Comments for Of Cabbages and Kings

Comment on My master’s thesis by Paul

Paul — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 03:35:51 +0000

Very impressive thesis, son. Quite a remarkable achievement! Mom and I are very proud of you. Thank you for the dedication, too.

Comment on A Calvary Chapel heretic by Kim

Kim — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:40:50 +0000

You mention you are wary to speak ill of God’s anointed. You would do well to investigate your belief in God’s word as inerrant. If it is inerrant, than we should not accept man’s word which is fallible and place the Holy Scriptures in its light. We should be taking God’s word at what it says. If we are going to question the Genesis creation account, why stop there? Why not question the whole Word? That’s what we do when we try to see the Bible through the glasses of man’s word.
By the way, science – by definition – simply means knowledge. The science we can prove by observation is not in question, e.g. Law of Gravity, etc. We should not be viewing history in light of observational science. The Bible is a book of history. Have you spent any time investigating Answers in Genesis?

Grace & peace to you in the Lord

Comment on Part 2: Sola scriptura? by Denise

Denise — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:16:12 +0000

Looking forward to your next entry…I have been left wanting more :)

Comment on Part 1: The Church founded by Jesus by JC

JC — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:59:59 +0000

“Few Protestant denominations claim to have exclusive ownership of the truth, that their denomination forms the entirety of the true Church founded by Jesus. This, I imagine, is because most Protestants recognize that their particular brand of Christianity can be traced back to the sixteenth century at the earliest, well over a thousand years after the original Christian church formed in Jerusalem.”

This particular point was the cause of reflection for and ultimately the conversion of a good friend of mine. He argued that of all the sects of Christianity, Catholicism alone claimed to hold the fullness of revealed truth and yet to also be universal. To be fair, there are some smaller non-denominational types of church which more-or-less make the same claim to truth (using other words), but these are by no stretch of the imagination universal Churches. They are small and very local, and while they are happy to proselytize, they tend never to grow beyond a particular place.

Then there are the Mormons, who essentially make the same claim for truth and also for universality, but who at the same time are unable to give an account for why revelation stopped for 1800 until the coming of Joseph Smith. Theirs is a fairly unique approach, but they cannot answer the question as to why, if Jesus really is God, He failed to establish a lasting Church–indeed, a Church which lasted beyond the death of the last apostle. How can the Church first established by God fail after less than 100 years, and yet return and grow faithfully for 150 years (and more) when re-established by a mere prophet?

Finally, and perhaps with the most convincing counter-claim to be the true authentic Church, there is the Orthodox Church. Theirs is the hardest claim to refute–they exist in schism and not a a separate Church–so long as we focus on the marks of being one (schism aside), holy, or apostolic. But I think they fail in the mark of being Catholic. To quote from that same friend I mentioned before, “They just sat in their little bubble for a thousand years and did nothing.” To be fair, the converted Russia, but only by nature of winning the Russian Czar; it was not n active attempt at evangelization, as was the early conversion of Constantine the Great by the Church. In the mean time, they more-or-less barred the way against the Catholic missionaries, and lost the southern/eastern-most regions of the Church to the Mohammedans. Nor did they do much to convert the lands to the east–India or China–even after being accepted as the religion of Russia and her provinces. Even today, we hear of missionary successes in Africa by Catholics and Protestants alike–but not by the Orthodox.

Comment on A Calvary Chapel heretic by Phil

Phil — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 04:58:13 +0000

Linda,
I’m not familiar with what you’re referring to, adding the name of Elijah to the book of Revelation. Certainly doing so would be unjustifiable. In any case, I left Calvary Chapel about a year ago. Updates on what has happened since then have been a long time coming, but I’m adding some new posts about it soon.

Comment on A Calvary Chapel heretic by Linda

Linda — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 13:29:23 +0000

Phil, you wrote: I am wary of criticizing the Lord’s anointed leader of my church

Now I ask you if the “Lords annointed” would be found adding the name of Elijah to the book of Revelation in support of their pretrib rupture doctine?

Calvary Chapel claims to be a movement of the Holy Spirit, but you need to ask yourself if it is really of the Spirit that they add to the book of Revelation. Jesus gives His last command in Rev 22:18-19 — ever considered this angle?

What does Jesus warn of in Matthew 7:15? “Watch out for false prophets.”

“by their fruit you will recognize them” Matt 7:20. Violating Jesus’ commands in Rev 22:18-19 is certainly a “fruit” of Calvary Chapel pretrib rupture teachings!

And what does Jesus eventually tell them that do not do the will of the Father, in Matt 7:23? “I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!”

How is their disposition in Matthew 7 any different than the disposition of them that add or subtract from Revelation?

18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. Revelation 22

Comment on Le voyage dans la lune by En voyage

En voyage — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:59:21 +0000

Bravo pour ce post qui se révèle très utile dans mes recherches sur internet. A bientôt.

Comment on How many gods are there? by Cale C

Cale C — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:08:38 +0000

This is really cool! You’re a skilled writer and thinker, Phil. I appreciate this logical approach to faith.

Comment on Some quotes by JC

JC — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:11:34 +0000

Is the first quote a reference to C.S. Lewis’ analogy to Christianity?
“[Mere Christianity] is…like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms….it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in….[While in the hall] you must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all, you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and panelling. In plain language, the question should never be: ‘Do I like that kind of service?’ but ‘Are these doctrines true: Is there holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?’ “

Comment on Le voyage dans la lune by Paul

Paul — Mon, 25 May 2009 06:49:24 +0000

What a weird little movie. I recall having seen at least part of this movie long ago, where the huge gun shoots the capsule to the Moon, hitting the Man in the Moon in the eye. I was wondering how they would get back to Earth, but I see that all you have to do to get back is fall off the edge of the Moon. Very convenient.