You know the passage that says taking a census is wrong. Remember? Right. Nothing in the Bible says taking a census is wrong. Yet David was wrong for taking a census in 1 Chronicles 21. God killed 70,000 in Israel with pestilence because of David's census taking. Other census were taken without such a punishment. Other passages even allow for a census, and yet David's census was wrong. How was he supposed to know? We know it was a sin (vv. 1, 8, 17). But what passage did he violate? None. Again, how was he supposed to know?
David was supposed to apply Scripture. His census wasn't living by faith. Chapters 18-20 recount the military victories that God gave David, showing God's protection in fulfillment of the Davidic covenant (1 Chronicles 17). God defeated the foreign nations as a part of His promise. And then David numbers the people (chapter 21). We don't know the particulars of how David wasn't living by faith---it was either that he was taking undeserved credit, fearful for the future, or both. It is assumed that David was to have known this was wrong. We are responsible for applying Scripture. We are to know that certain actions are not acting in faith or are acting in faith, even though the Bible doesn't say one way or another.
Was punishing David for something that the Bible doesn't and didn't forbid "exceeding that which is written"? Was it adding to Scripture, thereby subtracting from the effectiveness of the Bible in David's life? Obviously not. The passage provides a paradigm for applying truth. God has revealed truth. He expects us to understand it and apply it. Would God have killed 70,000 Israelites if it wasn't something that He knew David could apply? Again, of course not.
One passage used by evangelicals to justify their lack of application is 1 Corinthians 4:6, where they will quote from the New American Standard Version, "learn not to exceed what is written," which the King James translates, "not to think of men above that which is written." The text there gives one particular point about our evaluation of men, making sure not to judge leaders outside of a scriptural evaluation. There we go. But that has become a proof text for only judging where the Bible has something specifically to say about it. What occurs, of course, is that passage is ironically applied only in areas that fit favorably with an evangelical's church growth methods.
You can't judge music, because there is no play button in the Bible to tell us what is right music, so if you judge music you are "exceeding what is written." If you judge art, you are exceeding what is written. If you judge dress, you are exceeding what is written. And so on. But what was written about NOT numbering the people? Nothing. And yet God killed 70,000 people. Obviously God wanted David to judge in an area about which nothing was written. He was required to apply Scripture, to apply "living by faith" and "trusting God" to not numbering the people.
God won't usually kill 70,000 for not applying Scripture, but He does expect us to apply it. We are responsible to do so, and we are not exceeding Scripture to do so. We will give an account for applying the truths and the principles of Scripture. We can know what they are. We do know what they are. We can play dumb. We can say that Scripture is silent. We can say that an application will exceed what is written. But we really can know and do know and are responsible for the application.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Friday, January 11, 2013
Teaching and Preaching Position
Dear Brethren,
As I am getting to the end of my Ph. D. studies, I am looking for the Lord's direction about a place where I can teach the Word of God at a college and/or seminary level, as well as preach, in a more full-time way than I am currently doing as an adjunct professor. My main concern, by far, is that I am in a church where I can feel comfortable teaching and preaching all the truth without compromise--that is more important than, say, secondary issues such as whether I can get financially compensated.
I have posted my resume below; I have removed my home address and listed my church address instead, as I do not really wish to have my personal information everywhere on the Internet. You can get in touch with me through my church if you wish to discuss anything concerning this matter.
Even if, as a reader of this blog, you have nothing to offer concerning a church or a position, the resume below may give you a somewhat better idea of who it is that is posting on What is Truth every Friday.
I have also posted below the resume a doctrinal and practical position statement.
As I am getting to the end of my Ph. D. studies, I am looking for the Lord's direction about a place where I can teach the Word of God at a college and/or seminary level, as well as preach, in a more full-time way than I am currently doing as an adjunct professor. My main concern, by far, is that I am in a church where I can feel comfortable teaching and preaching all the truth without compromise--that is more important than, say, secondary issues such as whether I can get financially compensated.
I have posted my resume below; I have removed my home address and listed my church address instead, as I do not really wish to have my personal information everywhere on the Internet. You can get in touch with me through my church if you wish to discuss anything concerning this matter.
Even if, as a reader of this blog, you have nothing to offer concerning a church or a position, the resume below may give you a somewhat better idea of who it is that is posting on What is Truth every Friday.
I have also posted below the resume a doctrinal and practical position statement.
Thomas D. Ross
Mukwonago Baptist Church
1610 Honeywell Road
Mukwonago, WI 53149
(262) 363-4197
http://www.mukwonagobaptist.org/
http://faithsaves.net
http://faithsaves.net
http://sites.google.com/site/thross7
http://sites.google.com/site/faithalonesaves/salvation
• BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH:
Born into a non-Christian
home
Born again in October 1995 during freshman year
at college shortly before sixteenth birthday (a detailed testimony of
conversion is available on my website), and subsequently baptized into the
Faith Baptist Church of Great Barrington, MA. Expelled from home by non-Christian family because of
Christian convictions while a student at U. C. Berkeley.
Called to preach and teach the Word of God in
full-time ministry in 1998.
Married in 2007 to Heather (Roberts) Ross
• EDUCATION:
Ph. D. Great Plains Baptist Divinity School
(est. 2013—dissertation almost complete)
Th. M. Anchor Baptist Theological Seminary
(2009)
M. Div. Great Plains
Baptist Divinity School (2007)
M. A. Fairhaven Baptist College (2001)
B. A. University of California, Berkeley (1999)
A. A. Simon’s Rock College of Bard (1997)
While seeking for theological degrees from
institutions run by Baptist churches, since the church is the pillar and ground
of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), in connection with my degree programs, courses
were also taken and studies pursued at the doctoral and master’s level at the
following institutions:
Westminster Seminary, Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, Baptist
Bible Seminary, Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary, Puritan Reformed Theological
Seminary, and the Institute of Theological Studies. Courses at an undergraduate level were also taken at Lehigh
Valley Baptist Bible Institute, Bethel Baptist Bible Institute, Laerhaus
Judaica, Valparasio University, and City College of San Francisco.
