Thursday, November 01, 2012

Affirm the Sacred - Preserve Marriage



Song of Solomon 8:6  Place me as a seal upon your heart, like a seal upon your arm. For love is as strong as death, its jealousy as unyielding as the grave. It flashes like fire, the very flame of the Lord.
Mark 10:6 – God made them male and female.
Genesis 2:24 – For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife. And the two will become one…
HT:  From Denny Burk - Affirm the Sacred - Preserve Marriage
Furthermore . . . 
Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6
4 And He [Jesus] answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, [alluding to Genesis 1:1; 1:27; 5:2]

5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wifeand the two shall becomeone flesh’? [ Quoting Genesis 2:24]

6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”



Jesus teaches several truths:



1.  Jesus affirms God the Father, the Creator "from the beginning" - harkening back to Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."  (alludes to Genesis 1:27; and Genesis 5:2) 

2.  Jesus affirms Genesis and creation as Truth and history.
3.  Jesus said that from the beginning, there is only "male and female" for marriage.  ( i.e., there is no room for homosexuality, lesbianism, the "gay" lifestyle, transgender, bi-sexuality, etc.)  
4.  Jesus limits marriage to two, one man and one woman.  "the two will become one flesh".  The ideal was monogamy from creation, even though polygamy was later allowed, it was not the ideal pattern.
5.  Jesus teaches that God joins people in marriage, and since it is from the beginning and creation, it transcends culture; it transcends any changes in history, cultural shifts in ideas, and even if majority opinion starts saying that "homosexuality is ok" - according to Jesus, it never is ok and never will be.

6. Marriage is by definition and by nature, only one man and one woman.  (Romans 1:21-28 speaks about the homosexuals who "abandon the natural function for what is un-natural" and "men who abandon the natural function of woman for what is un-natural". )

7.  Jesus teaches against divorce and affirms the principle in Malachi 2:16, "I, the Lord, hate divorce".
[the only exceptions being 1. continual unrepentant adultery - Matthew 19:7-9; and 2. desertion by an unbeliever - 1 Corinthians 7:15]

Therefore, don't let anyone get away with saying, "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality." By teaching the positive principles of male and female, monogamy, marriage, from creation, rooted in God the creator, quoting Genesis - He is speaking against homosexuality.  Jesus basically said the same sentiment as the saying goes, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"  Besides all that, Jesus is the eternal word (John 1:1-5), the second person of the Trinity and so was fully behind Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; and was fully behind Paul's words in Romans 1:19-28; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; and 1 Timothy 1:8-11; Jesus was in fully unity with the Father and with the Holy Spirit, who breathed out the words, and guided the human writers to write God-breathed words. (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21) 

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Free Reformation Celebration Download materials

In case you haven't see these yet:

Free E-Book download of Martin Luther by John Piper
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/martin-luther-biography-free-ebook

Free Calvin E-books at Desiring God!!
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/free-calvin-ebooks

Free Audio and Video lectures about Luther and the Reformation by R. C. Sproul  (Only Today)
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/reformation-day-free-download-rc-sprouls-luther-and-reformation/



Monday, October 29, 2012

In the Eye of the Storm...

According to just about every channel on my TV, I'm currently in a storm like no other.  Yes, I'm on the East coast, right in the path of Hurricane Sandy. This should be interesting.


3 Benghazi Scandals? Yes; it sure seems so




Piper on Luther (also Augustine and Calvin)


In the spirit of celebrating the upcoming Protestant Reformation -
John Piper's excellent message/lecture on Martin Luther: "Lessons from his life and labor".
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/biographies/martin-luther-lessons-from-his-life-and-labor

This became one of the chapters in his book, The Legacy of Sovereign Joy, on Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.  This is an excellent book on introducing the main issues with the lives and significance of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/books/the-legacy-of-sovereign-joy

see also Piper's lecture on Augustine: The Swan is not Silent.

