If Only He Could Write It Now

Luke 16:23 KJV
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments ....

I recently read a man's last post to his blog chronicling his fight with cancer and the face of death. He had written the blog with instructions to his family to post it as his last, after he had died. And my heart broke for his wife and children who followed his wishes even after he was gone. I can only imagine the pain they must experience with this loss. Having tried to help many many families through their suffering in this time of loss, I know that each family, and most members of the family, must grieve and process their loss in their own way. I long for this family to find peace and hope in the face of loss.

The blogger wrote positively about his death. But he did not write biblically. In fact, that was the point of the blog. It was his final statement of rejection of Bible truth. He said he had simply ceased, like a frog or some other lower life form, when his last breath was taken, he was not merely gone from his body, he was gone completely. He assured his readers that he felt neither joy or pain, eternal bliss or judgment. Speaking, as he imagined he was, from the grave, he asserted that he had no thought, no consciousness, no afterlife.

Here is the trouble; he had no experienced death when he wrote with such assurance about what happens after death. He did not know what was beyond the grave, if anything was beyond the grave.

Only one man has ever gone to the grave and returned to tell us certainly what lies beyond the grave. Jesus Christ did die, was buried and three days and night later, rose again. And Jesus Christ affirms that there is life after death for both those who believe and those who do not.

Oh, how my heart is burdened for those who have lost loved ones to the grave. But there is no assurance in wishful thinking. Only established fact can comfort us at the graveside. And the established fact is that Jesus died, was buried and rose again, and those who place saving faith in Him are promised eternal heaven. Those who do not, are condemned already.

Spurgeon's, "A Defense of Calvinism"

I am writing this piece in response to a comment posted on one of my messages posted on YouTube[1]. In the message I make mention of Spurgeon being considered "the prince of preachers". Interestingly my remark in this particular message is not necessarily a positive one, but meant to make a comparison to a more modern preacher. Anyway, someone took exception and left a comment that Spurgeon was a Calvinist, that he had written a book entitled "A Defense of Calvinism" and that Spurgeon was the "prince of Devils". 

I see absolutely no purpose for the spirit of a remark like that. The heart of some people is filled with such vitriol that it is no wonder many in the world dislike Christians. Some Christians make it a point to be dislikeable. 

I am no Calvinist. I am thoroughly convinced that Christ's death on the Cross was sufficient for salvation of every human being in the world for all of the time of the world. God would have all men to be saved. Christ's work is able to save all who come to Him. The conviction of the Holy Spirit extends to all men. 

I am no Calvinist. I am as opposed to the reformers doctrine as to the papal traditions. I do not question their sincerity, but sincerity is not the target. Truth is the mark we are going for. That is a mark the Protestants of every stripe fell far short of. Had they desired the truth they could have come out of Catholicism and united with the Anabaptists that were all around them. They did not for two very telling reasons:

The Anabaptist faith was much too strict for them. They could not see how a church could survive with such high standards for its people.

The Anabaptist conviction of separation of church and state was incomprehensible to them. They could not envision a church surviving without the aide of the government.

I am no Calvinist.

But neither am I an opponent of a man like Spurgeon. 

Since the person commenting on my message brought up Spurgeon's book, "A Defense of Calvinism" I looked it up and read it.[2] 

First, it is not a book, but a very short piece. I can't imagine this person could have even skimmed it and still called it a book.

Second, it is hardly a defense of Calvinism. Spurgeon does clearly call himself a Calvinist, but he calls Calvinism a nickname. He does not see himself in a Calvinist movement and does not align himself with the Protestant Calvin. Spurgeon does identify himself as a Baptist in the piece but, like most Baptists in England in that era, saw Calvinism as a doctrinal position and not a Protestant movement.

Thirdly, Spurgeon does not, in this piece, connect himself with the egregious doctrines of Calvinism but very clearly planned the piece to defend only one doctrine associated with Calvinism, that of eternal security. Only the most ardent Arminian would have any objection to that.

