|
|
USER COMMENTS BY “ MARTIN ” |
|
|
| Page 1 | Page 5 · Found: 167 user comments posted recently. |
|  | |  |
|
|
 1/9/14 3:17 PM |
| Martin | | Texas | |  |  |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Just finished reading David Horowitz's booklet entitled, Barack Obama's Rules for Revolution: the Alinksy Model." It sounds like of people in our government right now-- perhaps this judge, as well-- are following the Alinksy model for bringing about social change. They using the power of public office to 'destroy' existing social structures, values and norms, in order to impose new ones. Their whole goal is the destroy the status quo in order to bring about in a revolutionary manner the type of classless, morally libertine, socialist utopia they want to see, by whatever means it takes (in their view, the end justifies the means-- and that means using the law as a tool to undermine and destroy the rule of law.) That is exactly what I see happening with a ruling like this one-- a judge using the power of his judicial office like a wrecking ball, to destroy social order and bring about social and moral chaos. Little wonder that Alinsky dedicated his main book to Lucifer, the model 'rebel.' |
|
|
| 10/18/13 7:55 AM |
| Martin | | Texas | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
There is such a broad range of people who identify themselves as Charismatic, it is hard to lump them all together. I have friends call themselves as "Charismatic Reformed" Christians. In practice, it seems to me their theology differs little from that of Martin Lloyd-Jones, since they never have any distinctively Charismatic features in the worship service of their church-- no tongues, prophecies, healings, etc. Their position is basically that God may give miraculous gifts in the present day, but that it is left to His sovereign will. On the other hand, there are those who believe Christians should actively 'seek' the extraordinary gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians, and if these are lacking in a church, something is wrong-- the church is quenching the Holy Spirit. It is this latter group I consider the most extreme, for they make no distinction at between what was normative in the apostolic era and what is normative today. Calvin speaks of 'traces or shades' of the apostolic gifts remaining in the church, though he clearly believes that revelatory gifts have ceased to be normative, now that the canon of Scripture is closed. We surely must guard against lumping together in the same box all who regard themselves as in some sense 'non-cessationist.' There are various views. |
|
|
| 9/30/13 12:46 AM |
| Martin | | Texas | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Paul's argument in Romans 1 is that God judged people for their rejection of the one true and living God by giving them over to a form of sexual behavior that is contrary to God's design. Because of a sinful exchange men made-- they exchanged the glory of God for an image in the form of corruptible birds,beasts, etc.-- God judged by handing them over to another "exchange"-- men exchanged the natural use of the woman and burned in their lust for one another. This language of 'exchange' shows that for Paul, it is the act of homosexual copulation itself that is a violation of the natural order and, therefore, under God's judgment. Moreover, it is an exceedingly unhealthy and dangerous form of conduct physically, for unless some type of prophylactic device is used male homosexual copulation will lead inevitably to disease and death. The perpetrator of such acts exposes himself to potentially fatal disease, and it is just as certain that no new life will ever be conceived through such deviant sexual activity. It leads to death for all involved, and never to life. Matthew Vines is a false prophet, therefore, who is twisting crystal clear Scriptural passages to deceive people. May the Word of God itself expose his hypocrisy and his lies. |
|
|
| 9/18/13 5:16 PM |
| Martin | | Texas | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
God can establish a certain "law" (a designated pattern of behavior, conduct, motion, operation that created objects follow generally) without having His hands tied from setting aside that law at will. We can like this to traffic laws. The highway department places traffic signs that establish a designated pattern for the flow of traffic (laws), but a traffic cop can set aside that pattern at will in order to direct traffic to flow contrary to what the signs say. That's what I mean by 'law'-- a regular pattern of motion, etc., to which created objects generally conform in their ordinary operation. Such laws are descriptive, however, not prescriptive apart from God, who is free to set them aside at His pleasure whenever He chooses to do so. I have no problem with the terms law in this 'descriptive' sense. If you don't like that term, however, I won't argue with you over an issue of semantics. We both agree that God establishes regular patterns in the natural world that created objects generally follow-- for example, a beam of light generally travels at the same speed, but God can set aside that pattern at will. The existence of regularities makes the universe a livable place and bears witness to the wisdom of God. But natural 'laws' are subject to God's sovereign will. |
|
|
| 9/18/13 3:28 PM |
| Martin | | Texas | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
By order, I mean evidence of design, purpose, rationality in the natural world, and that obviously includes "regularities" in nature that make it possible for us to function in the world, to develop technologies, etc. I know that if I want to go through a door, I have to turn the doorknob and push or pull. Unless the door is locked or stuck, it will open, as a general rule. Our experience of the world around us leads us to expect future regularity corresponding to past regularity. These regularities are often called laws, and I have no trouble with the concept of natural law, if we understand that term in the Christian sense of being descriptive, not prescriptive-- as describing what DOES occur in our experience, not what MUST occur because miracles are deemed impossible. Deists believe even God Himself cannot set aside so-called 'natural law" because they view the universe as a 'closed,' not an 'open' system. I believe the regularities we experience are evidence of a rational ordered mind behind the universe, but they are not evidence that the universe is 'closed' to God's miraculous activity, (which is what the Deist believes, and the secularist who embraces materialistic naturalism.) They have no warrant to regard natural laws as immutable. Only God is immutable. |