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/biographies/the-swan-is-not-silent

Piper's lecture/message on John Calvin: The Divine Majesty of the Word. 
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/biographies/the-divine-majesty-of-the-word

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Comparing Mormonism and theological Liberalism in the Two main candidates Faiths

1.  An excellent summary of the bottom line of the Mormon religion.  It is not Christian, as it at its core denies monotheism and God as the eternal uncaused Creator of all things.

"The Real Issue with Mormonism:  God is an exalted man" by James White
http://americanvision.org/6549/the-real-issue-with-mormonism-god-is-an-exalted-man/

Here is just one excerpt, I encourage everyone to read Dr. White's article and also get his two books on Mormonism, which are mentioned and highlighted in this article at American Vision.

"We will look more at the evidence supporting this view of Mormonism below, but it must first be insisted that on any meaningful analysis of religious faith, Mormonism is far, far removed from Christianity. In fact, if one takes as one’s starting point the belief of a religion relating to God’s nature and God’s relationship to the universe, Mormonism is about as far removed on the theological spectrum from Christianity as any religion could be. Whether a religious movement believes in monotheism or polytheism is the first indicator of its nature and categorization, and on this point, Joseph Smith separated his followers for all time from Christianity when he made the statement, quoted above, “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.” In refuting this idea, Smith made it possible for me accurately and forthrightly to say today: Islamic theology of Allah is significantly closer to Christianity in its affirmation of God’s uniqueness, creatorship, and eternality, than Mormonism ever could be. This is a fact known to anyone who takes seriously the teachings of the General Authorities of the LDS Church."  Dr. James White
2.  President Obama's Faith - the article here by Denny Burk, linking to an interview that a journalist did with then Senator Barak Obama, shows he doesn't believe in the Bible or the doctrines that would make his "faith" true faith.  Also, he supports radical abortion and infanticide, same sex marriage, and refuses to call Islamic terrorism what it is.  And the Benghazi/Lybia scandal will eventually become worse than the Watergate/Nixon scandal, I think, given enough time.  Unfortunately, the main stream media is not reporting on this very much, and they and Obama's team seem to be trying to avoid it until after the election.  Among many other bad economic and social and defense policies . . .

"President Obama's Christianity" - By Denny Burk
http://www.dennyburk.com/president-obamas-christianity/

When Denny uses the term "liberal Christian" to describe President Obama, he means a theological liberal, which means Obama is not a Christian at all, since theological liberalism denies all the essentials of doctrine that make faith in Christ true faith in the real Christ.  J. Greshem Machen wrote a famous book, Christianity and Liberalism, in 1923, where he shows that theological liberalism using Christian words in main line churches, is not Christianity at all.


Denny Burk February 27, 2012 at 6:14 pm #
When I use the term “liberal Christian,” I mean to denote a theological liberal, which is not a synonym for political liberal. A person can have politically liberal views and still have conservative theological beliefs.

Excerpt: 

In short, though candidate Obama professes to be a Christian, his beliefs are that of a theological liberal. Here’s a summary with some quotes:
  • He believes that “there are many paths to the same place,” and he doesn’t believe that God would “consign four-fifths of the world to hell” for not believing the gospel.
  • When asked about his belief in the afterlife, he says he doesn’t know if there is one.
  • Obama defines “sin” as “being out of alignment with my values.”
  • Obama says that one need not embrace “Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and savior” to avoid judgment.
  • When asked “Who’s Jesus to you,” what Obama didn’t say is as important as what he did say. He confesses Jesus to be a “historical figure” and “wonderful teacher” but says nothing about Jesus being a Savior, Messiah, or Son of God.
  • He confesses that he doesn’t necessarily subscribe to his own church’s “set of doctrines.”

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Guarding Our Speech

"Not many of you should become bloggers, my brothers, for you know that they who blog will be judged with greater strictness."

I came across this nifty little sentence in an article by Mark E. Ross, "Guarding Our Speech"  in the October 2012 edition of Tabletalk. He states,

"Nothing should be posted that is not true, and far too often the criticisms posted of others are without sufficient basis for making public accusations. Even when what is said is true, it may not be appropriate to put out that information to the whole world. Whatever we wish that others do to us, we should do to them, for this is the law and the prophets (Matt. 7:12)." (p.63)

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Reformation Overview: Zwingli and Calvin

I know this is pretty basic stuff, but I learned more about Zwingli here than I did in seminary, of what I recall.  [I still need to read more of James Swan's past articles on Zwingli.] We had to read so much on Luther and Calvin and other issues, that maybe I skipped the pages I was supposed to read on Zwingli.

