Monday, December 31, 2012

red letter nuts 1

Sometimes, the things I read tend to lead me to other things. I'm not sure if those second things are necessarilty weirded, or if they just shed a more ominous light on the initial weirdness I had read. At any rate, here is one of the more bizarre, and even disturbing, things I've ever read.

The Rage of Moloch – An Old Testament god thriving on our children
Moloch is a god mentioned in passing in Leviticus 18:21, but his presence seeps through the Bible – and most of ancient history. He is a god who thrives on the blood of the innocent.

Moloch is one of those themes that most of us assume is dead and gone and far from our daily lives – until he emerges almost larger than life.

Moloch promised – and still promises – safety, security and prosperity if only we would sacrifice our children.
And again, we act as if this transaction was too evil and ancient to even consider, but then we find ourselves in the middle of this grim bargain 
“It’s the cost of freedom” he said, on national news, with a shrug and a sense that we should all agree that the occasional sacrifice of a classroom of children is a fair exchange for those among us who long to combine a thirst for fame and blood with the latest murderous fantasy toy.
I find it interesting that he tries to say that the notion of "sacrificing children" for the pursuit of safety, security, and prosperity, is somehow suppose to be something unheard of today, or that there haven't been people saying "It's the cost of freedom" when children are sacrificed.

Odd, because such sacrifices have happened by the millions in recent years. It's called abortion.
What kind of soul-dead human being could believe, or choose to believe, that the sacrifice of children is worth any ‘freedom’?
Well, go the people at Planned Parenthood. Give a ring to the ACLU. How about calling up the President of the US and the Congressmen and women who voted for a Health Care bill that tells businesses and organization that they have to give their employees things that induce abortions?
From a theological perspective, this is heresy at its core – that we could imagine that we would find ‘security’ in our own weapons or ‘salvation’ in increased firepower is delusional if not blasphemous.

So, keeping a gun to protect yourself and your family is an act of heresy? I'm not sure who is say that we get "salvation" through the purchasing of weapons.

But, really, could you imagine if he were to say that working to earn money to provide for yourself and your family is an act of heresy, because God has said that He would provide all we need? Or that getting married and having a family is blasphemy because God is our Father and we already have a family in the church?
Turning swords into plowshares is a sign of God’s kingdom (Isaiah 2:4). Investing our personal, as well as our national budgets – and our national attention to weapons is just another indication of our allegiance to death.

   So, let's see Isaiah 2:4, with a bit of context.
The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.    
2 It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it,
3 and many peoples shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob,  that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.    
4 He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

Allegiance to death. First, again...abortion, anyone? And given the general tone of the Red Letter Christians site, well, I'm betting they were all-in for the Liberal and Progressive types who do their darnedest to make sure abortion is legal and common.

Second, you've going to have do better than the above passage to say that we should not have weapons today. Sorry, but that is prophecy concerning Christ's return and how things will be on earth than.
We don’t need an enemy, we are killing ourselves, but the gun apologists would tell us not fast enough.
This is a lie, a sure sign that this article is deranged. This article isn't really an argument at all, it's basically propoganda.

And it is out of respect for them, and their 100% preventable pain, that I urge the rest of to stir our petulant Congress to put aside their ideologically driven agendas and legislative inertia and step up in courage, and yes, even sacrifice to do what our nation’s soul cries out for.
What would this look like?
Who knows?
Really? You rage against guns and gun apologists, and you expect us to think that you have no idea what you want? After far too much incoherent rage and nonsense, you expect to be able to play coy here at the end?


And, sadly, it's far from the only one on that site that is like this.

Sunday, December 30, 2012

i suppose he doesn't mean by using an air freshener

Tommy Tenney, whom I had not heard much about for some time, has written a small article for Charisma magazine. It's a bit weird.

But there is little understanding of what I call "presence evangelism." This is what occurs when the residue of God on a person creates a divine radiation zone of His manifest presence that affects those around him (see Acts 4:13).
Ok, so, let's look at that verse.

13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.

This verse is in the context of Peter and John healing the lame man outside the Temple. They had done so, and when a crowd had gathered, Peter preached the Gospel of Christ to them. While Peter and John were doing that, some of the religous leaders had them arrested and later questioned them. This statement about Peter and John refers to the religious leaders recognizing what kind of people they were, and that they had been disciples of Jesus.

Sorry, there is nothing about "presence evangelism" there, nor anything about a "divine radiation zone".

"Shadow healing" would fall into this category. That's the kind of healing that took place when the shadow of the One with whom Peter walked created a healing zone around him (see Acts 5:15-16).
That is kinda mentioned in the Bible. Here it is, with a bit of context.

12 Now many signs and wonders were regularly done among the people by the hands of the apostles. And they were all together in Solomon's Portico. 13 None of the rest dared join them, but the people held them in high esteem. 14 And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women, 15 so that they even  carried out the sick into the streets and laid them on cots and mats, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them. 16 The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed.

Now, I guess one thing I could point is that while v 15 says the people tried to arrange it so that the sick people may be where Peter's shadow would fall, it doesn't say that the people were healed by that. Perhaps it is understood, maybe by what is said in the next verse, but I think that could be questioned.

But even if people were healed in that way, it does not mean that we should expect it to be happening in that same way today. Word of Faith and Prosperity Gospel charlatans have played the "anointed healing handkerchief" trick quite often, based on the fact that at one poine the Bible mentions Paul sending such things to people who were then healed. We have no reason to expect that such things are going to happen today, or that we should do such things.

Today we need to hear the footfall of God as His foot touches the earth. When it does, we won't have to worry about telling demons to run. We won't even have to scream Scriptures against their princes or practice pulling down demonic strongholds--because the purpose of His manifest presence is to set the captive free (see Luke 4:18). This purpose will be fulfilled automatically when He shows up.


Is Tenney really saying that we should expect God to walk on the Earth? If he were talking about Christ's return, maybe, but I don't think he is. He's talking about something here and now.
If the Father of us all can allow His manifested presence to touch earth just once, then the flood of glory it will spawn will bring revival throughout the land as demons flee and sinners fall to their knees!
 If God can allow that to happen? What does that mean? That God can't allow it to happen?

No, this just seems like a fairy tale type of theology.
His presence can so saturate us that unsaved guests won't be able to step into our homes or be around us with unrepentant hearts. His glory will bring conviction in their lives that leads to salvation--not because of the words we say, but because of His presence and power in our hearts.
Funny, but the Bible says that it is by preaching that God saves people.

Tenney's fairy-tale evangelism will not happen.

and you thought it was over

Hey. First, yeah, it's been a while. Sorry. That wasn't exactly planned, it just kinda happened, one day after another. Things going one, life happening, blah blah blah.

Hope to get back into things again, with a bit of this and that. Hope you enjoyed the vacation.