• MINISTRY EXPERIENCE:
September 2007-present:[1]
Professor, Baptist College of Ministry and
Theological Seminary, a ministry of Falls Baptist Church, Menomonee Falls,
WI. Adjunct professor teaching
post-graduate, graduate, and undergraduate courses in Koiné Greek and classical
Hebrew. Starting in 2012, also a professor at the Mukwonago Baptist Bible
Institute, a ministry of Mukwonago Baptist Church, teaching theological
studies.
July 2006-present:
Member, Mukwonago Baptist Church, serving the
Lord through preaching
in church services and church ministries such as the Mukwonago Baptist Academy,
teaching in settings
including Bible Institute, Sunday School, Junior Church, Vacation Bible School,
and Mukwonago Baptist Academy, evangelizing and making disciples through committed and regular
house-to-house witnessing, tract distribution, evangelistic Bible studies,
street preaching, youth ministry, hospitality in the home, personal contacts,
and as many other ways of outreach as possible. Helping to train
new converts to observe “all things whatsoever” Christ has commanded and continuing
that ministry with church members.
Engaging in writing
ministry, completing the
book Heaven Only for the Baptized?
The Gospel of Christ vs. Pardon through Baptism (El Sobrante, CA: Pillar & Ground,
2013; Kindle version, 2011) and a large number of pamphlets and tracts
available at http://sites.google.com/site/thross7. Also serving in
vocal and instrumental music ministry and participating in a variety of other church functions, from serving on the membership committee to church
work days.
August, 2003-June, 2006:
Teacher, Bethel Christian Academy, El Sobrante, CA. Taught, in different years, 9th-12th
English, 12th Physics, 11th Chemistry, 10th
Biology, 7th-9th General Science, 7th-12th
Bible, 9th-10th Math, 5th Math, 7th-12th
Physical Education. Also
substituted for 3rd-8th grades as needed & provided
preparation for standardized testing (S. A. T. & A. C. T.).
December 2001-July 2006:
Member,
Bethel Baptist Church.
Received training for the ministry through close personal work with
Pastor Kent Brandenburg and Assistant Pastor David Sutton. Engaged in preaching,
teaching, discipleship, speaking engagements at various locations including
public debates with members of the Church of Christ denomination, visitation,
camp ministry, nursing home ministry, and music ministry. Edited the books Thou Shalt Keep
Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture, Sound Music of Sounding Brass? and Fashion Statement: A Study of Biblical Apparel with Kent Brandenburg. Licensed as a minister by Bethel Baptist Church.
September
2001-May 2003:
Member, Lehigh Valley Baptist
Church, Emmaus, PA, while attending seminary. Served in various ministry capacities, as also previously at
Fairhaven Baptist Church in Chesterton, IN, and before that time at Heritage
Baptist Church in Oakland, CA, Calvary Baptist Church in San Francisco, CA, and
Faith Baptist Church in Great Barrington, MA.
• SELECTED PUBLICATIONS[2]
Scholarly:
*The Doctrine of
Sanctification: An Exegetical and
Elenctic Examination, with Application, in Historic Baptist Perspective (Ph. D. diss., forthcoming; est. 1,000
pgs)
*Evangelical Modernism:
A Comparison of Scriptural or Fundamentalist Analysis of the Synoptic Gospels
with that of the Majority of Modern Evangelicalism
*The Longevity of the
New Testament Autographs
*The Canonicity of the
Received Bible Established From Baptist Confessions
*Are Accurate Copies and
Translations of Scripture Inspired? A Study of 2 Timothy 3:16
*The Debate over the
Inspiration of the Hebrew Vowel Points
*Evidences for the
Inspiration of the Hebrew Vowel Points
*An Analysis of All the
Variations Between the Textus Receptus and the Westcott-Hort Greek text in Matthew
1-10, Demonstrating the Theological and Literary Inferiority of the Critical
Text to the Textus Receptus
*Thou Shalt Keep Them: A
Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture (ed. Thomas Ross; gen. ed. Kent
Brandenburg)
*The Prologue to the
Canonical Epistles by Jerome: Ancient Testimony to 1 John 5:7
*“They Pierced My Hands
and My Feet”: the KJV reading of Psalm 22:16
*Is “God forbid” a
Mistranslation in the KJV?
*The Worship of the Son
of God in Scripture and the Earliest Christianity
*Objections to the
Trinity Answered
*Did the Trinity come
from Paganism?
*Spirit Baptism—The
Historic Baptist View Expounded and Defended
*2 Corinthians 13:14,
the “Communion of the Holy Ghost,” and the Related Question of the Legitimacy
of Prayer Addressed Directly to the Person of the Holy Spirit
*A Study of the Biblical
Doctrine of Abiding in Christ
*A Study of Ephesians
5:18: “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the
Spirit.”
*“As ye have received
Christ . . . so walk ye in Him”—a proof text for sanctification by faith alone?
