, does tend to demoralize society, does encourage to sin the more, does turn criminals loose on society, does not tend to make its subjects personally better, it is then the doctrine of the devil and should be hated and resisted by all who respect justice and deprecate iniquity. But the seminal idea of condemnation and justification grows out of relations to two respective heads…

So it would seem, that in 1935, the clear Baptist, that is the SBC’s distinctive was diametrically opposed to Steve Lemke’s. It is a foregone conclusion, then, that Lemke doesn’t stand in the distinctives of the SBC, which he terms Baptist, and is therefore not Baptist. Carol not only says Lemke’s mind is carnal, and as a preacher he is not up to the task, he makes it clear that Lemke’s doctrine cuts off all who would be saved by the head. For the imputation of Christ’s righteousness doesn’t depend on the act of one man, Christ, rather, it hangs upon the innocence or acts of the individual. In short, Lemke’s doctrine is a different gospel, and one which cannot save.

What does Romans say about guilt in the offspring of Adam? It is simply this: that through one man’s trespass the judgement passed to all men because all sinned resulting in their having been condemned.

To simplify the wording, (if that were possible) krima means judgement. In a court of law that means the finding of culpability. In this case we know it was the finding of guilt because the sentence of death was executed. Now the sentence is katakrima, condemnation. Death and condemnation become word equivalents throughout this passage in as much as one does not stand without the other. What is without any doubt is that the condemnation that Adam incurred for guilt was executed, but not just upon him. It was executed upon his children. For death came to them through him because in him all sinned. The sentence that was executed was because of the judgement made. The declaration of the sentence is katakrima. Or simply, it is the determination of what punishment would be executed. Katakrima means the damnatory sentence, or condemnation and the execution of it is one and the same with it. To back track, death, which came to all mean is the execution of the damnatory sentence for the guilty finding. Far from being accountable at some age of accountability, the accounting was made before the children are ever conceived. In each case the action was accounted as completed in the past. For all die. The fact that even children in infancy die demonstrates they have received the just punishment for their sin which surely was not due to any wilful action on their part.

There can be no doubt that guilt was imputed to Adam’s offspring, for death is the prosecution of a sentence. And a sentence of condemnation is predicated upon the determination of the judge who has found the defendant guilty. All men die. That means that God reckoned all Adam’s offspring guilty. And that, not for actual sins they would commit temporally. For children often die before they can know to do good or evil. As Hodge remarks it is a punishable act, as much as but more than that which is established in their nature from their conception, through the act of one man before the children temporally existed. They are by nature children of wrath. There are no innocent children. All have inherited guilt as testified to by death spiritually in the corrupt nature, and by that which testifies to it in the temporal expressions of it. Period.

This, of course has nothing to do with the eternal disposition of all children who die before they can make any moral judgements. Scripture is silent on the matter of universal salvation of infants. And where it does speak to the issue of infants, the most that we can say is that some are saved. And that through the grace of God which provided for all things pertaining to salvation in the propitiatory sacrifice of our Lord. That is, by his one act, and not ours. That is the great exchange, his innocence, for our guilt.

Infant salvation has nothing to do with the supposed Biblicism of Lemke, then, (though he makes it the strawman to burn in effigy which somehow sets his faith apart from others as alone the true faith). For since there is no clear teaching on the universal salvation of infants it is a matter of speculation. It cannot be held out as doctrine. And cannot be used to argue any case against original sin. It may distinctively be identified by some Baptists as such, but it doesn’t stand as a distinct Christian doctrine.

Lemke rejects the clear teaching of Scripture, anyway, as we have seen through Carol. True enough, he is not alone. The blind rejection of the Scripture concerning guilt imputed is nearly ubiquitous in evangelicalism today, and weaves its heretical thread through the fabric of the history of the church. But, that presents a problem for those who would claim a distinctly Baptist heritage founded upon it. For the rejection of a clear teaching of Scripture such as the imputation of condemnation could never be a Christian doctrine, let alone Baptist. It also impinges upon another claim Lemke makes. One cannot at once uphold the inerrancy and authority of Scripture and deny the clear teaching of it.

