What Did He Say?

Ayman al-Zawahri (pictured here) is al-Qaeda's second in command. An article on Foxnews.com quotes this man saying some of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. The article references Zawahri's mockery of a Congressional bill that would set a date for the pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq. Zawahri said (prepare to laugh...hard), "This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap." He went on to say that they are asking Allah to allow the troops to stay until 200,000 to 300,000 are killed.

Fact check:

1. al-Qaeda did not set a trap for us in Iraq.
2. Destroying the American forces in Iraq is an impossibility for the terrorists.

Does anybody else find these statements comical? It sounds to me like a little bit of reverse psychology. I get it Mr. Zawahri, pretend like you're against the troop pull out, then maybe the West will be for it. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Let me put it in perspective here. Just over 3000 U.S. soldiers have been killed since March 2003 when we went into Iraq. I don't count that as a trivial thing at all. God bless their sacrifice and their families. This means we have lost about 750 troops per year in Iraq. At the current rate, that would mean we would have to stay in Iraq for the next 262 years in order for Zawarhi to get his wish of 200,000 (that was the low figure) U.S. casualties. If he really wanted the high figure (300,000 U.S. casualties), that would mean we'd have to stay for another 396 years. Do you think Zawahri and his buddies really want that? I don't think so. He is truly a raving lunatic.

Meet Hiasl

That's pronounced "HEE-zul." This is the animal at the center of an effort being made by activists in Austria to pronounce the chimp a person. If that doesn't cause your jaw to drop the moment you hear that, you have some serious issues. Click here to read the article about Hiasl for yourself. I looked at Dictionary.com to find the definition for the word "person." The first definition goes like this: a human being, whether man, woman, or child. The second definition goes like this: a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. There, that settles it. The chimp is not a person. Hiasl may be an extremely smart animal, but he is not a person.

The "activists" who are fighting on Hiasl's behalf are a part of the human race who have some of the most twisted philosophies on life and morals that you will ever find. They speak of the animal's rights to life, not to be tortured and freedom. Most civilized societies have laws protecting animals from pointless torture. What these "activists" don't realize is that there are millions of people around the world who don't have these rights...and they're fighting for a chimp! Most of the arguments they use to "prove" that Hiasl is a "person" could apply to my old dog. However, it would be quite ridiculous to argue that my dog was a "person."

The part of the article that really fires me up is when it refers to the Seattle-based international initiative called the Great Ape Project. Their goal is to extend "fundamental moral and legal protections" to apes. Isn't it funny how liberals can develop morals so quickly when we're talking about protecting apes. The irony is that we live in a country that doesn't extend "fundamental moral and legal protection" to unborn human beings. We're talking about calling an ape a person before we call an unborn baby a person. Again, if this whole situation doesn't cause your jaw to drop, you've got some serious issues.

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him..." - Genesis 2:27

John Phillips on the Sovereignty of God

I have enjoyed reading John Phillips commentary on Galatians. I'm working on an adult Sunday school series on Galatians and Phillips' commentary has been a help so far. It is the deepest commentary I've read from him to this point. I've learned a great deal about the history of the Galatian region and the origins of the Hebrew Talmud. Those were things I didn't expect to learn about, but I should have known there'd be a few surprises in a 224 page commentary on a book of the Bible that only has 6 short chapters. I wanted to note something here that he wrote regarding the sovereignty of God from Galatians 1:15:

"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace..."

John Phillips wrote:

"At no time, however, did this overruling will of God infringe on Paul's personal sovereignty and accountability as a moral human being. God persuades, but he does not push. He convicts, but He does not coerce. He does not arbitrarily impose His will on the human will. Yet, at the same time, He never loses control of human affairs. His omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience enable Him to gather events into His hands with the greatest ease. From our perspective, events take place in a time sequence because we live in a time sequence, but God transcends time. He lives in the eternal present tense of time. He is the I AM. From God's standpoint, all of the events of time take place simultaneously. God can call the things that are not as though they are, because He does not have to wait for the future to reveal the end of a sequence of events nor wait for a specific moment of time to come before imposing His will upon that moment."