I thought this was a pretty good overview of Zwingli and Calvin.  I either fell asleep in seminary when they talked about the execution of Felix Manz for his having himself re-baptized, or they spent so much time on Luther and Calvin, and the Arminian Anabaptists, that I did not know about that until I watched this video.

The first time I saw this (within the last 2-3 years), I was shocked that the Zurich city council executed Feliz Manz by drowning, just because he rejected his infant baptism and had himself re-baptized.  That is still amazing to me that they were that extreme back then.  I assume that Manz and the other students of Zwingli were more "Reformed" in their theology, in contrast to the more famous group of Anabaptists, who were very Arminian in theology and pacifists.



I was impressed with Zwingli copying by hand the NT Greek text of Erasmus for himself and his model of expository teaching and preaching (verse by verse, book by book).  It seems Calvin is more famous for that, because Zwingli was killed in the second battle of Kappel in 1531; and Calvin's sermons were all written down and later published.  It seems the other person who was the first to exemplify Expository Preaching was John Chrysostom in the late 300s to early 400s.

The dispute between Luther and Zwingli on the Lord's Supper is famous.  I was disappointed in the abrupt way it ends, without explaining that Luther wrote "this is My body" on the table in chalk, and the need for a little more elaboration on that issue.  Good to know that they agreed on 14 out of 15 points of doctrine against the Roman Catholic Church.



The Calvin overview was bare bones basic.  Since I have sought to study more on Calvin than what is here, I wish they had gone into more details on him, his life, and his theology; and I wish they would have given more context to the Servetus issue and his execution - that Calvin wrote letters to Servetus while he was in prison and Calvin pleaded with him to repent; and Calvin also asked the city council to not burn Servetus, but to execute him in a more swift and merciful way.  They did not listen to Calvin.

Addendum:
Oops; I forgot Part c of Zwingli and Calvin!



From what I have understood, Servetus denied that Jesus was the eternal Son of God, the Deity of Christ, and the Trinity, and had published several books not just denying these doctrines personally, but was spreading these heresies and seeking to win people to his views.  So, it seems Servetus thought Jesus was some kind of creature, "son of God", but not the eternal only unique Son, the Word, who existed from all eternity.

There are other sections of this "Reformation Overview" that was done by Ken Curtis of the Christian History Institute.

There are six parts.  Each part is around 30 minutes, but most of them are broken into 3 parts for the You Tube series, so they will all be around 8-10 minutes each.  Look around for the others there at the side bar of the YouTube site for the others.  It seems like an excellent series for a church for introducing the main historical issues and persons of the Reformation period.

1. John Wycliffe - part 1a - look for parts b and c
2.  Jan Huss - part 2a - look around for parts b and c
3. Martin Luther - part 3a - look around for parts b and c
4. Zwingli and Calvin - part 4a - look for b and c
5. The Anabaptists- part 5a - look for b and c
6. William Tyndale - part 6a - look for b and c

One can order the entire series on one DVD from Vision Video/Gateway Films here. 


Sunday, October 21, 2012

On Luther's Mariology...From Someone Studying For the Roman Priesthood

Last week I received some comments from a man studying to become a Roman Catholic priest. He had come across the comment attributed to Luther,"One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her?, etc."  What was interesting to me is he likewise traced this quote back to William Cole's article “Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?” (Marian Studies Volume XXI, 1970, pages 132-133) and then tried to subsequently find the quote in a primary source. He likewise could not find the quote in question in that primary source.