Lemke’s spilled krima cannot be cleaned up without polluting many of the dogmatic claims he makes about Baptist distinctives in general. It brings into question everything that he might say, right or wrong. As was shown in the rejoinders to his original paper, Lemke isn’t as erudite as he expresses himself to be. Nor humble enough to have it pointed out as gauged by his responses to those who have challenged his assertions. And, he is not just wrong, but wilfully fraudulent in his presentations through fragmentation, word rearrangements, and by claiming things he knows not to exist. But again, that goes to the heart of his distinctive, exclusionary slant of what it means to be Baptist. He began his paper by using the canopy of the word Baptist to substitute for the SBC. And the ruse began. Yet his intent becomes perfectly clear that the only true Christianity, according to Lemke, is Baptist, and by Baptist he means SBC and by SBC he means his own perverted, myopic version of it. For we have seen that prior to Lemke’s era, his distinctive wasn’t distinctively SBC.

His idea of soul competency, then, can only mean that he is not beholding to the inerrant teaching of Scripture. As one of the rejoiners says:

Failures of covenant may reflect that current day Baptists have been conformed to the modern mindset (think 1600-mid 1900) of this world. Modern thinking rejected the contributions and restraints of tradition and community for the autonomous reasoning of a free and independent thinker. Among the many implications of the modern era was a new way of thinking of one’s group. An older view, which recognized our indebtedness and “rootedness” in a concrete organic body, gave way. Instead individuals began to see their relationships as elective; even the groups to which we belong we now see as composed of replaceable parts. Characteristically modern leaders who ponder change simply calculate the numbers (people) lost and gained. The record sadly shows that Baptists, like other children of modernity, treat almost every covenant with the same dismissive attitude; in membership or marriage we behave like everyone else.

When he has been proven wrong repeatedly in his interpretations of Scripture, when it is shown that he directly denies it, when it can be demonstrated that he has actually deviated from the Baptist (SBC) traditions before him, chosing to go his own way instead of the way of the community before him, his soul competency becomes the modernist rubric. In Lemke, the liberty of the believer and his autonomy results in the very liberalizing of the system that Lemke hopes to maintain as conservative. It then resolves that one of his distinctives, the soul competency of the believer who is free to believe and associate as he wills, contradicts and undermines the very foundations of Lemke’s so called distinctives. Scripture and its truth becomes fluid, meaning whatever anyone wants it to mean. When that is the case, the only distinctive left is that there is none. It also means that Lemke rejects Sola Scriptura and by that inerrancy. Indeed, he embraces solo scriptura where the almighty autonomous individualism of E.Y. Mullins kicks the authority of the text out the window in favor of unity through diversity rather than obedience to the control of historic Christian orthodoxy.

The end result of distinctivising the SBC will be either that Lemke is successful in erecting what he diametrically opposes, an association that dictates what a person must believe to be Baptist, or he is unsuccessful and must bite the bullet, accepting that there is no such thing as a Southern Baptist Convention distinctive precisely because of the nature of the autonomy upon which it is currently founded. The modern paradigmatic map of the SBC, or to use Lemke’s name Baptist, is that it means nothing other than what he says it does. And if you do not like that, get out of Dodge because you’re not him, or his kind, or one of the good old boys of the Baptist Identity Movement who tell everyone else what they must be. Such self-refuting confusion is the heritage that the likes of Lemke bequeath. In the future, when it is asked what distinctives they stood for, the only answer that can honestly be made is autonomy. The have rejected the traditions of their fathers and embraced whosoever will… following their own carnal imaginations.

None Dare Call It Heresy

Talk about a confusing sentence. Here again, Craig decides on a whim to pit foreknowledge against foreordination. But notice the illogic. How does God foreknowing our thoughts and intentions etc. require that His foreknowledge is not based on his foreordination? It doesn’t follow (…unless you’re presupposing Molinism.

“Since God is not responsible for these human activities, it follows that he does not bring them about.” 48

Really? Because God brought about the death of Jesus Christ. The Roman soldiers who killed Jesus are held responsible for the death of Christ. That’s the truth. But, not in Craig’s worldview. This is an impossibility, regardless of what Scripture says.

Molinism from the Horse’s Mouth: Reviewing Craig’s “Only Wise God” – Part 3

Rodger McDaniel: Cheyenne Wyoming’s Very Own Heretic (Part III)

Rodger McDaniel said:

The meaning of these texts, said to exclude homosexual people from the Kingdom of God, hinges on the meaning of two Greek Terms, `malakoi’ and `arsenokotai.’ Throughout history these terms have been translated variably (masturbatory, practicers of heterosexual anal sex, sodomites, catamites and the like). Suggested translations today still vary (morally loose, masturbators who waste their property, boys and their pederast partners, temple prostitutes serving men and women, gold-digging gay hustlers who pursue the elderly). No one really knows what these terms mean. There is no good reason to suppose they apply to consensual, respectful, homosexual acts per se, especially since such an interpretation would be in conflict with all the rest of the Bible.