*An Exposition Of Romans
9, Including A Demonstration That The Chapter Does Not Teach Calvinism
*A Word Study
Demonstrating the Meaning of the Word “Church,” Ekklesia, and consequently the
Nature of the Church as a Local Assembly only, not a Universal, Invisible
Entity
*The Great Commission in
Scripture and History
*Thoughts On the Bride
of Christ
*The Biblical Mandate
for House to House Evangelism
*Images of the Church in
1 Clement
*What are “psalms,
hymns, and spiritual songs”?
*A Critique of
Rosenthal’s Pre-Wrath Rapture Theory
*Are there Seven Church
Ages in Revelation 2-3?
*Were the Reformers
Heretics? Their Theology of Baptism and Other Topics Analyzed
*Considerations on Revival
in American History
*Psalm-Singing and the
English Particular Baptists to 1700
*Cosmetics in Scripture
and History
*Children of Obedient
Parents Turning Out For God—Certainty or Mere Possibility?
*An Examination of
Proverbs 22:6 and Related Texts
*The Bible and Divorce
*Isaiah 47 and the
Biblical Length of Apparel
*Deuteronomy 22:5 and
Gender Distinct Clothing
*Biblical Considerations
on the Length of Clothing
*The Captain of the
Hosts of the Lord: Joshua 5:13-6:2
*Syllabus for 2nd Year
Greek
*Syntax, Exegetical, and
Devotional Questions on Romans
Popular Level and
Controversial:
*Heaven Only For the
Baptized? The Gospel of Christ vs. Pardon Through Baptism
*Romans 10:9-14:
Sinner’s Prayers for Salvation?
*Luke 23:43 and the
Comma—Was the Thief in Paradise that Day?
*Do The Lost Really
Suffer Torment Forever? A Study of the Greek words “for ever” and
“everlasting/eternal.”
*Notes on Anti-Eternal
Torment, Pro-Annihilationism “Proof Texts”
*A Declaration of My Own
Position on the Inspiration and Preservation of Holy Scripture
*Is the Modern Critical
Text of the New Testament Inerrant, like the Textus Receptus is Inerrant? With
A Consideration of the Question of Which Edition of the Textus Receptus is
Perfect
*Repentance Defended
Against Antinomian Heresy: A Brief Defense of the Indubitable Biblical Fact and
Historic Baptist Doctrine that Repentance is a Change of Mind that Always
Results in a Change of Action
*Psalm 51:11 and Eternal
Security
*Ezekiel 18 and Eternal
Security
*The Book of Life and
Eternal Security
*A Brief Statement on
what the Bible Teaches on the Five Points of Calvinism (TULIP)
*A Brief Proof of the
Invalidity of all non-Baptist Baptism
*Acts 20:7 and worship
on the Lord’s Day
*1 Corinthians 16:2 and
Church on the Lord’s Day
*Colossians 2:16-17 and
the Sabbath
*Hebrews 4 and the
Sabbath
*Why Sing the Psalms?
*Questions for Members
of Reformed Denominations
*Notes on the Bible and
Politics: An Exposition of 1 Samuel 8
*A Forgotten
Abomination?
*A Chronology of the
Books of the New Testament
*Light from the Old
Testament on the Blood
*A Thematic Division of
the Book of Proverbs
Evangelistic:
*Do You Know You Have
Eternal Life?
*My Journey From
Unbelief to the Truth: How I Became a Christian
*Evangelistic Bible
Study #1: What Is The Bible?
*Evangelistic Bible
Study #2: Who is God?
*Evangelistic Bible
Study #3: What Does God Want From Me?
*Evangelistic Bible
Study #4: How Can God Save Sinners?
*Evangelistic Bible
Study #5: How Do I Receive The Gospel?
*Evangelistic Bible
Study #6: The Christian: Security in Christ and Assurance of Salvation
*Evangelistic Bible
Study #7: The Church
of Jesus Christ
*The Book of Daniel:
Proof that the Bible is the Word of God
*Prepare for Judgment
*The Passion of the Christ
*Bible Truths For
Catholic Friends
*Bible Truths for
Lutheran Friends
*The Truth of Salvation
for Presbyterian and Reformed Friends
*A Letter to a Jewish
Friend
*The Testimony of the
Quran to the Bible
*Are You Worshipping
Jehovah?
*Truth for Gay Friends
*Do You Want to Worship
God? A Study for Evangelicals
*The Role of Government:
Has God Spoken?
*God’s View of Abortion
Regularly reads the Greek
New Testament and Hebrew Old Testament as part of his devotional study; has
read through the Greek New Testament, the Hebrew Torah, and the Aramaic portions of
Scripture; can translate at sight
large portions of the Greek NT and much of the Hebrew OT.
Entered college at fifteen,
and in association with collegiate studies was a National Merit Scholar, Martin
Naumann Scholar, and Intercollegiate Studies Institute member and award
winner. Also was a member of the
Center for Talented Youth, associated with Johns Hopkins University, after
scoring, in seventh grade, higher than the average high school senior on the S.
A. T. Also was a finalist in the
Leslie Sander Essay Contest and has published poetry with the National Poetry
Competition. Material has also
been published in the community editorials of the Wall Street Journal and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.
Passionate both for purity
of Biblical doctrine and for holy living among the saints. In preaching, teaching, and other
avenues of ministry, recognizes the tremendous importance of not only filling
the mind with truth, but filling the heart with burning and passionate love and
zeal for the glory of God, love for the brethren, and love for the souls of the
lost. Intellectual knowledge
without experiential fellowship with the Triune God through Jesus Christ is in
vain.