This is one of those quotes that has become popular in cyberspace because of its usage by Roman Catholic apologists. After a discussion over this quote last year (over on Gene Veith's blog) I put together these subsequent entries:

Luther: Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God

Luther: Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God (Part Two)


William Cole's quote is actually a rather "loose" compilation of multiple Luther quotes, from different treatises, with an emphasis on Luther's exposition of the Magnificat. If you count it all up, Cole provides around 20 references for 7 lines from Luther. 20 references? Something, obviously, doesn't add up. In the second link above, I took the time to track down almost all of those 20 references. That is, I did the work Roman Catholic apologists using this quote should have done in the first place.

While I would probably have significant disagreements with this man studying for the priesthood, one thing we certainly do agree on: check the quotes purported to come from Luther (or anyone for that matter).

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Searching For the Real Martin Luther in the Movies

It's that time of year in which articles trickle out about the Reformation. A recent offering comes from David Steinmetz: Searching For the Real Martin Luther. The article focuses on the three major films about Luther. Most of you  are probably aware of the 1953 movie and the more recent 2003 version with Joseph Fiennes. There is though a third movie from the early 1970's. Steinmetz rightly points out that none of these movies captured the real Luther. In fact, if you were to watch all three back to back, you'd see three different Luther's.

 Of the three movies, the worst (in my opinion) is the early 70's film. For those of you with Netflix, you can stream it online. The movie is based on John Osborne's play. Osborne relied heavily on Erik Erikson's Young Man Luther, so this film (like the earlier play) attempts to capture Erikson's slant on the psychology of Luther. Osborne's play was taken apart some years earlier by Gordon Rupp: "John Osborne and the Historical Luther" (The Expository Times 1962; 73; 147). That article is worth tracking down and reviewing previous to watching the early 70's film. The last time I attempted to watch this film, I shut it off about half way through due to its interpretation of Luther.

The quintessential Luther movie is yet to be made. For those of you who plan on showing any of these movies at your church or youth group, etc. you need to keep in mind that these films are interpretations history. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. I know the 2003 film is shown in churches. I suggest at least taking a peak at these reviews.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

God is in Control; Steady Your Heart in Him


"My heart is steadfast, O God, my heart is steadfast."  Psalm 57:7

After listening to the silly arguments that Muslims Zakir Hossein and Sami Zaatari make, and the way they tried to argue their case in their recent debates [Sept. 17 and 19, 2012] with Dr. White (www.aomin.org), it was amazing at how they rely on western liberal scholarship, and then just deny and say "no" in the face of evidence. This was especially true with Sami Zaatari, who kept saying "It doesn't matter, because the Qur'an says so and so", etc.   His tone and demeanor reminded me of "Baghdad Bob" (Saddam Hussein's spokesperson when the USA invaded Iraq in 2003), who kept saying "No!; where are the soldiers?  They are not here."  Yet he was just denying reality.    Sami just seems to deny reality.  The way Muslims use liberal anti-supernatural scholarship and Gnostic gospels (Paul Bilal Williams, Shabir Ally, and many others) is truly amazing.

Also, Islam, as a political/social/militaristic force is seeking to overpower the west by many other Muslims and their seemingly faith in the political and military might of Islam, whether it be by "stealth Jihad" like CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood; or whether it will be when or if the Caliphate is restored, or other extremist Muslims who are not waiting for that and taking matters into their hands now; (Al Qaeda and other Jihadist/Salafi/Islam-ist types) - they seem to have methods of using whatever they need to in order to gain power.  That is why, it seems to me, that one Muslim recently even wrote an article noting the parallels of Islam to Neitzsche's philosophy of "the will to power".  (But they took down the article later.  It seems they are embarrassed to admit the obvious parallels.)

Without faith in the true God, the Holy Trinity, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, the God of love, it can be disturbing to see the way Muslim apologists use liberal western scholarship and freedom of speech to do their apologetics in the west, but at the same time, other Muslims use the political powers and general culture in their countries and deny the same opportunity for Christians to debate in their societies without persecution and Dhimmi-ism and honor killings.  (with a few exceptions in early Islamic history and in recent years in Dubai.  (the debates between Thabiti Anyabwile and Bassam Zawadi were especially good, in my opinion. One is here.  The other one here.)

It has been helpful for me to read and meditate in Psalms 46,  56-57, 86, and Romans 8 and James chapters 3-5 in light of some of the big issues going on the world today.