·      There is no mention of total depravity

·      There is no mention of unconditional election

·      There is no mention of limited atonement

·      There is no mention of irresistible grace

He does speak of the doctrine of election but there is nothing of choosing some for hell. Spurgeon defines Calvinism as, "… one who says, Salvation of the Lord." If this were all that is Calvinism today, I would have little objection to the doctrine and only object to its association to a man rather than the Bible.

I confess it once again. I am no Calvinist. But neither do I see Spurgeon as a devil

Marvin McKenzie

In the Fields

---

[1] www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsTp3lSr2RU&list=UULxzDGVFHvCIubQoIrZCjsA

[2] www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/A%20Defense%20of%20Calvinism%20by%20Spurgeon.pdf, Accessed 11-4-14

Knowledge, Academics and Leadership

I listened to a man today make the statement that we have plenty of knowledge in the pastorate today, but we have a dearth of leadership. The statement makes some sense when a person realizes where this, now pastor, comes from. The man has no formal Bible training but does have an extensive and successful background in fast food restaurant management. Having managed a large number of McDonalds restaurants as well as Cinnabon stores, both throughout the United States and internationally - he considers himself a successful leader. Having witnessed many years of church planting conferences and hearing the stories of men who more or less thought of themselves as a failure in the ministry, this man, a leader in the corporate world, concluded that their failure was due to a lack of corporate leadership skills. These skills he now believes he can and should pass down to future independent Baptist pastors.

First, I do not fault his passion for both reaching lost people and helping preachers do well. It is heartbreaking at times to hear men express their desperation for the resources to care for themselves and their families as they attempt to serve the Lord. How can we ever give enough money to fully alleviate the needs of so many families do without so much?

Secondly, I recognize that some of my dispute with this manager/pastor could be labelled by some as mere semantics. I certainly do not discount the necessity of leadership in the ministry and I would be the first to decry to idolatry of academia in the pulpit. We are on the same page Brother!

However, I contend that there is more than semantics at work here; there is a rudimentary difference in the philosophy of ministry:

• The one making the ministry a mere product of man.
• The other recognizing that the ministry is about the calling and gifting of God

If all the pastorate needs is to learn how to manage a McDonalds in order to be a successful pastor, is the church a work of God or a mere marketing outlet? What is the difference between the philosophy so criticized in independent Baptist circles, of Bill Hybels' seeker friendly churches and this pastor’s “have it led way” Baptist churches?

I agree; we don’t really need more academics. Whether a preacher can define homiletics and hermeneutics is irrelevant. But knowledge, true wisdom, is an entirely different matter altogether. 2 Peter 3:18 KJV does say,

But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
This knowledge is different than academics. This is the intimate knowledge of God. It is developed not through leadership but through true theology, the study of and the getting to know our God. 

We have helped no one if all we have done is assemble a congregation and make them feel well cared for and like they fit in to the community of the church (and I suggest that is a reasonable definition of the function of leadership). No sir! The preacher’s job; the pastor’s duty, is to lead the flock of God to still waters and green pastures where they may be satisfied in Christ. No shepherd can do that unless he knows where those green pastures and pools of fresh water are found and he cannot know that unless he has, himself, been refreshed there.

  

The Death of a Celebrity

Like many my age we well remember the immensely popular Mork and Mindy show. I was a very young adult, just graduated from High School, just beginning life on my own, not yet a Christian, when the show was on the air. When I became a Christian I admittedly struggled for a time missing Mork and Mindy to attend the Wednesday night prayer service at the little church I had recently been baptized into. Upon surrendering to preach I headed to Bible College and, thrilled, became a member of a local Baptist Church in none other than Boulder, CO. I couldn't wait to see all the sights that were a part of the Mork and Mindy program. (The real news about Boulder while I lived there was the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.)

Television and the entertainment industry soon became a fading interest to me as I grew in my studies of the Word of God and interest in the ministry. I have seen very few of Williams' works after Mork and Mindy. Still, he holds a fascination for me because of that piece of influence in my life so many years ago. That a man who seemed that successful, that happy and that energetic would be so depressed as to take his own life is, it seems to me, a warning to us all.