• SAMPLE PREACHING AND TEACHING
http://www.mukwonagobaptist.org/sermons/?preacher=29
• REFERENCES
Pastor Rhon Roberts/ Mukwonago Baptist Church/
1610 Honeywell Road/ Mukwonago, WI 53149/ (262) 363-1731
Pastor Kent Brandenburg/
Bethel Baptist Church and Christian Academy/ 4905 Appian Way/ El Sobrante, CA
94803/ (510) 223-9550
Pastor David Sutton/ Bethel
Baptist Church and Christian Academy/ 4905 Appian Way/ El Sobrante, CA 94803/
(510) 223-9550
Dr. John Rinehart/Baptist
College of Ministry and Theological Seminary/N69 W12703 Appleton
Avenue/Menomonee Falls, WI 53051/ (262) 251-7051
Dr. James A. Qurollo/ Central Baptist
Church/ 710 James Lee Rd./ Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547/ (850) 862-0615
A Brief Statement of My Views on Various Issues
Controverted Among Independent Baptists
The purpose of this statement is to clarify,
with relative brevity, where I stand on a number of issues that are
controversial among modern independent Baptists. I will happily answer any questions, make any clarifications
desired, and provide Scriptural support for my positions, upon being questioned
personally. On many of these
issues, a more detailed exposition of what I believe is the Scriptural
position, with my reasons for my conclusion, may be obtained on my website, http://faithsaves.net.
1.) In my
Bibliology, I believe that the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words of the Old and
New Testament Textus Receptus that
underlie the English Authorized Version constitute the perfectly preserved Word
of God. I believe that English
speaking churches should only use the King James Bible. I do not criticize, but uphold, the KJV
as a translation and as God’s Word intact in the English language. I reject all theories of Ruckmanism,
advanced revelation in the English language, inspiration of the KJV
translators, and the like. I
believe that the study of the original languages of the Bible is valuable and
profitable. I reject all
unbelieving higher criticism and textual criticism of the Bible.
2.) In my
Theology proper, Trinitarianism, Christology, and Pneumatology, I hold to the
classical view of God and of the Trinity as summarized in historic Christian
creedal statements such as the Nicene, Chalcedonian, and Athanasian
creeds. God is one in essence, yet
in three distinct and eternal Persons, sharing all the Divine attributes, and
distinguished ontologically only in that the Son is eternally begotten of the
Father, and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the
Son. Jesus Christ, in His
incarnation, united to Himself a true human nature, so that He is now, and
forever will be, one Person with two distinct natures, Divine and human. I accept the historic Baptist doctrine
of Spirit baptism, recognizing that it was a first century phenomenon
synonymous with Christ’s sending of the Spirit as Comforter. The sign gifts ceased in the first
century, and the allegedly restored charismatic and Pentecostal “gifts” are not
of God.
3.) In my
Anthropology, I believe that Adam was the first man, and all men sinned in him
and were reckoned sinners by the immediate imputation of his sin and by the
mediate receipt of a sinful nature through their parents. Scripture teaches the recent creation
of the human race, and evolution must be rejected. The earth was created recently, not millions of years ago,
the days of creation were literal, 24-hour periods with no gaps between them,
there was no death before the Fall, and the Flood in Noah’s day was universal,
not local. I also believe that man
is body, soul, and spirit, and soul and spirit are not absolutely synonymous
within the spiritual side of human nature, so that I confess a moderate, but
not an extreme, trichotomy. Gender
roles such as male headship in family, church, and society, are part of the
created order, not a societal construct, so women are not to rule over their
husbands at home nor lead the church as pastors or deacons.
4.) In my
Hamartiology and Soteriology, I believe that a man is justified by repentant
faith alone. I reject both
Calvinism and Arminianism, believing that man is pervasively and terribly
depraved as a result of the Fall and unable to save himself, but God gives
prevenient grace to enable unconverted men to respond positively to His
grace. Personal election is based
upon Divine foreknowledge. The
Atonement is penal, substitutionary, and unlimited. Christ’s literal blood-shedding was as necessary as His
death for man’s salvation.
Irresistible grace is not a Biblical doctrine. God will preserve His saints to the end, so that they are
eternally secure. Repentance is
turning to God from sin, and always results in a change of life. While believers can backslide, no true
believer can ever be eternally lost or live in perpetual sin. All believers are not progressively
sanctified to the same extent, nor is sanctification automatic, but it is
nonetheless certain, as is glorification.
5.) In my
Ecclesiology, I recognize that the church is a local, visible assembly of
immersed believers. While all
believers will one day assemble together in the New Jerusalem, the idea that
all believers on earth are a universal, invisible church is false. The local, visible church is Christ’s
body. Israel had the special
closeness of the bride/wife relationship to God in the Old Testament, and the
church does in the New Testament, while all in the New Jerusalem—the dwelling
of all the redeemed of all dispensations—will enjoy that special closeness in
the eternal state. Both baptism
and the Lord’s Supper are church ordinances. Baptism requires a Scriptural subject, a believer; a Scriptural purpose, to show forth
Christ’s death, burial and resurrection;
a Scriptural mode, immersion;
and a Scriptural authority, a New Testament Baptist church—not a
Catholic or Protestant religious organization. The Lord’s Supper is likewise a church ordinance, and it is
consequently a memorial celebrated by each of Christ’s churches for their own
members. Grape juice, not
alcoholic wine, should be used at the Lord’s Supper, as total abstinence from
alcohol is to be practiced by Christians.
Churches should practice congregational government underneath the
leadership of a pastor or pastors, rather than rule by a deacon board or board
of ruling and teaching elders. The
idea of a head pastor is Scriptural.
