It was, to say the least, a horrendously bad decision when Issues, Etc. was removed from KFUO AM. Issues was, by far, the most popular show on KFUO and the only theological programming The LCMS was producing of this depth and substance.

After that most unhappy incident, Issues Etc. went on to establish itself as a strong, independent voice for confessing Lutheranism. I officially learned today that they are returning on March 12 to KFUO AM in syndication which will allow them to retain total control over their content, while giving the St. Louis and KFUO AM listening audience access to two hours of programming, Monday to Friday.

This is great news! Here is the press release.

“Issues, Etc.”, a radio talk show produced by Lutheran Public Radio and hosted by Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Pastor Todd Wilken, will begin broadcasting live Monday, March 12 from 3-5 p.m. CST weekdays on KFUO, 850 AM in St. Louis. “Issues, Etc.” has been broadcasting on KSIV, Bott Radio Network in St. Louis since June 30, 2008. KFUO is owned and operated by the LCMS. The popular radio show aired for more than 15 years on KFUO. However, the LCMS cancelled the program on March 18, 2008.

“By purchasing airtime on KFUO instead of KSIV, we will be able to offer ten hours of live programming each week to St. Louis area listeners instead of five hours of programming. KFUO also provides a stronger signal for our listeners in southern Illinois,” said Jeff Schwarz, general manager of LPR.

“We will not become employees of KFUO or the LCMS,” said Pastor Todd Wilken, host of Issues, Etc. “Lutheran Public Radio and KFUO are totally separate entities. When listeners donate to KFUO, they won’t be supporting LPR and vice versa. It is vitally important for us to have complete editorial control and financial independence from the LCMS.”

“We are extremely thankful to the Bott family and to the Bott Radio Network for providing us the opportunity to broadcast Issues, Etc. on KSIV,” Schwarz said. “Almost immediately after the cancellation, we were contacted by Rich Bott and presented with the opportunity to continue broadcasting on a terrestrial radio station in St. Louis.”

LPR will continue to produce “Issues, Etc.” from its studios in Collinsville, IL.

Borrowed from another blog site, I found this blog post helpful. Perhaps you will too. The persons who put this list together made a big mistake and a very, very large omission: The number one reason to believe that Adam and Eve were actual real human beings? Because Jesus Christ said they were. But, be that as it may, this list raises other very important reasons.

In recent years, several self-proclaimed evangelicals, or those associated with evangelical institutions, have called into question the historicity of Adam and Even. It is said that because of genomic research we can no longer believe in a first man called Adam from whom the entire human race has descended.

I’ll point to some books at the end which deal with the science end of the question, but the most important question is what does the Bible teach. Without detailing a complete answer to that question, let me suggest ten reasons why we should believe that Adam was a true historical person and the first human being.

1. The Bible does not put an artificial wedge between history and theology. Of course, Genesis is not a history textbook or a science textbook, but that if far from saying we ought to separate the theological wheat from the historical chaff. Such a division owes to the Enlightenment more than the Bible.

2. The biblical story of creation is meant to supplant other ancient creation stories more than imitate them. Moses wants to show God’s people “this is how things really happened.” The Pentateuch is full of warnings against compromise with the pagan culture. It would be surprising, then, for Genesis to start with one more mythical account of creation like the rest of the ANE.

3. The opening chapters of Genesis are stylized, but they show no signs of being poetry. Compare Genesis 1 with Psalm 104, for example, and you’ll see how different these texts are. It’s simply not accurate to call Genesis poetry. And even if it were, who says poetry has to be less historically accurate?

4. This is a seamless strand of history from Adam in Genesis 2 to Abraham in Genesis 12. You can’t set Genesis 1-11 aside as prehistory, not in the sense of being less than historically true as we normally understand those terms. Moses deliberately connects Abram with all the history that comes before him, all the way back to Adam and Eve in the garden.

5. The genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3 treat Adam as historical.

6. Paul believed in a historical Adam (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45-49). Even some revisionists are honest enough to admit this; they simply maintain that Paul (and Luke) were wrong.

7. The weight of the history of interpretation points to the historicity of Adam. The literature of second temple Judaism affirmed an historical Adam. The history of the church’s interpretation also assumes it.

8. Without a common descent we lose any firm basis for believing that all people regardless of race or ethnicity have the same nature, the same inherent dignity, the same image of God, the same sin problem, and that despite our divisions we are all part of the same family coming from the same parents.