There have been and I am sure will continue to be much published on the subjects of depression and suicide in the wake of his death. (It hasn't even yet been officially ruled a suicide.) Some of what I have seen has emphasized that depression is a disease and that his suicide was the result of the disease. Others have emphatically called it a choice. Some of focused on the pain he must have endured to come to the place that he would do this thing. Others have focused on the selfishness of this act and the pain he has now inflicted on those who loved him. Some have speculated - sometimes insisting to know the answer - as to whether he is presently in heaven or in hell. Some have highlighted the spiritual implications of this act while others have denied there are spiritual implications. Some have declared that they have the answer (Jesus Christ) for the depressed person. Others have pointed out that Williams was himself a professing Christian, a member of the Episcopalian denomination. I record here my own thoughts on the subjects of depression and suicide:

1. Depression is not a choice but rather the default position of any human being.

• We are born at odds with God
• We are corrupted and thus never do anything as well as we would like
• We are the object of God's love and therefore the object of Satan's hatred

Everyone goes through some form of depression at some time in their life. Some people suffer from it more than others. 

2. Life choices may both compound the frequency of depression and intensify the sense of failure.

Lifestyle choices involving drugs, alcohol and promiscuity only compound the sense of corruption that we have all been born with.

3. Life choices also leave us more vulnerable to Satanic attacks. 

We are told in the Bible to be sober and vigilant against our adversary the devil. To choose to ignore that instruction is to put ourselves at risk.

4. Satan's objective for each human being is our destruction.

Depression is gateway to that destruction. It robs us of hope and opens the door to the possibility of ending the despair through the ending of life.

5. A Christian profession is not the cure of depression and suicide.

Christianity frequently makes the problem worse by simply telling you that it is a Christian sin to be depressed and to finalize depression through suicide.

6. Christian faith is the antidote for both depression and suicide.

Not however the profession of faith, but the practice of faith. Faith is an exercise much like that of losing and controlling one's weight. Making the decision to lose weight doesn't necessarily mean you will do it, and even if you do what is necessary to lose the weight, it will not come off suddenly. It is a process involving changes of lifestyle choices. In order to lose weight we must stop putting some things in our life and we must begin adding other things to our life. Christian joy and hope are much the same. In order to maintain that hope and joy, in order to protect those things from the snares of Satan some things have to be removed from our lives and other things must be added. Once joy and hope are obtained, they must then be guarded or else they will be lost just as some people lose weight only to regain it again once they have stopped doing what they did to lose it.

The debates and conversations will continue as to whether Robin Williams' was a victim of depression or the result of a selfish choice. I believe there was a choice made, or rather, choices; but they were made long before the final act was accomplished. 

The Destructive Catch in the Church

There is a destructive catch that occurs in most churches. On the one hand, the members of a church need their pastor to give them quality, substantive, "meaty" messages. The majority of the members would acknowledge that to be the case. On the other hand these same church members also wish their pastor to be a physical and material support for them.

• They want him to listen to their problems
• They want him to encourage their children
• They want him to attend their functions
• They want him to be there for them to lean upon

This is where the catch arises. The same man is not capable of doing both duties. If he performs the "pastoral care" function to the best of his abilities, he will certainly lessen the quality of his pulpit work. This lesser pulpit work will render the congregation that much more needy if his "pastoral care". But if he focuses on the pulpit work the congregation is likely to respond by either moving to a more pastoral church or else they will be critical of their pastor and refuse him the impact in their lives he ought to have.

Some churches have overcome this destructive catch by assigning a pulpit pastor and a pastoral staff for the personal ministries. The Bible's answer is the office of the deacon. While the preacher dedicates himself to prayer and the ministry of the Word, the deacons serve for the support and, if I may, "pastoral care" functions of the ministry.

But this is a difficult stage for a church to attain. The congregation often sees this care ministry as such a prime feature of the pastor that they expect his presence and participation even with a fully functioning deacon ministry. Further, those chosen as deacons are often not compelled toward or gifted in the ministry of care as they ought to be. The result is a crippled church longing to be effective but having created its own hobbles to prevent it.

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

Always Sick

• Some people are always "sick"(psychosomatic)
• Some people use illness as their excuse to stay away from God
• Some people are more prone to illness because they are seldom exposed to germs
  
  

Very few employers could afford to have their employees stay home every time they get sick. Families would suffer incredibly if every bread winner stayed home every time they got sick. Satan will help you get sick if that will keep you from the house of God.