Churches that currently are called “Baptist” have existed in every
century since Christ started His church during His earthly ministry and before
Pentecost. While there has been a
real succession of Baptist churches from the days of Christ, their Founder,
until today, each church is not obligated to trace its own succession
link-by-link to prove that it is one of Christ’s true churches. Since the local, visible church is the
pillar and ground of the truth for this age, conventions, associations, boards,
and all parachurch institutions are unnecessary.
6.) In my
Eschatology, I believe in a pretribulational and premillenial Rapture. I believe that prophecy is to be
interpreted literally, and therefore accept dispensational distinctions and
reject covenant theology. The
one-world “church” of Revelation 17 is centered in Rome, and modern Roman
Catholicism is a partial fulfillment of the future one-world harlot “church.” Israel and the church are distinct
entities. The lake of fire is a
place where all the lost will suffer literal and conscious torment in fire and
brimstone for all eternity.
7.) Concerning
various controverted personal and ecclesiastical practices:
I
believe that every Christian should be involved in aggressively seeking to
reach every single person in his community with the gospel through practices
such as house to house evangelism and literature distribution, while also
supporting church planters to reach the rest of the world. People who are saved, baptized, and
faithfully serving as members of New Testament Baptist churches should be
counted as converts, if one is going to count converts. Those who merely repeat a sinner’s
prayer and never give any evidence of a desire to serve the Lord should not be
counted as converts. God saves
sinners who repent and believe in Christ, rather than all who say the sinner’s
prayer or ask Jesus to come into their hearts. Churches should follow the evangelistic methodology of the
book of Acts and seek to boldly preach the gospel to everyone, rather than
following the evangelistic methodology of the “seeker-sensitive” or
“purpose-driven” or “emerging” movements by employing promotion and marketing
techniques or worldliness to attract the lost.
I
believe that in church and everywhere else Christians should reject all
worldly, fleshly, and devilish music and listen only to sacred Christian music
or classical music. All jazz,
blues, country-western, easy-listening, rock, and rap music is worldly,
fleshly, and devilish. The very
highest standard of sacred music should be tenaciously held to and all of what
is called Contemporary Christian Music rejected. Churches should worship the Lord with psalms, hymns, and
spiritual songs, rather than with songs that contain little Scriptural content.
I
believe that Scripture teaches both modesty and gender distinction. Clothing that does not cover at least
to the knee is nakedness. Modesty
is more than simply not being naked.
In the Bible, clothing normally covers the entire body to the foot,
although when necessary men were allowed to gird up their loins. Wearing the clothing that pertains to
the other gender is an abomination to God. Pants are men’s apparel, while skirts and dresses are
ladies’ apparel. Men should have
short hair and women should have long hair. While the heart is more important than the outward
appearance, God wants the entire believer, inwardly and outwardly, to be
consecrated to Himself.
I
believe that God hates all divorce, and that remarriage while one’s spouse is
alive is adultery. Pastors and
other church leaders should not be divorced or remarried, nor should they be in
the ministry if they cannot rule their own house and have ungodly children. Courtship under parental authority
rather than dating is the Scriptural pattern for obtaining one’s life’s
partner.
I
believe that part of a faithful and balanced ministry of preaching and teaching
the whole Word of God in the church is pointed and specific warnings about
false teachers and false teachings. While providing the flock a steady diet of the exposited
Word, the church must at times identify and reprove false teachers by name to
protect the saints of God. Every
Baptist church should practice a militant separation from the world and zealous
and whole-hearted separation unto God, as well as a consistent and clear
separation from all unconverted false teachers, disobedient brethren, and
ecclesiastical compromise, so that a separatist stance, rather than a
neo-evangelical position, is maintained.
[1]
During this entire period secular employment
was also engaged in with USA Security Associates and the Securitas
Corporation. Further information
will happily be provided upon request.
[2] Many of
these works are available at http://sites.google.com/site/thross7. Publications are listed in the general
order in which they may be found on the website. Weekly contributions are also made at the “What is Truth?”
blog (http://www.kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/)
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Today's Arguing that Isn't Concerned about the Truth
The debate that occurred between Alex Jones and Piers Morgan on CNN has reminded me about the way people argue today. The point should be to know, come to, or defend the truth, but it isn't in many cases today. I'm not sure Piers Morgan believes what he's saying himself. I had never heard of Alex Jones, but the clip was linked at the Drudge Report, so I watched it. Since then, I've looked in on some of the reaction to Jones, and it is so typical of how people respond today. I'm asking, "Is what Jones said the truth?" Sure, he said it in a loud, passionate, energetic, or in other words, interesting way. If you listen to a discussion like this, you've got to cut through the style aspects in order to hear the actual content. I'll post the clip. Jones says the Lord's name in vain one time, and I apologize for that, don't endorse that at all, but I'm wondering what he's saying that is incorrect or infactual. I didn't hear anything.
One major Jones argument was more gun laws and violent crime increases. Morgan doesn't answer that. Instead, he asks a question about the number of people killed with guns in the U. S. that year compared to Great Britain. Less gun violence, yes, but more overall violence. More guns and there was less violence. If ending violence against innocents was the issue, then more guns is the answer. Jones is correct that the statistic of less gun deaths is a red herring. The goal is less violent crimes.
After the debate, Morgan spun what happened by saying that Jones was a perfect example as to why certain people shouldn't own guns. That was an argument coming from Morgan. Other media personalities reacted the same way. They did not answer Jones's argument, his data---just mocked him.
The other argument Jones made was that the 2nd amendment was for protection against the government. Like the first argument, Morgan didn't deal with it at all. Even as Jones said, Morgan offered those little factoids that did not deal with the important point of what would prohibit or negate the most violent crimes.