Steady your heart in God, in the face of the above and three other things, yea, even four:
A.  the sensationalism around the pro-Gnostic hype over "the Gospel of Jesus' Wife"
B.  The tension in the Middle East and Muslim countries.
C.  The upcoming Election in the USA for President.
D.  The ongoing homosexual/gay agenda that seeks to destroy marriage, decency and culture.



A.  At least 3 good articles that steady the situation of the recent Gnostic Gospel promotion of the mainstream media and liberal pro-Gnostic scholars like Karen King and Elaine Pagels.

1.  Simon Gathercole points out the parallels and similarities between the fragment that was named "the Gospel of Jesus' Wife" by pro-Gnostic scholar Karen King, and the Gospel of Thomas:  Interesting that he also points out that the fragment was named by King "the Gospel of Jesus' wife" for sensational effect and should not have even been named that.

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/index.php?page=ReJesusWife

We believe this to be a largely reliable translation. But is it evidence that Jesus had a wife? The answer is an emphatic ‘no’. Not even Karen King is claiming that it is, though it’s inevitable that some of the news outlets will present it otherwise.
What we have here is a typical sort of text which arose after Christianity had become very popular and when derivatives of Christianity began to emerge. The language of the text is very similar to the Gospel of Thomas, sayings 101 and 114, and the Gospel of Thomas saying 101 shows influence of Luke 14:26, as the Gospel of Thomas does elsewhere. This way of speaking belongs to the mid-second century or later, in other words generations later than the books of the New Testament.
We asked Dr Simon Gathercole, an expert on apocryphal gospels and Senior Lecturer in New Testament in the University of Cambridge, for his comments. (See his analysis below).

The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife - This piece of papyrus has been authenticated by two reputable scholars, Profs. Roger Bagnall and AnneMarie Luijendijk. There are doubts, however, which have been raised about its authenticity, especially by scholars at the International Congress of Coptic Studies in Rome, where there is a good deal of scepticism. This is a tiny fragment of text, but which has something unprecedented in it, namely a reference to Jesus addressing someone as “My wife....”:
1 ] not. My mother has given me [life]
2 ] The disciples said to Jesus, [
3 ] deny. Mary is worthy of it [
4 ] Jesus said to them, “My wife... [
5 ] She will be able to be a disciple to me, and [
6 ] Let evil man ??? [...
7 ] As for me, I am with her because [
] an image [

Relation to other gospels - What is interesting about the relation of this fragment to other gospels is that it is closest to the Gospel of Thomas:
Line 1:
Gos. Thom. 101.3:
My mother has given me [life].
My true Mother has given me life.
Line 3:
Gos. Thom. 114.1:
Mary is worthy of it
Simon Peter said to them, ‘Let Mary come out from us, because women are not worthy of life.’
Line 5:
Gos. Thom. 101.1-2:
She will be able to be a disciple to me
Whoever does not hate his father and his mother as I do cannot be a disciple to me. And whoever does not love his Father and his Mother as I do cannot be a disciple of mine.
There is obviously ongoing debate here about the role of Mary, and by extension. What is not paralleled elsewhere is that Jesus addresses someone – probably Mary Magdalene – as his wife. There are two possible implications of this:

1. This could be like the special relationship that Mary Magdalene and Jesus have in the Gospel of Philip. There, Mary is closer to Jesus than the other disciples are, as Mary Magdalene is an important symbol: the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene is an allegory of the soul’s meeting with God in the bridal chamber, i.e. salvation.

2. It could reflect debates about marriage and sex in the early church. Tertullian (c. 200, the time of this fragment), discussed marriage a lot, in particular re-marriage after death of a spouse (which he said was wrong), and his view of marriage was that the ideal marriage was without sex. Others at the time, like Clement of Alexandria, report opponents using Jesus’ celibacy as an argument for Christians remaining celibate. Some, he says, “say outright that marriage is fornication and teach that it was introduced by the devil. These arrogant  people say that they are imitating the Lord, who neither married nor possessed anything in this world, boasting that they understand the gospel better than others.” (Clement, Stromateis3.49.1).  The use of such a striking motif as Jesus being married obviously had a point to it: it may have been that Jesus’ marriage was invented as a reason to justify marriage.