I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Phillips. A Calvinist would choke at these statements and, quite frankly, that's fine. I have been reading many arguments regarding Calvinism lately and I find that the more I read their arguments the more I am settled on the fact that I disagree with that theological system. The most interesting thing I found regarding Dr. Phillips' statements is that I have been thinking about this same thing for a long time. He mentioned that God "lives in the eternal present tense of time." If a Calvinist would grasp that and apply that to the Bible, all of the verses they use to argue God's sovereignty in salvation would suddenly have quite a different meaning. I've been working on a thesis, of sorts, regarding Calvinism to post on this blog. I was going to mention something in that post nearly identical to what Dr. Phillips wrote here.

As I have looked at both sides of the argument I have learned a great deal, especially where I should stand on the matter. Stay tuned for that post. Until then, ponder this thought.

The Passing of a Great Man

Dr. Lee Roberson passed away on Sunday. I had the privilege of hearing him preach one time while I was in college at WCBC. God certainly used this man in a great way. Several mightily used men of God have died in the last few years and it's a reminder to me that my generation must pick up the torch. I'm also reminded that I don't have forever to serve the Lord.

Dr. Roberson influenced me through his influence on others. I wish I would have had the opportunity to be mentored by him in a greater way. I'm thankful to God for the testimony and service of this dear man.

Seeing is Believing

Well, maybe not. But seeing a replica of Noah's Ark sure might cause a few people to rethink their doubt regarding God's Word and the history of the world. Click here to read an article about a new "exhibit" that opened in the Netherlands this week. A man has built a full scale model of Noah's Ark and opened it as a public attraction. Notice in the picture how truly massive it is. It took the man about 2 years to build it. He built the vessel to the exact Biblical measurements of 150 cubits long, 30 cubits high and 20 cubits wide.

I know the Bible says that "faith is the substance of things hoped for" and "the evidence of things not seen," but it's really kind of cool to see what the Ark might have actually looked like. If I ever go to the Netherlands, I know what I'm going to go see!

The Power of the Blog

As I have journeyed further into the world of the blogosphere, I have thoroughly enjoyed my experience. I like having a place to put my thoughts where they might have the chance to influence someone else. The blog greatly enhances your circle of influence.

I also like being influenced by the writing and thoughts of others. I love reading blogs authored by people who see things the way I do. What really surprises me is how much I like reading the blogs of those who see things differently than I do. I am not afraid at all of hearing the arguments behind philosophies or beliefs that I might disagree with. If someone can prove to me that I'm wrong about something, I have no problem with that. I want to know where I am wrong. Blogs are shaping everything from the way people get news to the way people understand theology to the way people view government. I like to see my views supported by some bloggers and I like to see my views challenged by others. Either way, I grow. I sure don't mind learning more about why I believe what I believe. I also like being challenged about my beliefs. If I can't defend what I believe, then what are those beliefs really worth?

I've also enjoyed the opportunity to get to know people I would never have had the opportunity to meet otherwise. Everybody I've met so far has a great attitude about what they write and comment about. Even people I disagree with are almost always nice about it.

If you don't read blogs, I'd challenge you to start. (Of course, you are reading this blog right now...I mean if you don't read them regularly.) I would give you one word of caution: if you don't know what you believe and why you believe it, be careful about what you read. You will find some good arguments for things that are untrue. Also, if you don't have a blog, start one. The same word of caution applies there too. Don't start putting things on the internet for all to read unless you are sure about them.

The blog has great influence and I'm enjoying it so far.

Guns and the VT Massacre

I never did write anything on this blog about the Virginia Tech massacre. It was an absolutely horrible and tragic event. I was waiting for the gun control crowd to go on a rampage after the fact and they certainly have. Common sense is rarely involved when the liberal left rants about issues like this. I personally own a Glock 19, one of the same weapons used in the VT massacre. I like my gun! I am also thankful that I live in a country where I can legally own a firearm. Here is a post regarding gun control that brings common sense back into the picture in a hilarious way. It's funny because liberal minds can't grasp simple truths like these.