I don't know why so many powerful Democrats and moderate Republicans are so set on taking away people's guns. They are willing to take this tragedy, play on people's emotions, in order to make their case. The facts don't bear them out, so they persuade people with half truths and stories out of their context.
I'm concerned about losing our right to bear arms, but I also thought that the Morgan way of arguing is so typical today, where the truth isn't what really matters.
***********
I've been busy, but I reread this and wanted to add another observation. I'm not sure if the media and the academic elite of the country actually do believe what they are saying about guns. What I think is that they do believe it, but it's based on a reprobate mind. And there are some, who don't believe what they are saying, but they are cowered by those with a reprobate mind. Here is a typical argument from a reprobate, as I have been hearing it.
2nd Amendment Guy: More guns result in less violent crime.
Reprobate Mind: What kind of guns were used in the killing of the innocent children in Connecticut?
2nd Amendment Guy: A semi-automatic bushmaster (etc. etc.), but it was an illegal act committed by self-deluded crazy, rebellious young man, who was into gratuitously violent video games. In other words, he liked to role play at blowing people away in his spare time.
Reprobrate Mind: (sarcastically) OoooKay. Right. So you think that these types of guns are needed for hunting?
2nd Amendment Guy: The point of the second amendment isn't hunting. The second amendment reads: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But as I said, it isn't owning these types of guns that results in more violent crime. Gun control results in more violent crime. You can see that in the actual data, the actual statistics. Yes, overall gun crimes will decrease, but overall violence will increase. But even that misses the point of the right to bear arms. The actions of one crazy shouldn't take away the rights of law abiding citizens.
Reprobate Mind: Well, tell that to the parents whose children are dead up in Connecticut. I don't think you can really believe what you are saying, that you just want people like this to be able to freely have access to these types of guns to commit these types of horrendous acts.
2nd Amendment Guy: You haven't answered my point. Overall violence increases when there are less guns. It's easy to see why. Criminals can't be stopped, because people can't defend themselves against them. But even so, the second amendment is for protecting against the government itself, which is free to have as many and whatever kind of guns that it wants.
Reprobate Mind: What kind of gun was used in Aurora, Colorado to kill the people in the theater?
2nd Amendment Guy: A semi-automatic rifle.
Reprobate Mind: Exactly. If he didn't have that gun, he couldn't have killed so many people so quickly. More gun laws, outlawing semi-automatic assault weapons with high volume magazines would have saved those people's lives.
2nd Amendment Guy: If people in that theater had been carrying guns, they could have defended themselves, but it was a gun free zone for law abiding citizens. If he knew several others would be armed, he could have been deterred from doing what he did. There are already gun laws outlawing what he did.
Anyway, you get my drift. The reprobate mind doesn't make arguments. It just makes emotional appeals. It's essentially propaganda, which we saw in the last election is actually effective today in an age where the main audience is also reprobate in its mind.
The other argument Jones made was that the 2nd amendment was for protection against the government. Like the first argument, Morgan didn't deal with it at all. Even as Jones said, Morgan offered those little factoids that did not deal with the important point of what would prohibit or negate the most violent crimes.
I don't know why so many powerful Democrats and moderate Republicans are so set on taking away people's guns. They are willing to take this tragedy, play on people's emotions, in order to make their case. The facts don't bear them out, so they persuade people with half truths and stories out of their context.
I'm concerned about losing our right to bear arms, but I also thought that the Morgan way of arguing is so typical today, where the truth isn't what really matters.
***********
I've been busy, but I reread this and wanted to add another observation. I'm not sure if the media and the academic elite of the country actually do believe what they are saying about guns. What I think is that they do believe it, but it's based on a reprobate mind. And there are some, who don't believe what they are saying, but they are cowered by those with a reprobate mind. Here is a typical argument from a reprobate, as I have been hearing it.
2nd Amendment Guy: More guns result in less violent crime.
Reprobate Mind: What kind of guns were used in the killing of the innocent children in Connecticut?
2nd Amendment Guy: A semi-automatic bushmaster (etc. etc.), but it was an illegal act committed by self-deluded crazy, rebellious young man, who was into gratuitously violent video games. In other words, he liked to role play at blowing people away in his spare time.
Reprobrate Mind: (sarcastically) OoooKay. Right. So you think that these types of guns are needed for hunting?
2nd Amendment Guy: The point of the second amendment isn't hunting. The second amendment reads: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But as I said, it isn't owning these types of guns that results in more violent crime. Gun control results in more violent crime. You can see that in the actual data, the actual statistics. Yes, overall gun crimes will decrease, but overall violence will increase. But even that misses the point of the right to bear arms. The actions of one crazy shouldn't take away the rights of law abiding citizens.
Reprobate Mind: Well, tell that to the parents whose children are dead up in Connecticut. I don't think you can really believe what you are saying, that you just want people like this to be able to freely have access to these types of guns to commit these types of horrendous acts.
2nd Amendment Guy: You haven't answered my point. Overall violence increases when there are less guns. It's easy to see why. Criminals can't be stopped, because people can't defend themselves against them. But even so, the second amendment is for protecting against the government itself, which is free to have as many and whatever kind of guns that it wants.
Reprobate Mind: What kind of gun was used in Aurora, Colorado to kill the people in the theater?
2nd Amendment Guy: A semi-automatic rifle.
Reprobate Mind: Exactly. If he didn't have that gun, he couldn't have killed so many people so quickly. More gun laws, outlawing semi-automatic assault weapons with high volume magazines would have saved those people's lives.
