IF YOUR GOD IS SO LOVING NOBODY GETS HURT, NO MATTER WHAT THEY'VE DONE.....................SHE'S NOT HERE.


ROOLZ O' DA BLOG--Ya break 'em, ya git shot.
1. No cowards. State your first and last name. "Anonymous" aint your name.
2. No wimps.
3. No cussin'.
4. State no argument without reference to a biblical passage or passages and show a strong logical connection between your statement and the passages you cite.
5. Insults, sarcasm, name-calling, irony, derision, and humor at the expense of others aren't allowed unless they are biblical or logical, in which case they are WILDLY ENCOURAGED.
6. No aphronism.
7. Fear God, not man.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Bad News For Afghanistan

I recently found out that the Daystar television network is coming to Afghanistan. Daystar is a lot like the Sky Angel Network.

That means in a war-torn country where Christianity is misunderstood and hated, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Marylin Hickey, Oral Roberts, and the like will make sure that the gospel will never be listened to by millions of people.

American Evangelicalism has a lot to answer for already. Why are we bent on damning those folks by immunizing them to the real gospel? Instead, they will be promised health and wealth if they believe in the word-of-faith Jesus.

I will pray hard for the failure of Daystar or that they will clean up their act.

Saddened,
Phil Perkins.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

An Afterthought About Suffering.

When I die, I don't want to see Jesus and be wearing freshly ironed pants and unmussed hair. I want to wear scars. He does.

Hoping,
Phil Perkins.

AN ABANDONED FELLOWSHIP--Part I (of III)

SAVED TO SUFFER

A phrase has stuck in my mind for about two or three years now. "The fellowship of His sufferings." I came across it reading Scripture and can't seem to forget it. Oxymoronish isn't it? Fellowship is warm and cuddly. Suffering isn't. Sometimes this expression fills my heart and mind. Strangely, it names something I want.

A lady in our church who came to regeneration and repentance late in life has shared over the years just how meanly her co-workers have treated her because of Christ. Well, this Sunday in Sunday School she shared that again. I have come to respect her a lot. I know that she has suffered because she doesn't hide her Jesus and her obedience to Him. So I know she is truly suffering for Him.

But she seemed really down. So, I wrote a little note about the fellowship of His suffering from Philippians. By the reaction in her eyes I knew she was up lifted.

Here is the passage:

Philippians 3:8-11.
8More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ,

9and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,

10that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death;

11in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Follow the logical chain:

A. Paul left all positions and possessions v. 8 a and b.
so that
B. Paul could get Christ and His imputed righteousness (be saved) vs. 8c-9.
so that
C. Paul could know 3 things:
1. Him (Christ) v. 10a.
2. The Power of Christ's resurrection v. 10b.
3. The Fellowship of Christ's sufferings v. 10c.
by the means of (in other words, the knowing of Christ, His resurrection power, and the fellowship of His sufferings is able to happen only because of the following):
D. Being conformed to His death v. 10d.
so that
E. Paul could be raised from the dead v. 11.

WOOOOWWW!!!! Did you get that? No, of course not. That was a stupid and unfair question. There is too much there for anyone to get. But get what you can. It is rich. Here are three observations quickly:
1. Salvation is for the purpose (in this passage) of knowing Christ, His resurrection power, and the
fellowship of His sufferings. That's right. Saved to suffer.
2. There is a sacred and personal bond between a believer and Christ that is only formed when the believer suffers.
3. Suffering and conformity to Christ's death is an evidence of our election so strong that without it, we
can be sure that we are not saved.

How DARE we hope for salvation without the suffering!

May God grant us the suffering that is our gift from the Father.

In tears,
Phil Perkins.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Ground Control To Pastor Tom

Here are two quotes from an eleven-year pastor on his blog:

Let me say this up front: I have some real struggles categorically condemning certain — maybe any — form of prayer.

AND

Jesus clearly condemned “vain repetition” (Matt. 6:7) and prayer distinctly practiced for show (Matt. 6:1-4).

Yep, you heard right. At the start of one paragraph he said he didn't want to condemn any certain form of prayer. And two paragraphs later, he said Jesus did just that.

The subject was Emergents and Contemplative Prayer. These folks are bringing in pagan prayer and meditation practices from the East. Obviously this is a very sinful thing.

However, our pastor friend (I'll call him Tom), wanting to seem open-minded, could not bring himself to speak against it. Only that it bothered him a bit, but not enough to actually be a mean, bigoted, Fundamentalist jerk casting dispersions on others and their groups and calling names and such.

Then Pastor Tom went on in the next paragraph to say that Jesus condemned certain forms of prayer. Pastor Tom didn't even catch his own contradiction

Let us remind ourselves that Paul told Timothy in I Timothy 3 the overseer was to be both moral and "able to teach." We can't be sure if Pastor Tom is really that dull or just blinded by his lust for approval from all quarters. Paul definitely made the moral part most important, but don't forget the smart part, too.

Grounnd controlllll to Paaastor Tommmm........

Phil Perkins.

Good Men

Someone very wise once said, "Evil prevails when good men do nothing." They were wrong. Men that do nothing aren't good. They're cowards.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Ted Haggard's Scandal Nobody's Fault?

