I was wrapping up my class entitled Answers for Life at church, and was talking about the Trinity. One of the classmates asked another one if he had read that awesome new book yet.

"What awesome new book? Oh wait, please don't tell me he's talking about The Shack," I thought.

"Oh yes!" Came the reply. "It was awesome! I was going to run out and buy it but my wife - she already had it!"

"Please, please don't say you're referring to The Shack", I thought.

"What book are you guys talking about?" I asked.

"THE SHACK!!!"

My heart sunk. "Oh really?" I replied. "Isn't that that book portraying Jesus as a stone throwing, enamored with his humanity young man, God as an old black woman, and the Holy Spirit as the maid?"

"Oh yes," chimed in a third class mate. "What I really love is how the author explains God."

"Well, maybe I should pick this up," came my safe reply. In actuality, I really have no desire to read the book, but I thought it safe to say that, since I may pick it up one day to see if my fears about the book are confirmed.

What I really need to work on is how to effectively phrase my concerns, instead of what I did do, which was to wimp out, and what I wanted to do, which was to say "That book is an abomination!" As a class leader, I just want people to think a bit. I should be asking questions like, "Do we really want to be reading authors who are putting words into God's mouth?" or "Doesn't the Bible say that we are not to be making any sort of representation of God?"

Here is a good article that represents some of the concers people have with such New Age Fiction.

I don't know too many people who don't love Obama. And I really don't know too many people who know a whole lot about him. I'm sharing this article in hopes to give to a wider audience his stance on abortion, found in this article.

"Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed. In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics."

At the national level, Obama has proved to be one of the most pro-abortion senators, going so far as to vote against a law that would require an abortionist performing an abortion on a minor transported across state lines to notify at least one parent. He opposed the US Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on partial-birth abortion, the gruesome procedure in which the baby's body is delivered leaving only the head in the birth canal, when the abortionist sucks the baby's brains out then delivers the dead baby now that the head has been suitably shrunk.

There is a caveat for young earth creationists who support this movie, and CMI puts it quite well when they say

Stein is an old earth, intelligent design advocate and not a young earth creationist. Perhaps to make the movie seem more acceptable to young earth creationists, there is no mention of the age of the earth anywhere in the film.

The evolutionists interviewed all rail against the 'creationists' and the intelligent design advocates universally deny creation. Someone unaware of the distinctions would not walk out of the movie with a greater understanding of the biblical position. This is perhaps the greatest flaw, but even though there is no direct support for our cause, Expelled is still worth seeing. It is provocative enough, accurate enough, and powerful enough to earn two thumbs up from CMI.

When raising my kids, I like to err on the side of caution. While other 6 year olds are running around on Halloween dressed like Sponge Bob, my kids have yet to see him perform. Why? Well, we have a running joke in our family. My kids will point out a Sponge Bob toy or figurine to me and I'll jokingly wail in disgust. Is it because I've seen it and find it morally reprehensible? No. I've never seen it. But I've heard about it. So Sponge Bob is banned in my kingdom and it doesn't matter if that is unfair to Sponge Bob. Don't feel sorry for him - I've got a feeling he'll just absorb any of my unwarranted angst.

But the point is that we as parents want to protect our children, because we simply cannot go out and preview everything our children will be exposed to.

So I don't need to know the specifics of a movie to know that my children don't need to see it, even if it is the next big thing. If I know that a movie is based off a book written by an atheist, and that rumor has it that in the book, at least symbolically, God is the antagonist (i.e. the enemy), then really, that is all I need to know. My kids aren't going to see it.

But not every Christian parent feels that way. In one of those "warning" emails forwarded to me about the Golden Compass, one Christian woman wrote back that she didn't see anything wrong with the books...

[More...]

I am not a theologian, and those whose ideas I am about to critique are. That should make me a bit uncomfortable :) John MacArthur has a great ministry called Grace to You, but in reading one of his sermons, I realized he is a Calvinist. "Calvinism" comes from John Calvin, who was also a great theologian. When John MacArthur said that John Calvin "got it right" when he came up with the concept of total depravity, I had to wonder whether he did. So what part of Calvinism do I take issue with?

From my understanding (<-- that is a big disclaimer), Calvin coined the phrase "total depravity," which means that we are all so lost in our sin that only those that God "allows" to come to him to Him can come to Him. And there are some verses that can be used to support that stance. But there is an implication here that falls squarely on the loving character of God who, according to the Bible, "does not want any to perish." If you interpret these verses to mean that God calls some while others are destined for hell no matter what, what kind of "love" is that? And it seems that free will is thrown out the window.

