Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The Best The Black Church Has To Offer
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Opponents to Marriage Amendment Playing Dirty
| ||||
|
Friday, October 24, 2008
Abortion Survivor - Gianna Jessen
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Obama and the Murder of the Innocent
Just remember folks, when you vote on November 4, Obama voted 4 times, that's right, I said 4 times against legislation that would make it illegal to provide medical care to babies that survive a botched abortion. The liberals talk about the mother's rights, what about the baby's rights
There is a well written article by Jill Stanek of World Net Daily entitled: Gianna Jessen: Above Obama's pay grade. Just click the link to read the article. In my next post I'm going to post a couple of videos from YouTube of Gianna telling her story. It is unbelievable and I think you'll be very moved.
God bless
Rob
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Yes 2 Marriage Amendment
There are many lies being told through false advertising by the homosexual lobby claiming Amendment 2 will invalidate domestic partnerships and deny benefits to seniors. By deceiving voters, a group called, Florida Red & Blue hopes to overcome support for the marriage amendment.
Amendment 2 is about marriage and only marriage. It is not about domestic partnerships, denying benefits to seniors or civil rights. This amendment will take the traditional definition of marriage - between one man and one woman - from our state law and put it under the jurisdiction of our state constitution. This will prevent socialist, activist judges, in the future, from redefining marriage in our state. The homosexual lobby is trying to say this is not necessary because we already have 4 different laws on our books regarding marriage. However, as you've seen, lawyers and the courts can easily twist the law to suit their own ends. Just take a look at what is happening in California, Massachusetts and most recently in Connecticut. These states also had laws on their books but are now forced to recognize homosexual marriage because the courts in those states over ruled the will of the people.
As James Smith says in the October 16, 2008 edition of the Florida Baptist Witness,
"This is not an academic, esoteric debate. The Florida Marriage Protection Amendment (also known as Amendment 2) is Floridians chance to settle the definition of marriage in our state before a few judges decide it otherwise."
Here is how Justice Richard N. Palmer of the Connecticut Supreme Court reinterpreted their marriage laws,
"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitable to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice. To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."
Smith finishes his column by saying, "For those who doubt it is necessary to protect the definition of marriage in the state constitution, the ramifications of these decisions can be seen in Massachusetts where children are being indoctrinated with homosexual propaganda in public schools - even against the wishes of their parents - because the state is now required to allow gay marriage."
Folks, on Nov 4 when you go to vote, be sure to VOTE FOR Amendment 2. The future of our state may very well lie in the balance. See the poster below for some additional info. (Just click on the image to view a larger size.)
God bless
Rob
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The Foreknowledge of God
The Foreknowledge of God has been a term that has been consistently misused by many folks in the Christian community who deny the election and predestination of God's saints. These folks are known as Armenians and they believe that God looked down the corridors of time to see who was going to accept Jesus as their Savior and then the Father would choose them unto salvation. In other words, He looked into the future and if He saw a person come to saving faith, then He would predestine that person to be saved, base on foreknowledge of that person's faith. On the other hand, if He sees that a person will not come to saving faith, then He does not predestine that person to be saved. But is this truly what the Bible teaches? Are their any flaws in this argument according to Scripture? In this post we're going to take a closer look at God's foreknowledge and see what the Bible actually teaches about this great and controversial doctrine.
One of the primary passages used by Armenians when talking about God's foreknowledge is Romans 8:29-30 "For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified."
The problem with using this passage to argue that God looked into the future to see who was going to accept Christ is that it is not talking about a "fact" that someone would believe. Instead it is talking about the fact that God knew persons, ("those whom He foreknew"). Usually when Scripture speaks of God's foreknowledge or God knowing someone it is speaking of an intimate knowledge, an intimate love such as a father to a son. Lets take a closer look at how the word "Knew" is used in Scripture.
How The Word Knew Is Used In Scripture
When the Bible talks about God knowing someone it is usually a personal, relational knowledge that is spoken of. In his book Systematic Theology Wayne Grudem states it very clearly:
"God, looking into the future, thought of certain people in saving relationship to Him, and in that sense He "knew them" long ago. This is the sense in which Paul can talk about God's "knowing" someone, for example, in 1Cor. 8:3: "But if one loves God, one is known by Him." Similarly, He says, "but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God..." Gal 4:19. When people know God in Scripture, or when God knows them, it is personal knowledge that involves a saving relationship. Therefore in Romans 8:29, "those whom He foreknew" is best understood to mean, "those whom He long ago thought of in a saving relationship to Himself." The text actually says nothing about God foreseeing that certain people would believe, nor is that idea mentioned in any other text of Scripture."
We see this same principle applied in Mathew 7:22-23 when Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount says: "On that day many will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name? And then will I declare to them, I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness." Of course Jesus knows who they are but what He's saying here is that He never had an intimate, saving relationship with them. So when people know God in Scripture, or God knows them, it is personal knowledge that involves a saving relationship.
Did God Choose Us or Did We Choose God??
Another problem I see with the Armenian definition of Foreknowledge is that it makes man sovereign over God in the matter of his salvation. This is a very dangerous premise. Under this view man is the one who decides to choose or not choose God first which then makes God obligated to save those who choose Him. Talk about turning the order of things upside down. Paul is quite clear about this in Romans 9:15-18 when he says,
"For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth. So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Sounds like its all of God to me.
Scripture nowhere teaches that any man ever has anything to do with his salvation. Scripture never teaches that the fact that we would come to believe in Christ is the reason God chose us. Just taking a look at Eph 1:4-11 I see nothing there that even remotely suggests that man has anything to do with his own salvation. All we see there is v.4 - "He chose us," "according to the kind intention of His will. v.6 - "To the praise of the glory of His grace," which He freely bestowed upon us," v.7 - In Him we have redemption..." and on it goes right through the end of verse 11. There is nothing in this whole passage of Scripture that has anything to do with the will of man. If man had any part to play in his salvation, don't you think Paul would have said something about that at least once?
So in conclusion I think its safe to say that election, based on God's foreknowledge of our faith is incorrect. The reason for election is simply God's sovereign choice according to the good pleasure of His will. Calvinists call election Unconditional because it is not based on anything in us that makes us worthy to receive His grace. So if you are a Christian today, give praise to your Heavenly Father who chose you because He KNEW you before the world began.
God bless,
Rob