For years I woke up sick every Sunday. It was the pressure of the ministry I was about to have to do. It was Satan's way of trying to prevent me from preaching. One Sunday I woke up complaining about not feeling well. Anita told me that I was sick every Sunday. She was right; I had just not put it together in my brain. From that day on I began rebuking the feelings of illness on Sunday and ignoring them. Eventually I stopped feeling sick on Sundays.

I beg God that people get spiritually tough enough to come to church instead of letting illness keep them home.[1]

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

---

[1] Of course I make an exception for those contagious diseases that are more dangerous

Islam and Christianity are not Equal Faiths

Islam should not be given equal standing with Christianity in free lands such as America because Islam and Christianity are not equal faiths. 

By far the larger number of the world's population are Muslims but that is not because the faith of Islam is more spiritually compelling. It is because the Islamic religion gives no options for those who live in Islamic dominated countries. 

Over a millennia of experience with Islam has demonstrated that it is a faith that usurps control over governments and that, in those places where it controls the government, it forces itself upon its citizens. It is not a developing religion but a degenerating one. It has not led to the greater good of its followers but the greater sorrow. On the other hand, though Christian history has its own black mark with attempts to own governments and force itself on people:

• There was always a branch of Christians[1] who held that forced religion is opposed to the teaching of our Bible
• The influence of the Bible in places such as England and especially America, led to the Protestant conclusion of liberty of conscience[2] 

Christianity and Islam are not equal religions because Christianity provides that a man is free to disbelieve and so practice no faith if he chooses. Islam provides no such liberty. 

Christianity and Islam are not equal because Christianity insists the weapons of our warfare are not carnal. We advance our faith only with the Word of God, prayer and the help of God's Holy Spirit. Islam, to this very day, does not hesitate to use any carnal weapon it can get its hands upon:

• Guns
• Bombs
• Rocket launchers
• Mortars and even
• Jet airliners

to advance its religion upon the masses. 

Christianity and Islam are not equal and should therefore not be given equal standing among free people.

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

---

[1] The Anabaptists and later Baptists.

[2] A position the Baptists had held all along and were finally successful in convincing the fathers of this land concerning.

Cultivating Body Soul and Spirit

Luke 2:52 KJV

And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Several years ago now I accepted this passage as a challenge from God's Word concerning the areas I ought to grow. Using the tri part nature of man: body, soul and spirit, as identified in Luke 2:52, I began consciously cultivating my personal life in these three areas:

I. BODY

The body is that part of our being that responds to our world and its surroundings. It is the only one of the three parts of the saved man that has not been redeemed as of yet. It awaits its redemption at the resurrection. My spirit is in constant strife with my flesh. The following are those areas I have targeted for personal growth.

A. Humility

     Meekness of Moses

     Exercising contemplation when we are humbled or humiliated by someone or something. Allowing that event to be a learning opportunity in our life.

 

B. Confession

     Awareness of sin

     Acknowledge that before God

C. Discipline

     In what is eaten

     In exercise

     In work

II. SOUL

I identified this as that part of man which responds to others. Based on that assumption I put together these areas to target for personal growth.

A. Education 

  Rhetoric

     The art of communication in a convincing manner. 

  Logic

     The ability to see an event, hear a verbal communication or read a paper and come to accurate conclusions is a skill that must be developed

  Language

     Learning the rules of our language well is essential in communication. 

B. Accountability

  Manners

     This speaks to how others perceive you.

   Attitude

     This speaks to how you perceive the events of life

  Personal Growth and development

     This speaks to commitment to your relationships with others

C. Generosity

     Ministry to others

          Whether it is spiritual or by meeting a real need of another soul

     Concern for others

          Thoughtfulness. Being aware of another's place in life; their feelings, their preferences, their background, their special days such as birthdays and anniversaries, their strengths and their weaknesses

     Communication with others

          More than awareness, communication reaches out. If it is a birthday, an expression given toward them. If it is the anniversary of the passing of a loved one, a condolence. etc

III. SPIRIT

This is the part of man that communes with God. It is dead prior to salvation but is quickened at the moment of salvation. While my targets here might seem smaller than the other two, this in fact is the most critical of my personal growth plan.