|
|
| 9/16/13 10:25 PM |
| Martin | | Texas | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Actually, Paul says that "God's invisible attributes are clearly SEEN, being understand through the things that are made. . ." The "things that are made" include such things as the visible heavens, according to Psalm 19. "The heavens declare the glory of God. . ." To a blind man, the heavens declare nothing, because he cannot see them. But to someone who has eyes and who sees the heavens, they do declare God's glory. How? By "showing" God's handiwork through the sense of sight. You cannot look at the heavens and not realize that they were made by a God of glory. The atmosphere does exhibit order, in fact, insofar as it contains the exact quantity of components to sustain life on our planet, in connection with other 'fine-tuned' features of the earth-- such its distance from the sun. All these features exhibit order-- and I stand by my claim that the two dictionary definitions of 'order' I gave are objective, clear, and easy to understand. How God reveals His moral standards to men through creation is not explained in Scripture, but it isn't hard to see how people through the light of reason and conscience would simply "know" that God's purpose for sex is heterosexual, simply by observing the self-evident design of the reproductive organs. |
|
|
| 9/14/13 3:38 PM |
| Martin | | Texas | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
We all know what order is, even if we have trouble defining it. One dictionary defines order as "a condition in which every part or piece is in its right place." Another definition says that order is "a condition in which there is a methodical, proper, or harmonious arrangement of things." Language exhibits order. Just take the words of any sentence and rearrange them arbitrarily, and the sentence will no longer "make sense." Put each word in its proper place, and the entire sentence will then communicates a meaningful message. The universe exhibits such order-- take the DNA molecule-- the proteins in that molecule are arranged in a way that 'makes sense' thus exhibiting rationality and order in the material universe. I cannot take seriously, therefore, anyone who denies order in the universe, for one can only make that denial by putting words in an orderly arrangement. If one says, "There is no proof of order in the universe," such a statement can be made only by putting words in a certain order, which shows that the speaker believe he is living in the same orderly universe as his hearers. People are 'without excuse,' therefore, who deny God as the source of the order they cannot help but observe and which they cannot even deny, except by forming an orderly sentence. |
|
|
| 9/13/13 10:15 PM |
| Martin | | Texas | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Neil,
Why do you equate an ordered, rational universe with a universe that is uniform in all times and in all places? I do not make that equation at all. An orderly, rational universe is simply one that demonstrates order and rationality in its design and function, and I take it as a self-evident truth of general revelation and a clear affirmation of Scripture that the universe God created is orderly and rational in that sense. Thus, we do not only learn that God exists from the Bible, but from the creation itself, which speaks loudly and clearly to every human being about the existence of God, EVEN APART FROM THE BIBLE. That's why all idolaters are without excuse-- even those who have never had any access to the Bible. The universe itself testifies to the certain existence of a rational Creator by virtue of its rational design. Now, as far as uniformity goes, although the universe exhibits a measure of uniformity, insofar as we experience it, we know that uniformity is contingent, not absolute-- dependent at every moment on the sovereign will of God, who orders all things. The universe is not a closed system, but one that lies totally open to the will of the sovereign, miracle-working God of the universe at all times and in all places. |
|
|
| 8/3/13 9:31 AM |
| Martin | | Texas | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
If a godly respect for people requires us to "think and speak respectfully of other religions and their followers, and to avoid ridiculing and denigrating their convictions and practices," then the Old Testament prophets, John the Baptist, and Jesus all failed miserably to show godly respect to people-- for they brought the sharpest rebuke against all religions based on a denial of truth. The prophets repeatedly "denigrated and ridiculed" the insanity of idol worship, and Jesus uttered scathing criticism of the Pharisees for their religion of man-made traditions which they used as a cloak to hide their hypocrisy and to turn people away from Christ. The fact is, no true Christian can "speak well" of any religion based on the denial of Christ's Person and saving work. Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, and other religions that deny Christ as the only Savior must be "exposed" as the paths of darkness they are, not commended as wonderful religious systems worthy of praise and respect. Political correctness should play no part in the way that Christians deal with people of other religions. Though we should always respect people as people, we must speak the truth in love concerning the need for people to turn from false religious systems to Christ alone for salvation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