I also call your attention to that fact that whether homosexuals are included in Paul’s list of the condemned depends entirely on which version of the Bible you are reading…

Note that not only are gays and lesbians absent from some versions of this scripture, but the list common to all includes a number of troubling behaviors that are never used to deny their practitioners a marriage license, e.g. drunkards, thieves, greedy, robbers, slanderers, swindlers, revilers, and even the effeminate.

Before I begin to address McDaniel’s poor exegesis of the texts concerning homosexuality in the NT, I would first like to finish addressing something I pointed out last time.

McDaniel makes what can only be described as an irrational statement:

Note that not only are gays and lesbians absent from some versions of this scripture, but the list common to all includes a number of troubling behaviors that are never used to deny their practitioners a marriage license, e.g. drunkards, thieves, greedy, robbers, slanderers, swindlers, revilers, and even the effeminate.

Supposedly, the list is a list of behaviors that should be used to disqualify individuals for certain rights. But, the object is not first whether or not a marriage licence should or should not be granted, rather, it is whether or not the relationship is legitimate in the first place. He has targeted the behavior: `malakoi’ and `arsenokotai’, not the civil access to certain statutory privileges. McDaniel acknowledges that there is still a place for the Law in modern life restricting or permitting certain behavior and by that agreed that certain behaviors preclude or include individuals’ access to societal privilege. He has also conceded that Jesus’ words take on a status that overrules what appear to not be his words. He then totally goes off the rails.

There are laws on the books that prevent individuals from participating in society under certain conditions. There are laws prohibiting the consumption of alcohol in all sorts of venues, by conditions such as age, regulations by licensure for dispensing the product, for sales and all most any kind of distribution. We also have laws prohibiting drunkenness in public, or operating a vehicle under the influence. And who would doubt that an inebriated individual is not going to pass his driver’s license test? Beyond that, a contract signed by an individual whose mental capacity is impaired, either by artificial means, or by natural disposition is not a valid contract. Now, suppose two alcohol impaired individuals wanted to contract a marriage. We have all heard of the drunken Las Vegas marriages. Those, however, are easily annulled, as being what they are, a contract made by the incompetent. Neither are those who are medicated, legally, under the care of a physician, necessarily afforded the right to engage in civil contractual agreements because of the circumstance of their impairment. In short, McDaniel is wrong. Whether legal, or illegal, certain behaviors, or status (age barriers, mental illness, imprisonment) disallow full civil right where statutory privileges exist. Laws have always been crafted with both inclusive and exclusive views of conditions, presumptive or actual, which either allow or prohibit access. That is just the nature of law. Where the conditions described by McDaniel exist, all could be used to deny a marriage license since those licenses are not rights but privileges subject to the granting officers approval. Any officer knowingly conferring a license where certain realities of the list of conditions might apply would be liable for malfeasance in office and open to civil litigation or criminal penalty. McDaniel is without any sense of the right use, or the authority, of licensing laws.

To the case- marriage does have something to do with the categories of sin that McDaniel lists. Though they would only come into play in certain circumstances as note above. In the case of marriage, there are certain necessary preconditions beyond the list. That is, the contract is founded upon mutual consent of two individuals who do practice a necessary behavior, if only what is meant by that is affection for one another and a desire to cohabitate as the natural expression of that affection. Affection may be presumed in each individual case, true, but it is generally the condition in view of society today and a basis for such civil law, since an abusive relationship or a forced one would violate the consciences of the victim and those granting such licensure. Beyond that, the contract affords certain behavioral rights and protections that in general are not allowed outside the contract, e.g., cohabitation without fear of criminal violations, et cetera. What mainly concerns McDaniel, though, is a certain kind of behavior, namely sexuality. And, just as with the metaphysical reality of affection and the legitimacy of cohabitation as a moral arrangement, there is the reality of the morality of sexuality within marriage. It is that, and not marriage per se, with which he is taking umbrage. Namely, that any sexual behavior is compatible with marriage and actually forms the marriage made. Sexual barriers should be brought down in McDaniel’s estimation… though he would discriminate against some kinds, would he not? And upon what would his moral decision to reject or commend be based?