9. Without a historical Adam, Paul’s doctrine of original sin and guilt does not hold together.

10. Without a historical Adam, Paul’s doctrine of the second Adam does not hold together.

Christians may disagree on the age of the earth, but whether Adam ever existed is a gospel issue. Tim Keller is right:

[Paul] most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical figures. When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of the biblical authority. . . .If Adam doesn’t exist, Paul’s whole argument—that both sin and grace work ‘covenantally’—falls apart. You can’t say that ‘Paul was a man of his time’ but we can accept his basic teaching about Adam. If you don’t believe what he believes about Adam, you are denying the core of Paul’s teaching. (Christianity Today June 2011)

If you want to read more about the historical Adam debate, check out Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? by C. John Collins.

For more on the relationship between faith and science, you may want to look at one of the following:

• John C. Lennox, God’s Undertake: Has Science Buried God?
• Should Christians Embrace Evolution: Biblical and Scientific Responses, edited by Norman C. Nevin
• God and Evolution, edited by Jay Richards
• Vern S. Poythress, Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach
• C. John Collins, Science and Faith: Friend or Foes

What do you think of this from Kevin Deyoung? I think it is pretty good and useful. How would you modify or change it?

One God. We worship one, personal, knowable, holy God. There are not two gods or ten gods or ten million gods, only one. He has always been and will always be. He is not a product of our mind or imagination. He really exists and we can know him because he has spoken to us in his word.

Two kinds of being. We are not gods. God is not found in the trees or the wind or in us. He created the universe and cares for all that he has made, but he is distinct from his creation. The story of the world is not about being released from the illusion of our existence or discovering the god within. The story is about God, the people he made, and how the creatures can learn to delight in, trust in, and obey their Creator.

Three persons. The one God exists eternally in three persons. The Father is God. The Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, is God. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father and the Son, is also God. And yet these three—equal in glory, rank, and power—are three persons. The doctrine of the Trinity helps explain how there can be true unity and diversity in our world. It also shows that our God is a relational God.

For us. Something happened in history that changed the world. The Son of God came into the world as a man, perfectly obeyed his Father, fulfilled Israel’s purpose, succeeded where Adam failed, and began the process of reversing the curse. Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world. He rose again from the dead on the third day. By faith in him our sins can be forgiven and we can be assured of living forever with God and one day being raised from the dead like Christ.

Obviously, this doesn’t say everything that needs to be said about the Bible or Christianity. But I find it to be a helpful way to get a handle on some of the most important distinctives of a Christian worldview. Feel free to steal it and use it for yourself. It’s as easy as 1, 2, 3, 4.

Disturbing new report from Pew Foundation on the restrictions being placed on religious observance worldwide.

From the report:

The report, Rising Restrictions on Religion, by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life, finds that restrictions on religious beliefs and practices rose between mid-2006 and mid-2009 in 23 of the world’s 198 countries (12%), decreased in 12 countries (6%) and remained essentially unchanged in 163 countries (82%).

Because several countries with increasing restrictions on religion are very populous, however, the increases affect a much larger share of people than of states. More than 2.2 billion people – nearly a third (32%) of the world’s total population of 6.9 billion – live in countries where either government restrictions on religion or social hostilities involving religion rose substantially over the three-year period studied

The full report is available here. Here is a graphic illustrating the problem:

“It is a very common subterfuge of those who do not want to accept any single doctrine of the divine Word, that they first ascribe it to a person and then, under his name, reject it as a human doctrine. They act in no other way than as if they also certainly believed the Word of Scripture, but they are only loudly objecting against submitting to the authority of a person who is prone to error, and having to accept a human, uncertain interpretation. Through such a maneuver they hope to mislead others, who might notice that they do not unconditionally submit to the Word of God. So, for example, many now are saying nothing honorable since in their hearts they regard Christ as either a liar or a thoughtless babbler when he says: “This is my body, this is my blood.” But rather, in order to be allowed to not believe Christ, and to be able yet to retain their honor amongst Christians, they say: “Oh, we are not one of those Old Lutherans! We stick with the Bible! Those symbolical books were also written by men!” When they’ve said that, they think they must be excused by everyone for rejecting what Christ’s Words say. Will God also accept their excuse “Oh, I’m not an Old Lutheran”? ”

Source:
C.F.W. Walther
Der Lutheraner
Volume 2, Number 11
January 1846, pg. 42-43
Translated by Joel Baseley

I appreciated these words from an Anglican bishop in Rwanda, perhaps you will too.