2nd Amendment Guy: If people in that theater had been carrying guns, they could have defended themselves, but it was a gun free zone for law abiding citizens. If he knew several others would be armed, he could have been deterred from doing what he did. There are already gun laws outlawing what he did.
Anyway, you get my drift. The reprobate mind doesn't make arguments. It just makes emotional appeals. It's essentially propaganda, which we saw in the last election is actually effective today in an age where the main audience is also reprobate in its mind.
Monday, January 07, 2013
Is a Progressive Tax Code Constitutional?
I'm preparing to write substantive, spiritual, biblical posts, continuing the series that I've already started (I don't know how many exactly I've got going, but I know of a few at least). I like to do that, but right now I've got extra stuff, more than normal, in the way of a new, old house that I'm remodeling while I do everything else. On Saturday, I built a small frame to pour quick setting concrete to seal a crack on the outside of the foundation of the garage, where water has been seeping in. Next to it I built a small French drain to help the water divert around the area. Then I sawed a hole through the stucco of our house next to where our dryer would be to put in a dryer vent (there wasn't one in the house). I went to the church to work on the church calendar and other things, and found out there was a small leak in the plumbing, which required me to tear out some drywall to get to that. So lots is happening. This is an easier one to write, because I don't have to look at much to write it, but it's something that has been in my head, so I'm going to go ahead and release the thoughts and see what you think.
The French Supreme Court recently overturned the French tax code, saying that the 75% taxation on the income of the wealthiest was unconstitutional. That got me thinking as to the constitutionality of the progressive tax code in the United States. I don't know if it has been challenged in the Supreme Court here, but maybe it should. Here's where my mind went with this. Bear in mind that I would be hurt financially by a change in the tax code. Right now it benefits me a lot. However, I think it's wrong, so I oppose it.
To start, I don't think that tax code is a constitutional issue. However, based on how the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution, it might be, and it probably is. And when I write that, I'm considering the fourteenth amendment, that since its writing, has been used to argue a number of positions that have had nothing to do with the fourteenth amendment as originally written. Some have called this the hijacking of the fourteenth amendment. (Wikipedia has the text of the fourteenth amendment for easier reference.) If you remember, the fourteenth amendment was used in the Bush vs. Gore case that decided the 2000 election. The argument said that everyone should have the same exact voting standards in Florida, that the counting of the votes should be the same for every single person. Thoughts of the fourteenth amendment amalgamated for me in the argument against a progressive tax code and how the French Supreme Court ruled.
There is precedent in the Supreme Court, I believe, in the equal protection clause to say that everyone deserves equal taxation. The sixteenth amendment, which allows for federal income tax, is silent on a progressive tax, making the sixteenth amendment moot on this point. However, why couldn't the fourteenth amendment be used to argue that a progressive tax does not protect the rights of those with higher incomes? Higher income people will not be protected by Congress, because they are such a small minority. Are they protected by the constitution as presently interpreted?
**************************
The French Supreme Court recently overturned the French tax code, saying that the 75% taxation on the income of the wealthiest was unconstitutional. That got me thinking as to the constitutionality of the progressive tax code in the United States. I don't know if it has been challenged in the Supreme Court here, but maybe it should. Here's where my mind went with this. Bear in mind that I would be hurt financially by a change in the tax code. Right now it benefits me a lot. However, I think it's wrong, so I oppose it.
To start, I don't think that tax code is a constitutional issue. However, based on how the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution, it might be, and it probably is. And when I write that, I'm considering the fourteenth amendment, that since its writing, has been used to argue a number of positions that have had nothing to do with the fourteenth amendment as originally written. Some have called this the hijacking of the fourteenth amendment. (Wikipedia has the text of the fourteenth amendment for easier reference.) If you remember, the fourteenth amendment was used in the Bush vs. Gore case that decided the 2000 election. The argument said that everyone should have the same exact voting standards in Florida, that the counting of the votes should be the same for every single person. Thoughts of the fourteenth amendment amalgamated for me in the argument against a progressive tax code and how the French Supreme Court ruled.
There is precedent in the Supreme Court, I believe, in the equal protection clause to say that everyone deserves equal taxation. The sixteenth amendment, which allows for federal income tax, is silent on a progressive tax, making the sixteenth amendment moot on this point. However, why couldn't the fourteenth amendment be used to argue that a progressive tax does not protect the rights of those with higher incomes? Higher income people will not be protected by Congress, because they are such a small minority. Are they protected by the constitution as presently interpreted?
Friday, January 04, 2013
Were the Reformers Heretics? Appendix Part 2
Please note that the entire series entitled "Were the Reformers Heretics"? can now be viewed by clicking here as one complete essay.
The post below originally went from the sentence "Luther also confused the cross-work of Christ by going beyond the truth that the Savior bore the sins of mankind, and thus suffered the judgment that the world of sinners deserved, adopting instead the dangerous idea that Christ Himself became the sin of men." to the section: "The Reformers erred on much more than
infant baptism alone."
Wednesday, January 02, 2013
The Relationship of How Evangelical and Fundamentalist Churches Operate Today to How Our Government Functions
Evangelicals and fundamentalists have a lot of hopes for our government to change and behave differently. You may have noticed that we just missed plummeting over the fiscal cliff by plunging into a deficit chasm. Evangelicals and fundamentalists want our government to tighten the belt, cut the spending, and take responsibility with the national debt.
President Obama did a successful job at winning the campaign. He did it by telling a majority of people what they wanted to hear. He won by offering to ignore the constitution and give the larger number of people what they wanted. He was willing to cut his losses with those clinging to their guns and their religion. They couldn't make him lose. He was a success. He got the most votes. It will hurt the country in the long run, but he won. He knew that most people would want what he had to say and what he would give them or at least what they thought they might get from him.