We press on.

The terms McDaniel uses are found in Scripture and do connote homosexual behavior, or at the very least that which is opposed to the knowledge of God. He anachronistically exegetes the meaning based upon popular translations, and not the translation from the original languages used and not by comparing his selective considerations with the rest of Scripture. As noted here:

Elliott’s argument does offer additional backing to White’s argument. However, we need search no further than theologian Robert A. J. Gagnon’s excellent rebuttal to the type of argument put forth by Elliott… a summary of the most prevalent points makes a case strong enough to call in to question Elliott’s support of White’s argument and, in turn, White’s argument itself.

Proposition 1. To broaden the word arsenokoitai to include exploitive heterosexual intercourse appears unlikely in view of the unqualified nature of the Levitical prohibitions.

Proposition 2. In every instance in which the arsenokoit word group occurs in a context that offers clues as to its meaning (i.e., beyond mere inclusion in a vice list), it denotes homosexual intercourse.

Proposition 3. The term arsenokoitai itself indicates an inclusive sense: all men who play the active role in homosexual intercourse. Had Paul intended to single out pederasts he could have used the technical term paiderastïs.

Proposition 4. The meaning that Paul gave to arsenokoitai has to be unpacked in light of Romans 1:24–27. When Paul speaks of the sexual intercourse of “males with males” (arsenes en arsenes) in v. 27, he obviously has in mind arsenokoitai.

Based on these propositions and others he explores, Gagnon boldly states that “others would have us believe that it is an open question whether arsenokoitai in Paul’s mind would have applied to all forms of same-sex intercourse, including the kinds of non-exploitative forms allegedly manifested in our contemporary context,” but “this dubious hope has to be maintained in the face of many additional obstacles.” Gagnon concludes that 1 Corinthians 6:9 confirms that Paul’s rejection of homosexual conduct is just as applicable for believers as for unbelievers and that it is self-evident, then, that the combination of terms, malakoi and arsenokoitai, are correctly understood in our contemporary context when they are applied to every conceivable type of same-sex intercourse.

Having more closely documented the particular use of the word arsenokoitai and its consistent witness in the NT, we have discovered that homosexual sin in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 isn’t as culturally relevant as many who support the pro-homosexual agenda to normalize aberrant sexual behavior would have us believe.

— C. Wayne Mayhall

I’ll only address arsenokoitai here. So let’s take a closer look at 1 Corinthians 6:9 in reference to Romans 1:24–27.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals…

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Homosexuals is the translation of a compound word: arsenokoitēs (ar-sen-ok-oy’-tace). Arsen simply means male. It is the second root of the compound where we find an odd coupling (forgive the pun). The word means a coital relationship. But the word koitē (koy’-tay) we are most familiar with because it has come to use via the Latin as coitus. I do not wish to make the same word fallacy error that McDaniel made in anachronistically assigning meaning by translation preferences that came after the original, however, it is interesting that Paul chose this word. Though the etymological descent of the Latin is different than the Greek, where they cross in history as shared meaning and phonetic kinship is nothing short of amazing. What I could not find, though it may exist, is a Greek/Latin etymological tree that shows they are more than just kindred of meaning and sound. Paul, it appears, so well understood what the implied meaning of koites as the proper word for the text, that he “foresaw” what would be the future. In the Greek, as it is in Latin, it stood as a euphemism: to go to bed with, to go into, to nest, to have penal/vaginal sex.

Now, we can see from Romans that the “natural” affection that is spoken of is the natural affection of man for God. So that there is a necessary inference of union. Reflected in Malachi 2:15, our union with Christ and with His Father, by the Holy Spirit is a central theme of the NT, Matthew 19:5 cf., Ephesians 5:25-33. Now, indeed, the Romans 1 Passage is reflective of the fall and the noetic effects of sin upon mankind. The flow of the discussion is man’s natural affection for God being denied and exchanged for that which is not natural. But, knowing God, man seeks all manners of actions to deny him. So that, God gives mankind over to his unnatural proclivities- a full range of perversions from coitus with animals, to coitus with members of the same gender. It is called a depraved mind and includes not just sexual perversions, but every perversion of the holiness that Godly offspring should display is demonstrated by: being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful…” They unnaturally love everything that is evil. But God who is holy, who they should love naturally, they hate, and exchanging the natural affection for God with an unnatural affection they: exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