Spiritual Authority by Watchman Nee

I have never read anything by Watchman Nee before I started reading this book. It was recommended to me by a pastor who has been in the ministry for over 40 years. He said it was the best book on authority he had ever read. That was enough for me to pick it up and take a look. I have only read the first two chapters. I have to say that I thoroughly enjoy the writing of this author. The reading is fairly easy, yet very intense. You can immediately tell this man was serious about his walk with God and the ministry. It seems like every paragraph is loaded with profound truth. Any preacher would find the book worthwile simply for its quotability. Here are some of the quotes that really jumped out at me as I read. Remember, these are all from just the first two chapters.

"Please take note that Satan is not afraid of our preaching the word of Christ, yet how very much he is in fear of our being in subject to Christ."

"We preach the gospel in order to bring men into God's authority..."

"We do not obey man but God's authority in that man."

"Before a man can subject himself to God's delegated authority he must first meet God's inherent authority."

"To overthrow God's authority is to overthrow God."

"The work of redemption is to bring us back to the place where we will now find our right and wrong in God."

I Will Build My Church

"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." - Matthew 16:13-18

This is certainly a very powerful and well known passage of Scripture. It contains great truth and great doctrine. I honestly can't remember ever hearing a message preached from this passage directly, but I know I have heard it referenced many times in sermons throughout the years.

The most common thoughts I hear regarding this passage is how the Catholic church has twisted this passage to make Peter out to be the first pope of the church. I've never personally heard a Catholic refer to this passage when talking about the origins of the papacy, but I know how many other doctrines they've twisted, so I wouldn't put something like that past them for a moment. Every Baptist preacher I've ever heard mention this passage in that way always refers to the fact that Peter was the "little stone" and that he is not the foundation for the church. The next statement is usually something along the lines of Jesus speaking of Himself when talking about the rock on which He would build His church. I'm pretty sure I've made these statements before in a message that I've preached. I don't have any problem with them at all.

A thought came to my mind tonight as I heard these statements made again in a message. I don't believe it's wrong to say that Jesus was pointing to Himself and making it obvious to His listeners that He was the rock on which the church would be built. The fact is, we simply don't know that's the case. Again, there's nothing wrong with assuming something like that. That assumption wouldn't contradict the Bible in any way. Ephesians 2:20 speaks of "...Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone..." of the church. He is certainly the foundation of the church.

My thought was this: rather than assume something that we can't know for sure, why not look at the actual context of the passage and see if we can determine what Jesus is talking about. In vs. 13, Jesus asks His disciples who other people say that He is. They give him the list in vs. 14. Jesus then asks His disciples who they think He is in vs. 15. Of course, Peter is the one to speak up and he gives the perfect answer. He tells Jesus that He is the Christ and the Son of God in vs. 16. Jesus obviously approves of the answer and tells Peter that God had revealed that to him. That makes sense because nobody recognizes Jesus for who He really is unless the Father reveals it to Him.

It is in the context of this conversation, and specifically this truth, that Jesus speaks of the rock on which He will build His church. Is it possible that He was not speaking of Himself as the rock, but rather the truth that He is the Christ and the Son of the living God? Think about it.

NBA Playoffs!

It's the best time of the year! The NBA playoffs started today! The last week or so has been kind of boring as teams like the Mavs and Suns had already locked up their seeding. Now I don't have to watch baseball or playoff hockey! There will be basketball on every day! I'm taking the next several weeks off from playing golf because of a bad habit I've developed in my swing. The timing is perfect. I can take the next few weeks to watch basketball.

I'll root for the Suns or the Mavs. If it comes down to those two teams in the Western Conference finals, I'll have to root for the Suns. First of all, the Mavs got their shot last year. Secondly, the Mavs have a better chance of getting back to the finals after this year. Steve Nash isn't getting any younger. This is the Suns year. It better be, because they may not have another one.