What is Intersectionality?

This video, along with another one about American Universities, (by Jordan Peterson, also done by Prager University), together make a stunning truthful analysis of root problems in our modern USA culture.


Posted in moral corruption of culture, Morality and Ethics in Government, Politics, Truth | Leave a comment

About Self-Pity


Posted in Repentance, Sanctification/Holy living, Spiritual growth | Leave a comment

The God-centered Gospel


by Michael Horton

Here is a good portion of the article:  (go to the link to read the full article)

One of the great places where this gets worked out in Reformed theology is the covenant of redemption. Also known by its fancy Latin name, the pactum salutis, this covenant was made in eternity between the persons of the Trinity. The Father gave the Son a people whom the Spirit would eventually unite to Him in history. In this covenant, the Son signed His death warrant, joyfully assuming the office of Mediator between God and man.

We see this covenant of redemption implied and explicitly mentioned in Jesus’ ministry, especially in John’s gospel. Jesus speaks of having been given a people by the Father (John 6:39; 10:29; 17:2, 6–10; see also Eph. 1:4–12; Heb. 2:13), who are called and kept by the Holy Spirit for the consummation of the new creation (Rom. 8:29–30; Eph. 1:11–13; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:5). In fact, to affirm the covenant of redemption is little more than affirming that the Son’s self-giving and the Spirit’s regenerative work were the execution of the Father’s eternal plan. Not only were we chosen in Christ “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4), Christ Himself is spoken of as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8).

The covenant of redemption underscores not only God’s sovereignty and freedom in electing grace, but the Trinitarian and, specifically, Christ-centered character of that divine purpose. It all takes place “in Christ”; hence, the emphasis in covenant theology on the theme of “Christ the Mediator.” And yet, it’s not just Christ-centered but Trinity-centered.

It’s terrific to see so many younger Christians excited about being “God-centered.” However, Islam and Orthodox Judaism claim to be “God-centered,” too. The Christian faith is distinguished by its claim that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and we know this from Scripture, preeminently in the Son’s entrance into a fallen world in our own flesh. We dare not approach “God” in His blinding majesty apart from Christ our Mediator. Apart from Christ, the Father is our Judge, and His glory is the worst thing we could ever encounter. That’s not because the Father is less loving than the Son, but because we are sinners. And we can say our “amen” to the Son only because of the Spirit who indwells us.

A Trinitarian understanding of the gospel clears up a lot of popular misunderstandings. For example, it challenges presentations of the gospel that make it sound as if a wrathful Father took out His anger toward us on His passive Son. On the contrary, the Father “so loved the world, that he gave his only Son” (John 3:16). It was the Father who chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). And as for the Son, He was hardly a passive victim; He gave Himself up for His people. Jesus, “for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb. 12:2; see Isa. 53). He was a willing sacrifice: “No one takes [my life] from me,” He said. “I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again” (John 4:34; 10:11, 18; see also Matt. 16:23; Luke 9:51; Heb. 10:5–10). He went to the cross knowing that His suffering would lead to glory not only for Him but for His people. In spite of His grief, He determined, “Shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” (John 18:11). The cross itself was far from a joy, but He endured it for the joy that lay beyond it. He had embraced the cross in eternity.

Wherever God’s sovereignty in predestination is strongly defended apart from such a covenantal framework, the concrete revelation of our election in Christ according to the gospel’s promise is often surrendered to theoretical debates and endless speculation on God’s hidden counsels. It is dangerous to talk about the glory and sovereignty of God unless the God we have in mind is the Trinity, to whom we have access only in the Son as He is revealed in the gospel.

To be God-centered in this Trinitarian sense is also to give equal weight to the Holy Spirit, the person who turns a house into a home. He hovered over the waters in creation to prepare dry land, led Israel through the sea to the Promised Land, and filled the temple. It was the Spirit who hovered over the waters of a virgin’s womb so that what was born of her was the Son of God. This same Spirit led Jesus through His trial in the wilderness, upheld Him and empowered His ministry of signs and wonders, and raised Him from the dead as the firstfruits of the new creation. And now, the Spirit has filled the temple that is Christ’s body, indwelling each believer and the church corporately as the deposit guaranteeing our participation in Christ’s resurrection. As Geerhardus Vos writes concerning the covenant of redemption, “Just as the blessedness of God exists in the free relationship of the three Persons of the adorable Being, so man shall also find his blessedness in the covenantal relationship with God.”

Michael Horton

Posted in Prayer, Relationship with Jesus Christ, The doctrine of the Trinity, Theology, Theology of God, Truth, worship | Leave a comment

Why Stay Protestant?

Why Stay Protestant? by Matthew Schultz  (for some reason either Word press or “Medium” would not let me link the url here.  After several tries I give up trying to figure that out.  I not a techy; So, the link goes to Triablogue, and then the link goes to Matthew’s excellent article. )

One of the best overviews of this question I have ever read.  Schultz hits on a lot of things that tend to be missing in both conservative Presbyterian circles and conservative Calvinistic Baptist circles.  I was never tempted to become Roman Catholic like he was;  but one of my close friends did convert to Rome (see the articles on Rod Bennett), and the challenge he gave me sent me (we debated off and on for 8 years) on many years of more interest in church history, the early church fathers, and historical theology.  But Schultz articulates well the tension that many other kinds of folks feel.  Artsy and music and more emotive and creative people have a hard time in most Calvinistic circles. (It seems to me.)  Not because of the doctrines per se, but because of the seemingly lack of , or unbalance, of things like empathy, creativity, music, arts, emotion.  I think that is a big reason why Pastor John Piper has so much appeal and is attractive to me (the balance of head and heart); and has won over many to Calvinism in recent years.  He and the late R.C. Sproul and James White on the more intellectual side, IMO, have done more to help many come to the doctrines of Grace. (Calvinism or Reformed Theology)

But the situation has been improving in recent years.  I believe in the doctrines of Calvinism, and also believers baptism (The Baptist position), and one of the Baptist doctrines / practices of church government (elder rule with modified congregationalism – Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology)  I love my Biblical local church – A Calvinistic Southern Baptist Church.  The only difference between me and Matthew Schultz is that he is comfortable in the PCA (Presbyterian Church of America) and I am satisfied that we found, years ago, the most Biblical kind of church in our area also.  I love the unity displayed at the T4G conferences movement. I will be re-reading this and digesting and probably writing on this more in the future.