3. It could be a text like the Gospel of Mary, where Mary has become an alternative channel of revelation. She is given a place very close to Jesus, so that she can be a mouthpiece for an alternative treatment of salvation.
Other references to Jesus in similar relationships - Jesus has female disciples in the canonical gospels, who support his ministry (Luke 8), and who are part of his entourage generally. There is no reference to marriage of any kind, which is striking in a biography. (Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars, for example, mentions wives and fiancées of all 12 of his subjects.) Other apocryphal gospels develop some of these relationships. So, for example, Salome who is a very minor character in the gospels (mentioned only twice, only in Mark’s gospel), but she becomes significant in the Gospel of the Egyptians, and especially in the Gospel of Thomas, where she shares a couch with Jesus: it was a dining couch rather than a bed, but sharing a dining couch was still a louche thing to do, and effectively meant being married or lovers. The Gospel of Philip might refer to Jesus kissing Mary, but the manuscript has some holes in at the key point! In a later text called the Greater Questions of Mary, Jesus even – in front of Mary Magdalene - has sex with a woman whom he has produced out of his side.
Harvard Professor Karen King, who is the person who has been entrusted with the text, has rightly warned us that this does not say anything about the historical Jesus. She is correct that “its possible date of composition in the second half of the second century, argues against its value as evidence for the life of the historical Jesus”. But she is also right that this is a fascinating discovery which offers us a window into debates about sex and marriage in the early church, and the way Jesus could be adapted to play a part in a particular debate. If it is genuine.
Simon Gathercole

2.  Michael Kruger brings us back to the bottom line in this issue:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/09/19/the-far-less-sensational-truth-about-jesus-wife/

"When it comes to these sorts of questions I like to remind my students of a simple---but often overlooked---fact: of all the gospels in early Christianity, only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are dated to the first century.  Sure, there are minority attempts to put books like the Gospel of Thomas in the first century---but such attempts have not been well received by biblical scholars. Thus, if we really want to know what Jesus was like, our best bet is to rely on books that were at least written during the time period when eyewitnesses were still alive. And only four gospels meet that standard. "   Michael Kruger

3.  Al Mohler points out the sensationalism of this that masquerades as scholarship:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/09/20/the-gospel-of-jesuss-wife-when-sensationalism-masquerades-as-scholarship/

Even without these extra excellent articles, and information, we can calmly re-affirm with David, the inspired writer: 

"My heart is steadfast, O God, my heart is steadfast."  Psalm 57:7

With all this extra reasonable apologetic defense of the Bible and the true God, our witness is emboldened in being equipped to answer the critics.

and,

B.  with all the turmoil in the Middle East and from radical Muslims who stir up many other Muslims - 

Psalm 46:1-11

"God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble . . . "

"Therefore, we will not fear though the earth should change;
though the mountains slip into the sea . . .

"cease striving and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth."

C.  And, whatever the USA election brings, steady your heart in God and His Word, with His people, humble yourself under His mighty hand.  (James 4:10; I Peter 5:5-10)

"This I know, that God is for me" - Psalm 56:9

"If God is for us, who can be against us?" (Romans 8:31)  see larger context of Romans 8:28-39

Addendum:
Further doubt on the "Jesus' wife" fragment:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/09/more-reason-to-doubt-jesuss-wife.html

Addendum # 2 (Sept. 26, 2012)
The "Jesus Wife" fragment judged a total fake.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Debate - Thanks again Doug Wilson for telling the truth!

This is a recent debate:
Issue:  "Do Gay Rights Conflict with Conservative Christian Values?"
Douglas Wilson vs. R. Clarke Cooper

- Douglas Wilson - says "yes, they do conflict"; vs. R. Clarke Cooper, Executive Director of Log Cabin Republicans, says "no".   

Thanks again Doug Wilson for telling the truth and engaging this cultural issue!




I found out about this from Denny Burk's blog.