A. Prayer

     Journal

     List and log of requests and answers

B. Bible comprehension and practice 

     Daily reading

     Daily study

     Daily meditation

C. Church

     Faithfulness in attendance

     Participation and interaction with the people and the flow of the services

     Service purposeful ministry within the church

     Outreach planned efforts to take the gospel message to others outside of the church through visitation, tract distribution, personal invitations, door to door ministry

While I cannot say that I have attained even a modest degree of perfection in any of these areas, I can testify to faithfully working toward these growth targets and to being blessed by the doing of it.

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

What If the Vast Majority of Christians....Aren't?

2 Timothy 4:10

"Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world"

Like every American I've always wanted to be successful. So when God called me to be a preacher I naturally wanted to be successful in the ministry. I went to college to learn doctrine and pastoring skills. Early on I began subscribing to journals, papers and other periodicals to learn what made for a successful ministry. I attended pastor's meetings, hanging on every word that was spoken, especially by those I perceived to be successful pastors. I read surveys, polls and studies on what made churches grow. I recorded plans in the flyleaf of my Bible so I would be reminded to work the plan every day. I read up on why people go to church, attempting to implement as many compelling tools to bring people in as I could.

As time went on I also read the studies about why people leave churches. If we open the front door to let them in, it makes sense we would want to close the back door to keep them from quitting. I've wanted to keep the seniors who just love the old school way of doing things. I've wanted to keep the young couples who have vision and energy and drive and I've wanted to keep the teens and young adults who are just beginning to try their own wings and tend to question things. What I have noticed now is a trend among members of churches (and not just the pollsters) to establish blame for those who leave churches upon some flaw in the church or church leadership. It's not just the church leaders who are trying to figure out how to keep people in church (and blaming themselves for not succeeding) it's the church members blaming the church and its leaders for the failure. 

To be sure there is plenty of failure and therefore plenty of room for blame. No one does ministry perfectly. No one has, no one ever will. But this blaming mentality, I think, is very much related to the victim mentality that is taking over America. We blame all of our problems on someone else: our parents, our teachers, our peers and our economy; you name it, if we have a problem, it's someone else's fault. 

I notice that when Demas forsook Paul, Paul blamed it on Demas. It wasn't Paul's leadership style. It wasn't a problem of structure in the administration of his evangelistic team. Paul did not even blame the problem on the circumstances of his being in prison and upcoming execution. Paul said Demas forsook him because Demas loved something else.

What if that is to blame for those who leave church? What if the problem is not the failure to pass on our vision, or the failure to communicate to a younger generation, or the failure to adequately anticipate and answer their questions? What if the real problem is not that we failed to plan or failed to work our plan? What if the trouble was not that we did not effectively administer a Sunday school program for all ages? What if it wasn't because we were perceived to lack compassion while they were sick? What if a better discipleship class and follow up ministry isn't the reason they quit coming? What if they quit coming because they loved something else more?

What if they just didn't believe?

I have followed Christ now for over thirty for years. I never began following because I liked the church programs. The church I began in didn't have any. I didn't begin because I thought church would help my marriage. I was single. I didn't start going to church to overcome an addiction or sin problem, though I had them. I began attending church because I believed. 

• I believed I was a sinner
• I believed all sinners would go to hell
• I believed God loved me enough that Christ died to pay for my sins
• I believed that when I called upon Him, He in fact saved me from my sins
• I believed I was, and still am a debtor to Christ for that

I believed when I made my faith public and entered into the covenant with other members in a local church, I was making a life long commitment

I believed.

I still believe. 

There is a problem with my proposition; while faith is passed from one person to the next, I cannot make anyone believe. There are no classes that can teach how to convince someone to believe. There is no conference that can show us how to so order circumstances that those involved with believe. That a person believes is a gift of God. I can present my faith to them. I can pray for them. I can urge them to come to Christ for salvation.  But I can't call them to believe.