Ex-emergent pastor, Mark Driscoll, known for his profanity and lewd remarks, has weighed in on the real problem that lead to Ted Haggard's downfall, in his opinion. It was Mrs. Haggard's fault.

He was quoted in the Rocky Mountain News at http://www.rockymountainnews.com.

Driscoll: It is not uncommon to meet pastors' wives who really let themselves go. They sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband's sin, but she may not be helping him either.

Thanks, Mark. Don't you have a sermon to lace with potty jokes for Sunday?

Phil Perkins.

Oh Really, Ted?

Here is a haunting quote from a Tom Brokaw interview with Ted Haggard. It is chilling.

Haggard: ...the emphasis in our church isn’t how to get your sins removed, because that’s pretty easy to do.

Hummm............perhaaaaapssss....................not.

Phil Perkins.

Evangelical Evil

In my post, Two Whores and a Harem found here: http://dontadddontsubtract.blogspot.com/2006/11/two-whores-and-harem-or-why-im-not.html, I blamed the Haggard scandal on his congregation. I further blame all Evangelicals, including myself, for allowing such a heretic to be in leadership. Only a few months ago he was interviewed by Tom Brokaw.

Haggard: We do talk about sin, but the issue is Jesus took care of our sin and Jesus removes guilt from our life so the emphasis in our church isn’t how to get your sins removed, because that’s pretty easy to do. Jesus did that on the cross. The emphasis in our church is how to fulfill the destiny that God’s called you to.

Brokaw: You’re making it easier for them?

Haggard: Making it easier for them, just like Jesus did, just like Moses did.

Yes, he said that. He made light of the atoning blood of our Savior and lied about the nature of biblical salvation. And yet, there was no outrage in the evangelical movement except from those commonly treated like nut jobs.

This is our fault,

Phil Perkins. Read this article: http://www.delightintheword.org/site/cpage.asp?cpage_id=6241&sec_id=755

Monday, November 06, 2006

I'M A SCUMBAG

Want to know just what a dirty, rotten, disgusting sinner I am? I'll tell you. Just yesterday afternoon folks came to my door to tell me about the Watchtower organization. They do not believe Jesus was truly God. That evening I wrote this about the experience:

Scripture is clear; if someone is wanting to speak of spritual things we are obligated before God to tell them the truth. So, I relunctantly decided to speak to them and witness to Christ's deity.

In the first sentence, I'm telling you just how obedient to Scripture I am. Whatta guy, huh? The second sentence reveals the truth, though. I "reluctantly" witnessed to them about "Christ's deity?" OUCH!!!!

Just so happened an opportunity to tell someone about Christ interrupted my TV show.

Excuse me while I vomit,
Phil Perkins.

Today's Riddle

Today's riddle is a vocabulary question. Entertainment center. Is that something in your living room or is it your church?

Two Great Things About The Ted Haggard Scandal

To every dark episode there is an upside, even if it is just surviving it to get through it. But there are two very positive aspects to Ted Haggard's follies.

First, the church is purified by getting rid of this sin.

Second, individuals will be doing some introspection. I am. It just hit me in church yesterday. What if my life was turned inside out for all to see?

Fearing God,
Phil Perkins.

Saying For The Day

Just a thought from a guy that has been known to go to seed on a thing or two now and then:

The fifth horseman rides a hobby horse.

Sunday, November 05, 2006

AN EXPOSE` OF THE ZONDERVAN HANDBOOK TO THE BIBLE, Part III (of VII)

More on Claire Powell’s Feminism

I really wanted to give only two segments of this expose` to Claire Powell’s article, "The Bible Through Women’s Eyes." Now it will be three. There is just too much in the way of Scripture-twisting in the article and I think it should be answered. And all these aspects give us a chance to do good logical interpretive work together and see some of the popular arguments feminists are using to subvert the Scriptures.

The title itself is misleading. First, is Claire Powell really the one to tell all women how they ought to think about the Bible? Why not Rosie O’Donnell, Phil Donahue, George Bush, or Madonna? I know plenty of Christian women that read the Scripture without a feminist interpretative template.

Second, and much more important, why should we accept that there are different legitimate views of the Scripture? Scripture says that truth is one. If we have disagreements about Scripture, the problem is that one or both are wrong. This is along the same line as the fallacy Richard Bauckman perpetrates on page 254 in the article, "A Story through Women’s Eyes." There Bauckman refers to "recent feminist interpretation of the Bible." (More on that upcoming.) Here's the rub: if we have a feminist interpretation, could we not also have a Nazi interpretation? Or Democrat? Or Republican? Or Socialist? Or atheist? Or...Or...Or...

In a section of her article called "Are God and the Bible biased?" Powell informs us the Bible is not biased. (Whew, I was worried.) Her argument goes like this: The Bible has all sorts of stories that pay much more attention to men than to women and put men in charge of a lot of stuff. This is bad. However, Powell does approve of God because (as it turns out) these are just stories about how things were, and not an approval of this state of affairs. In other words, narrative is not prescriptive. It does not prescribe behavior or belief.