To varying degrees, evangelicals and fundamentalists are functioning in the same way President Obama did. You don't want to be a loser. You don't want to get the least number of votes (attendees), so you enact policies that are popular to more people. Why should the government stop acting like it does, when evangelicals and fundamentalists won't stop what they're doing?
The government needs to keep the right number of people not paying any taxes at all, pleasing the most possible people, and to do that, through the legislative and executive branches, it agreed to raise taxes on those earning over 400,000 a year. Lots of congressmen caved on this, perhaps thinking that it's what people voted for in the election. American's "love a winner" and why not go with the winner? His popularity is up right now and it would just look like sour grapes to oppose him. Far more people make less than 400,000 dollars than do make that much. California has already raised income taxes on the same group of people in order to keep from cutting from the school budgets. It was passed by proposition in which the people voted to take more money from those making over 250,000 a year to pay for everyone's schooling and keep teachers employed.
People don't want to give up their lives. They want somewhere to lay their heads. They want to pull down their barns and build greater. They want to bury their fathers. They don't want to deny self. They don't want to take up their cross. Church leaders know that. They know that message won't fly, even though it's the truth. So they design their program and it's marketing around self-serving, self-gratification, sensuality, ease, and comfort. Church will be fun. Your kids will have fun. You'll find friends. We've got programs for everyone that will make everything as nice as possible for you. That's not how Jesus or the apostles operated, but it is how evangelical and fundamentalist churches function today. A very few do not, but a large majority do.
And if the goodies aren't offered, the offense is taken away. The short term truth isn't very appealing, and long term thinking (what is faith) isn't enough. Everyone knows that. Because of that, the people who are successful are either avoiding altogether or very much diminishing the short term truth. They maximize the niceties in the short term---casual, rock music, short, programs, ease, fun---what amounts to a kind of therapy for the self-seeking, excluding or hiding the long term realities like the government deals with the national debt bomb. What you get are a lot of unconverted people, but larger numbers of what is labeled as church growth and success.
So while the same evangelicals and fundamentalists (albeit in lesser numbers even in this) are complaining about the way the government is operating, they function the same way. All of this is readying the world for a total apostasy where men are lovers of their selves and lovers of things. The Jesus of the Bible is morphed into a Santa Claus type of figure with his goody bag of therapy, fun, entertainment, and good times. There is no wonder the government would not be serious about doing anything differently.
President Obama did a successful job at winning the campaign. He did it by telling a majority of people what they wanted to hear. He won by offering to ignore the constitution and give the larger number of people what they wanted. He was willing to cut his losses with those clinging to their guns and their religion. They couldn't make him lose. He was a success. He got the most votes. It will hurt the country in the long run, but he won. He knew that most people would want what he had to say and what he would give them or at least what they thought they might get from him.
To varying degrees, evangelicals and fundamentalists are functioning in the same way President Obama did. You don't want to be a loser. You don't want to get the least number of votes (attendees), so you enact policies that are popular to more people. Why should the government stop acting like it does, when evangelicals and fundamentalists won't stop what they're doing?
The government needs to keep the right number of people not paying any taxes at all, pleasing the most possible people, and to do that, through the legislative and executive branches, it agreed to raise taxes on those earning over 400,000 a year. Lots of congressmen caved on this, perhaps thinking that it's what people voted for in the election. American's "love a winner" and why not go with the winner? His popularity is up right now and it would just look like sour grapes to oppose him. Far more people make less than 400,000 dollars than do make that much. California has already raised income taxes on the same group of people in order to keep from cutting from the school budgets. It was passed by proposition in which the people voted to take more money from those making over 250,000 a year to pay for everyone's schooling and keep teachers employed.
People don't want to give up their lives. They want somewhere to lay their heads. They want to pull down their barns and build greater. They want to bury their fathers. They don't want to deny self. They don't want to take up their cross. Church leaders know that. They know that message won't fly, even though it's the truth. So they design their program and it's marketing around self-serving, self-gratification, sensuality, ease, and comfort. Church will be fun. Your kids will have fun. You'll find friends. We've got programs for everyone that will make everything as nice as possible for you. That's not how Jesus or the apostles operated, but it is how evangelical and fundamentalist churches function today. A very few do not, but a large majority do.
And if the goodies aren't offered, the offense is taken away. The short term truth isn't very appealing, and long term thinking (what is faith) isn't enough. Everyone knows that. Because of that, the people who are successful are either avoiding altogether or very much diminishing the short term truth. They maximize the niceties in the short term---casual, rock music, short, programs, ease, fun---what amounts to a kind of therapy for the self-seeking, excluding or hiding the long term realities like the government deals with the national debt bomb. What you get are a lot of unconverted people, but larger numbers of what is labeled as church growth and success.
So while the same evangelicals and fundamentalists (albeit in lesser numbers even in this) are complaining about the way the government is operating, they function the same way. All of this is readying the world for a total apostasy where men are lovers of their selves and lovers of things. The Jesus of the Bible is morphed into a Santa Claus type of figure with his goody bag of therapy, fun, entertainment, and good times. There is no wonder the government would not be serious about doing anything differently.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Were the Reformers Heretics? Appendix Part 1
Please note that the entire series entitled "Were the Reformers Heretics"? can now be viewed by clicking here as one complete essay.
The post below originally went from the sentence "Apart from their connection of baptism and salvation, the Reformers adopted many other heresies." to the sentence: " “Idolaters . . . shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone” (Revelation 21:8)."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)