And that doesn't sell well in the success game.

The answer as I see it is not an easy one to swallow. We must accept that the vast majority of people attending our churches are, in fact, not genuine believers. They came to church and to their "faith" for all the wrong reasons and have trusted in all the wrong things. They attend church and practice faith because of what they love:

• They love a sense of community
• They love a solid family
• They love the security of a dynamic pastor

But sometimes those things fail them. Sometimes those things are less satisfying that they originally thought they would be. Sometimes their children, their spouse, their most valued friends turn out to love others things more.

We must redefine to our congregations what we mean by faith. We must lead them to Christ and not to the supposed benefits of being saved.

Because when a person believes in Christ, he or she has nowhere else to go. Only Jesus has the words of eternal life.[1]

---

[1] John 6:66-69

Catholic Influence on the Lord's Supper

I heard it again. 

In a conversation with an independent Baptist preacher recently I heard it said, concerning the Lord's Supper, that churches have authority to practice the Lord's Supper as they believe is right. In this case the preacher said, "Because that's what happens in fact."

• I agree that a preacher ought to lead his church to worship God as he understands the scriptures to teach and not simply as a movement of churches might insist
• I understand that this makes it appear that churches observe the Lord's Supper as seems right to them

But this is not a Biblical view of why and how we observe the Lord's Supper. Each pastor ought to lead his church to observe the Lord's Supper as he understands the Scriptures to teach. The authority is in the Bible and not the church. A pastor is shirking his duty to say, "I am not a scholar enough to understand what the Bible teaches about such things so I believe how each church chooses to practice it is scriptural."

This has at least two problems:

The pastor is simply taking the road of expediency

Rather than worshiping according to the dictates of his conscience, he is just worshiping the way everyone wants to. 

This misplaces authority

It goes back to the Catholic concept of church dogma being as authoritative as the word of God. It gives the church, even if it claims to be Baptist/non Protestant church, a Protestant tie back to Catholicism. It rips the Baptist doctrine of the Bible as our sole authority out of our statement of faith and replaces it with the whim and wishes of men. 

I realize that ultimately each church is going to observe the Lord's Supper as the majority of its members understand it should be. Though the distinction may seem fine it is still imperative. We observe as we understand it to be taught in the Bible and not merely as we personally think is right. We are obligated to study the Bible and to practice it as we understand the Bible to teach. 

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

JUST TWELVE MEN

Matthew 26:20   

Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.

Just twelve men

And by anyone's reckoning they were ordinary men at that.

• Uneducated
• Unimpressive
• Without financial, familial or personal clout

They are just twelve men that sat with Jesus that night.

• There were others that had believed
• There were others whom Jesus loved

But these twelve men were destined, not only to lay but to be the very foundation of that thing which Jesus loved and gave himself; the local church..

Just twelve men

Diverse one from another

We do not know much about their backgrounds; nothing about most of them but:

• Four were fishermen
• One was a tax collector, maybe we could think if him as an accountant
• One was from a Greek influence
• One was an instinctive skeptic

They hadn't always agreed.

But in this night there was unity among them.

Their focus, purpose, passion was Jesus Christ and the truth He brought to them.

Just twelve men

But they change the world still today.

Of course one of the twelve was a devil.

All but one died violently; only one died miserably.

All twelve died eventually but only this one died at his own hands.

Just eleven men

But together, with hearts fixed upon Christ, they changed the world.

Will you change the world for Christ?

Something About Tattoos

The popularity of tattoos, especially among Christians is alarming. Demonstrating a biblical ignorance at the very best and outright rebellion to the Bible at worst, Baptists, fundamentalists are tattooing themselves and even pastors, are making excuses for "tattoomania".

1. It is the graffiti of the big city

But in this case it defaces the property of God

2. It is the tagging of modern gangs

But it is claiming as their territory what God has built

3. It is identifying with Satan

Who hates that man is created in God's image and would love to see it marred

4. It is blatantly unscriptural

Leviticus 19:28 KJV

Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

5. It is a precursor to the mark of the beast

Revelation 13:16-17 KJV

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

Thoughts on Baptist History and Calvinism

1. Baptists are first of all Biblicists

What Baptists believed in the past is helpful to give grounding. However, any true Baptist would put the Bible above history

2. Baptist history in England is strongly Calvinist, but not elsewhere 

For instance, those Baptists in Russian countries tend to be predominantly Arminian. To claim the historic Baptist position is Calvinism is to claim that Baptists began in England and not with the earlier Anabaptists.