However, in the same section she notices that women in spiritual leadership roles of prophetess and judge are mentioned. Here, however, narrative is to be taken as prescriptive. It seems that narrative that is not in favor of her point is not prescriptive, but narrative that seems to make her point is. Is she that stupid or does she hope we are?

As with much that Powell does, this is half true. History is often just a story about what happened. But not always. There are two reasons to take history as doctrine or commandment:

First, does other Scripture make a direct commandment or a direct statement of doctrine or ethics that agrees with the seeming implication(s) of the story?

Second, does something in the story logically require that the implication(s) of the story be taken as truly biblical doctrine or ethics?

If the answer to either of these questions is "yes," then you have a story with ethical or doctrinal content that is to be taken as true. Paul demonstrates this when he asserts the headship of man based on the Genesis story. Paul’s opinion in I Timothy 2 says that women are to be submissive and quiet in church. So that meets the first criterion listed above. And his reason is the creation order. So that meets the second criterion.

Another glaring contradiction occurs when she says this about the patriarchal nature of spiritual leadership under the Old Covenant:

....There is no divine mandate for it. Women were excluded from the Old Testament Priesthood, but so were many men!"

Huummm....No mandate for male leadership, but women were excluded from God’s priesthood? So just where did the mandate come from? Exodus, if I recall. And did I detect a nanner, nanner, nanner in that last little clause, "but so were many men!"? I think probably so. Her exclamation point after "so were many men" must mean something. It seems Powell has shown the source of her interpretative proclivities.

Finally, on page 90 she writes this about Paul’s writings on the subject in the NT:

In the New Testament Letters there is every indication that any restrictions on women apply within a specific culture and context. Where the particular details of a 1st-century situation differ from ours, it is the principle behind the teaching which is properly binding for all time. Thus, when Paul indicates in 1 Timothy 2 that women should not teach or have authority over men, he is addressing a particular problem of false teaching and wrongful authority in Ephesus. In such a context the women were to stop what they were doing wrong.

This is wrong on so many levels it makes my head hurt. Let’s look at it on a line-by-line basis.

CP (Claire Powell): In the New Testament letters there is every indication that any restrictions on women apply within a specific culture and context.

ANSWER: So name one of those indications. Paul gave reasons that had to do with creation order, not culture or specific situations. I Corinthians 11: 7-9 says, "For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake." And I Timothy 2 : 12-14 says,"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." Of course, maybe these are not the indications Powell was taking about. She must have been kidding about that "every" part.

CP: Thus, when Paul indicates in 1 Timothy 2 that women should not teach or have authority over men, he is addressing a particular problem of false teaching and wrongful authority in Ephesus.

ANSWER: Fine, except that false teaching is not even mentioned in the passage. Wrongful authority is and creation order is.

CP: In such a context the women were to stop what they were doing wrong.

ANSWER: Yes, stop teaching and taking authority over men, like Paul commanded.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Two Whores and a Harem--or--Why I'm Not Sorry For Ted Haggard's Congregation

I'm not sorry for Ted Haggard's congregation. Well...maybe a little. This scandal has to hurt, but they weren't exactly Bereans, either.

Ted Haggard visited a prostitute. Fitting, I think, since he's one himself. He whored out the gopsel of Jesus Christ for popularity and power. He did so by altering the message to comfort the sinful rather than call us to repentance. But his church is filled with people selling their very souls for the gooshy feelings of religiosity without repentance. Instead of the Holy One of Israel, they have loved the Friendly One of Colorado Springs.

Ted sold out for popularity and power. His congregation sold out for gooshy feelings. Only God can decide who is worse.

Praying for repentance,
Phil Perkins--mine, too.

Friday, November 03, 2006

Ted Haggard Didn't Fall.

Ted Haggard didn't fall. He was already in the gutter. We evangelicals simply elevated him and his gutter to pulpit level.

I was not surprised by today's mess in the news about Ted Haggard covorting about with a sodomite prostitute. What did surprise me some time ago was the realization that people who call themselves Christians would actually have anything to do with this man.

However, Haggard has done us all this great favor: he has accurately represented evangelical "Christianity" in America. It is a sewer of lukewarm compromise and half-truth. Haggard once described Evangelicalism as broad enough to reach from Benny Hinn to R. C. Sproul. That statement alone would disqualify him from service in a godly church. Benny Hinn is an apostate. He has also stated publicly that his emphasis will be on the positive, not on negatives like sin and judgment. This, too, should have been a deal killer.

Open heresy will always lead to moral compromise and moral compromise will always lead to open heresy. That is what today's Evangelicalism is all about. We would rather read the Message than the Bible because it can be twisted into almost anything. Bothered by the Bible? No problem reread that passage in the Message. We want to hear about how God will make us rich, not daily self-denial, the mortification of sin, or the fellowship of His suffering.

Take advantage of Haggard's favor. Look into the mirror that is Ted Haggard. Then ask yourself if your attitudes and beliefs are that much different. Then repent. Then call on your friends to repent. Then call on your church to repent.

Repenting of my silence against compromise,
Phil Perkins.