View story at Medium.com



Posted in Protestantism / Evangelicalism, Rod Bennett, Roman Catholic False Doctrines, Roman Catholic false practices, Roman Catholicism | Leave a comment

Brother Rachid comparing Jesus & Muhammad on teaching on Greetings

Posted in Apologetics, Hadith, Islam, Jesus' Teaching, Muslims, Truth | Leave a comment

Jordan Peterson’s amazing ability to sum up A root problem of today’s USA society and culture

THE root problem is sin in the heart (Genesis 6:5; Mark 7:20-23; Jeremiah 17:9) and rebellion against God (Romans 1:18-28; 3:9-23; Psalm 14), but as far as our Universities go and how they have affected our current society, culture, media, and politics, Peterson nailed it.

Posted in moral corruption of culture, Morality and Ethics in Government, socialism vs. Capitalism, Truth, Western Universities and cultural Marxism | 1 Comment

Comparing Synoptic Gospels with extant copies of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address

In order to understand that argument, read this article about all the different copies and printings that we have extant of Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address”; and it is easy to image that the Synoptic Gospels took their eventual shape in a similar fashion.


It is easy to imagine the preaching and events of Jesus ministry being written down from 30-45/50 AD in smaller forms and because Jesus repeated Himself in teachings and sermons, no doubt – then it is easy to imagine a bunch of those being written out that are no longer extant today, that became the final forms of Matthew, Mark, and Luke written from around 45 to 62 AD. (Assuming, as many scholars do, that Luke was written last, as volume 1 of his 2 volume work, Luke-Acts, based on the way Acts abruptly ends.)

A Muslim asked:

Why would Jesus have to “edit and change” his words so many times? Why are you comparing him to Lincoln, when you consider Jesus to be “God”? Does God change His mind?

I did not say Jesus edited or changed His words. The Synoptic writers wrote many pieces and copies over the years from 30-60 AD, eventually becoming what we have today.

My point is that Jesus in those 3 and 1/2 years of ministry repeated Himself a lot in teachings and sermons and those that wrote it down could have written down a lot more copies of His words and actions from say 30 AD (after resurrection) to 50 and 60 AD, that eventually became what we have today, Matthew, Mark, Luke, (and John is more different because it reflects the more private settings with Peter, John, James and/or Andrew) rather than the more public and more repeated ministry in Galilee, etc.), the Synoptics being written from 45 to 62 AD, based on how Luke ends the book of Acts)

It is easy to image that Matthew, Mark and Luke made many copies, and many bits and pieces that were not complete, that they used in the process of eventually becoming what we have today.

This is not contradictory to the doctrine of inerrancy or inspiration, because God uses people and history and human process to bring about His written word. (2 Peter 1:19-21)

They did not fall into a trance and wrote the NT documents like some kind of robot, etc. rather God used normal human means of the process of thinking and writing it down.

That is why the Christian doctrine of inspiration is not dictation (like Islam seems to be), nor is it the inspiration of the person who writes, rather the final product, the writing is inspired / God-breathed.

The Writing/Scripture is God-breathed, not the person.  ( 2 Timothy 3:16)

Addendum – June 8, 2018

Thinking about this more and interacting with Muslims more caused me to think this way about the comparison:

The comparison is not with content of the writing (Lincoln editing his speech) vs. inspiration of NT; the comparison is between extant artifacts of history – the fact that there are 9 copies of what Lincoln actually did (write, change wording, but basically the same meaning) is parallel with Jesus in history repeating His content of preaching a lot in 3 and 1/2 years, and different people writing different accounts of those events, some the same event, some the same basic content of teachings, sermons, but said in different words at different times. What we have extant (in existence today in the 4 gospels) – the reason why some stuff is repeated and uses different words or leaves out some detail, but is not contradictory, is because sermons and lessons have lots of repeated ideas and principles, but a human is not a robot and does not say his teaching in the exact words every time. The Synoptics are similar to the 9 copies of the Gettysburg address, with some differences, additions, things left out, etc. but basically the same content; whereas the Gospel of John would be compared to writing another book on Lincoln’s other events with his family and friends (real history), without having the Gettysburg Address in it; and then publishing something later with 10 chapters, (9 of the Gettysburg address; one of the other events with friends and family).

3 Synoptics Gospels as records of historical events of Jesus’ life and minister —– with Lincoln’s 9 extant copies of Gettysbury Address.

1 Gospel of John as historical record of Jesus’ more private ministry with John, Peter, James, Mary and Martha, Lazarus, etc. —- compared to publishing other events in Lincoln’s life and not having Gettysburg Address in the book.

Later combining them into one volume. 10 chapters about Lincoln in one book, compared to 4 Gospels.

Posted in Apologetics, Bible is not corrupted, Historical Jesus, Historical reliability of the Bible, History, Synoptic Gospels | Leave a comment