3. Not all English Baptists were Calvinists, the Regular Baptists believed anyone could be saved

It was the particular Baptists who were Calvinists. The a Particular Baptists eventually overwhelmed the Regular Baptists, changing their name to Grace Baptists.

4. Baptists embraced Calvinism over time in order to become more acceptable with the popular churches in England

Compare the Baptist Confession of Faith in 1644 with the one in 1686 and notice the changes to read like the Westminster confession.

5. Baptists in America began to swing toward the opposite Protestant heresy after the popularity of the Finney revivals

Baptists should embrace neither Calvinism nor Arminianism because Baptists are not Protestants. Our doctrine is the bible, and not the doctrines of men. Confessions and statements of faith, like church history, can be helpful to ground us, but our allegiance must be to the Bible and not the teachings of men about the Bible.

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

The Scopes Trial of this Century?

Last night's debate between Bill Nye "The Science Guy" and Creationist, Ken Ham was slated by some to be the equivalent of a "Scopes 2". I rescheduled my day so I would be free to give it my full attention. Having the liberty of watching via the internet rather than being there, I was also free to keep up with the chatter on Twitter as the debate progressed.

My early impressions began days previous to the event as I follow Ken Ham's Answers In Genesis website on my Facebook Feed. It seemed obvious that this event, as much as anything, has been a huge publicity tool for Ken Ham's Creation Museum; the site where the debate was held. Ham encouraged watchers to visit the museum several times over the span of the debate and referenced items in the museum or staff scientists of the museum repeatedly. This has to have been a shot in the museum's arm. I also noticed early on that the major media outlets acknowledged the upcoming event but, to my knowledge, never acknowledged Ken Ham. I saw interviews of Nye, but none of Ham. It was as if they regarded him as nobody, an unknown. That is certainly not the case. If Ham seemed to have over published the event on his internet outlets, it is in no small way reconciled by the fact that he was under published by the mainstream new sources. 

Introductions were made by an excellent moderator for the event. It appeared to me the men were academically equal. Though their courses of study as well as life experiences are different, neither one outclassed the other. Nye is better known in public media but certainly not better known than Ham in the world of Christianity. I doubt many are better known than Ham as a spokesman for Creation Science.

I heard nothing surprising from either side in the debate. Ham won the coin toss and gave his opening statement and his presentation first. I found it interesting that he used video clips of creation scientists in his presentation. No small portion of his thirty minutes was taken up, not by his own voice but theirs. It was gratifying to see and hear him present a clear case for the gospel in his presentation.

Nye sounded exactly like I would have expected. He is not considered to be a scientist even though he calls himself a science guy. Many evolutionary scientists have expressed that Nye was the right guy for this debate because, in their minds, this was not a debate about science but an entertainment event. I see that as their way to excuse the whole event if Nye had made too big a mess of it. Nye did not. He did exactly what he is capable if doing; rote recitation of the evolutionary platform. 

·        He demonstrated no capability for critical thinking

·        He betrayed his gross ignorance of even the most basic Christian concepts 

·        He offered no understanding of the objections to evolutionary theory

Nye did what every ape of evolutionary theory always does; he hurriedly admitted evolution is a theory but behaved throughout his presentation as if it is fact. The jab he repeatedly poked was that this was "Ken Ham's Creation Theory" and implied he had few followers, even among Christians. 

Besides the very clear presentation of the gospel (and a number of subsequent references to it) my favorite line in the debate seemed very impromptu. The question to Nye was, "Where did the matter that resulted in the Big Bang come from?" Nye's answer was "I don't know" to which Ham replied, "There is a book..." 

There is a book that answers the most fundamental of our questions and, when embraced, liberates us to real discovery of those secrets God has hidden for our pleasure to search out.

Marvin McKenzie

In the field