It is not a mistake that men lying together with men is included as being unnatural. The natural affection is explained as what was exchanged for the unnatural, by women lying with women, and like wise men with men committing shame-worthy actions with other men. The word used for men is arsen together with aschēmosynē (as-kay-mos-oo’-nay), which means indecent nakedness, shamefulness, and more specific to the context, a woman’s genitals. In other words, the comparison that is being made is that men engaged in coitus with men as if they were women. So, contrary to McDaniel’s assertion, both lesbianism and male homosexuality are condemned as being that which denies the natural relationships. And that, a reflection of the hatred of humankind for God. The expression of that hatred is what is being displayed in homosexuality- mankind loving themselves as opposed to God.

What then can there be for the justification of such actions, or any action which blasphemes God’s holiness and his holy purposes for his creation?

Paul doesn’t lose the focus whenever he speaks of that which is opposed to God. And when he creates a compound word in 1 Cor 6:9 (also, Timothy 1:10) he chooses arsen and koites, because they connote exactly what he has described in Romans 1. It is the act which is condemned, just as those other things which McDaniel acknowledges are rightfully condemned in Scripture. Quite right, there are things clearly revealed which are ours to know. What McDaniel doesn’t wish to acknowledge is that homosexuality is clearly revealed as hatred of God. He does so because it would override any consideration of legalizing homosexual marriage.

The absence of words such as homosexual, lesbian, et cetera, from some texts proves nothing. As I noted it is anachronistic. Words can come into being with time. But concepts and ideas can long precede the words later formed. In the case of the modern usage of the words in question, it has been demonstrated here that there were words being used for the concepts now called homosexuality. Indeed, words like coitus have come down to us virtually unchanged from their originals. It only makes sense that words in currency might reflect their current use, and further, that we no longer use some words because they have fallen out of currency. McDaniel has committed what is known as the word fallacy error. As demonstrated by Romans 1 where the concept is clearly mapped out, arsenokoites is not employed as it was elsewhere. Yet, its definition is. And that definition included both lesbianism and homosexuality as being the expressions of depraved minds which declare individuals’ hatred toward God. Lesbian is a 20th Century word and homosexual finds its origin around 1869. But the ideas are as old as the world of Genesis.

When McDaniel says:

No one really knows what these terms mean.

referring to malakoi and asenokoitai, he is simply lying. Of course the modern terms are missing, they were invented for the most part as of late. Bible publishers often use the most traditional renderings, and renderings of discretion, which can obscure the original meanings. However, scholars of the originals have always known what was meant. Curious is McDaniel quoting the OT and NT to bolster his case when he denies that they can be truly known, or that they were inspired texts, anyway. What a self-defeating argument. But, isn’t that just like what Romans 1 says:

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. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Paul compared a man’s appearance with a woman’s appearance saying that even nature teaches us the difference. Even without the Scripture confirming, it is clear from nature that McDaniel is warped in his mind, a hater of God, willing to take as many with him as he can as he descends into his depravity. And even though McDaniel rejects Paul, he has confirmed the words of Jesus as truly reliable. So that on marriage, Jesus appealed to the natural order when correcting the teachers of the law. Marriage is between one man and one woman. All that Paul said conforms to this. All that McDaniel has said suppresses the knowledge of God which has been made known to all men by those things which are evident in creation and it is he who conflicts with all that Scripture has to say. So also, McDaniel has rejected Jesus Christ, by whom all things were made, who is identified with the Scripture itself, who also has made clear by the words written in Red, that those things have not changed since the first man and woman were formed.

Bell’s Love Wins Reviewed By A Reformed(?) Scholar(?): With That I Am Delusional

Peter Lumpkins displays how his hatred of all things Calvinistic has blinded him to the real world and trapped him in a Hell of his own imagination filled with allegiances to, and admiration for, mythical monsters and writhing, slime oozing, antiheroes:

Let me just start out by saying that there is nothing particularly amazing about the theological contents of this book. His theology is evangelical, Arminian, and Baptist. His view of Scripture is well within the mainstream of the evangelical world. His openness about the question of the salvation of people outside the Church is hardly remarkable. He plainly upholds justification by faith, the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the bodily resurrection of Christ and all the faithful at the end of the age, etc. All of the typical evangelical shibboleths. So what of the particulars? The book has its merits, but certainly it is not beyond criticism.

Why does Peter love anti-Calvinist Paul Owen?