Like I said, I am not a theologian, but when I read verses like "whosoever will, let him come" and "...not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9), I don't think that salvation is reserved to only a few, but to anyone who repents and asks Christ for forgiveness. For God so Loved... and we all have the opportunity to make a decision to live for Christ.

So, tongue in cheek, I think John MacArthur should change the name of his ministry from Grace to You, to Grace to Who? to illustrate that grace is extended only to some in his eyes, if that is the case.

Great devotional from ICR's Days of Praise which goes along with my thinking in regards to your sealed eternal salvation.

Those Who Depart May 12, 2007

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us" (I John 2:19).

One of the most hurtful experiences in the life of a Bible-believing fellowship is when an ostensibly Christian leader, teacher, or pastor decides to abandon his faith and even to teach against it. This sort of thing does happen, all too often, and it obviously raises difficult questions.

Can a true believer, a teacher of the Word, a soul-winner, actually lose his salvation? Can a born-again Christian go back and be unborn? Can one who has received everlasting life through faith in Christ not really have eternal life?

If so, what about the many promises which have assured us that "ye may know that ye have eternal life" (I John 5:13) and that we "shall never perish" (John 10:28)?

The answer to this vexing question is apparently in our text verse above. When such people, who once seemed to be genuine Christians become apostates, denouncing the truth they once taught, it is because "they were not of us" at all, no matter what they professed at one time.

This fact implies a sober warning. When professing Christians fall away, assuming they have truly understood the facts and evidences of the Christian faith, it is impossible "to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame" (Hebrews 6:6).

How important it is, therefore, for all professing believers to "give diligence to make your calling and election sure" (II Peter 1:10). We must be "rooted and built up in Him" (Colossians 2:7), "ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" (I Peter 3:15). HMM

If you know about "Mind Science," "The Prosperity Gospel," healing techniques, or satan's lie that "You can be as gods," then you probably don't have to bother with buying The Secret DVD or book, which has sold out at Wal Mart once it went on Oprah.

So what is The Secret? Human Potential. Positive Thinking. Tapping into the power within.

So is it Christianity? The author attributes the book to Charles Filmore, founder of Unity School of Christianity. Unfortunately, Unity is a far cry from Biblical Christianity.

So, what is the problem with these new age ideas, which are being reworked and repackaged with DaVinci Code-like flair? Well, you need to ask yourself, "Whose secret is it?" Napoleon Hill (credited on Oprah) said he got it from a spirit being who entered his study and said that he has been under the guidance for the great school for many years. Whose power is it? Unless you're calling upon the name of the Lord's, it's not Gods power you're calling on.

The Secret's battle cry is "What you can conceive, you can achieve." There's nothing wrong with a positive attitude, but it is hard to be positive for long with your head buried in the sand.

I am a fan of the modern mma, including Pride, IFL and UFC. Many people have, at the very least, questions about Christians liking a violent sport. What about Christians participating in such a sport?

There are two mixed martial artists whose career paths I follow closest: Matt Hughes and Rich Franklin. Both have web sites, and both have Bible verses prominently displayed on their site. Matt Hughes has a forum with very active participants engaging in theological debates. Sometimes questions are asked that center around whether such fighting is Biblical.

The answers are easy - no one is trying to kill another, and even if that were the case, the matches are very closely refereed. As one poster noted, "It is not violence for violence sake." This individual goes on to say:

The UFC is a professional event where professional athletes go to compete in a controlled environment. It's not a bunch of street thugs ambushing unsuspecting people on the street. So, I don't see how it is any different from football or boxing in that sense.

Then he goes on to make this point: God was involved in a wrestling match, whereby he ended up permanently injuring Jacob's hip! The argument continues: since God can do nothing unholy, and God very much participated in a wrestling match, wrestling can be considered the only holy sporting event!

There is a feedback response on AiG's web site today to a 16 year old Christian who thinks the young earth view is utterly "absurd." As usual, AiG's response is right on target.

Responses like this from kids like this is why I am pushing Evolution Exposed on my pastors. This book is an excellent resource for high schoolers.

I can now travel less than 100 miles from my home to visit the first Wicca school in the U.S. in good ol' Hoopeston, IL. With 30-50 new members signing up via the internet a day, I wonder if it won't be long until Christmas tree worshippers won't outnumber Christ worshippers in this small town soon.

Wow. This is great. At my oft-visited Jewel food store, I can now pay for my goods using my right-hand index finger. Once I sign up, my credit/debit/preferred cards are no longer necessary, and when I'm ready to pay at the checkout counter, I just give 'em the finger! Someday, the whole world might work this way... Pay By Touch