A Serious Argument Against the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood and Episcopate

by The Rt. Rev. John Rodgers
June 6, 2011

A Case for the Male-Only Priesthood

God, being a God of order and being all-wise, good, and gracious, has ordered all things in creation for our good. This order in the creation he has retained and renewed in redemption. As part of this good order God has appointed the man to be the head of the family and to be the elder (presbyter) or priest in the wider family of the Church. God’s good order does not envision nor permit women to exercise the ministry of “headship” in the family, nor the ministry of oversight involved in the offices of the priesthood and episcopate as they are understood and practiced by Anglicans. This is in no way detrimental to women for God has an equally significant, different, and complementary ministry for women in the family and in the Church. This godly order is to be enjoyed and respected. When men and women are thus united in partnership we walk in the path of freedom and fulfillment. Other paths may seem attractive and promise much but in the end they prove deceptive and full of contention.

The reasons we hold these convictions are primarily drawn from Scripture. Attempts have been made to interpret the Scriptures to allow women to serve as co-heads of the family and as priests and bishops in the Church. Responsible exegesis simply will not support these interpretations nor does experience confirm them. Alongside Scripture there are other significant reasons found in the experience of God’s people in history and in God’s other book-the book of creation or nature-that corroborate the biblical reasons. We will mention only the most significant of them in this brief chapter.

The primary and chief factual point that we wish to make is this: nowhere in Scripture do we read of a woman being either a priest in the Old Testament or an elder in the New Testament. In the New Testament no woman was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve apostles. Jesus could have chosen one of the women who accompanied him, prepared her along with the other apostles-in-training, and after the resurrection appointed her an apostle had he felt that to be appropriate. He did not do so. The same is true of the apostles. Not once did they appoint a woman to be a presbyter or bishop. It was the unvarying practice of God’s people from beginning of Israel to the close of Scripture to call men to these official, stated positions in the people of God. Israel did this in sustained and self-conscious contrast to the practice of the surrounding nations and religions.

Read more…

You may have heard about the “discovery” of a document that is being hyped by the media and opportunistic “scholars” as being the “greatest find” ever in the history of archeology related to Christianity, with claims that this find is akin to the Dead Sea scrolls in its importance for Christianity. The best response at this point is simply to tell people that there is, at present, very little actual information about the discovery and the document itself is written in some sort of Hebrew based code-language. It is also very important for people to keep in mind that there were swirling about in the days after Christ’s life a number of heretical sects and groups that combined elements of Christianity and Judaism with various pagan philosophies and religious opinions. There is nothing surprising therefore to find that there may be a document produced by one of these sects. What it contains remains unknown. It may be a wonderful discovery providing yet more extra-Biblical evidence confirming the historicity of the canonical Scripture. Or it may not be. At this point, it is best to ignore the media hype and chatter and wait for some sober-minded evaluation and judgment. I remain disgusted by so-called “scholars” who literally bank on the general public’s ignorance about things that have been well know for many years. Here is but one example of the media-hype over this set of metal plates.

Word is now coming out that a letter has been discovered that was written to St. Paul, in response to his letter to the churches in Galatia. Here is an English translation.

Parodios, a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, to our brother Paulos.

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Our church recently received a copy of the letter that you sent to the church of Galatia. We hope you will not mind hearing our humble concerns. In the past we have noticed you are more interested in confronting people rather than conversing with them, but we hope you will receive this letter as an invitation to further dialogue.

First of all, we are uncomfortable with your tone throughout the correspondence. We know it is difficult sometimes to discern tone of voice from written communication, but you should keep this in mind as well. One could gather from your careless use of words that you are losing your temper. You certainly sound angry. This is unbecoming a spokesperson for the faith. As you say yourself, one of the manifest fruit of God’s Spirit is gentleness.

Aren’t you being a hypocrite to preach grace but not show it to our Judaizer brothers? They may not worship as you do or emphasize the same teachings you do, but our Lord has “sheep not of this fold,” and there is certainly room within the broader Way for these brothers. Their methodology may differ from yours, but certainly their hearts are in the right place.

You yourself know that our Lord required personal contact when we have a grievance against another. Have you personally contacted any of these men? Have you sat down to reason with them personally? Have you issued a personal invitation? Some of them may even reconsider their viewpoints if you had taken a different tack. We know that your position is likely that public teaching is open to public criticism, but we can do better than what is expected, can’t we?

In one portion of your letter, you indicate you don’t even know these persons! “Whoever he is,” you write. Our dear Paulos, how can you rightly criticize them when you don’t know them? It’s clear you haven’t even read their material, because you never quote them. We implore you to see that they are plainly within the tradition of Moses and of the Prophets. They understand the context of the covenant in ways you appear deaf to.

Similarly, we find your tone and resorting to harsh language not in keeping with the love of Christ. “Foolish Galatians.” “Let him be accursed.” “Emasculate themselves.” Really? Can you not hear yourself? You think this is Christlike? Does this sound like something our Lord would say? Do you think this flippant, outrageous, personal, vindictive manner of speech speaks well of God’s love or the church? It is clear you are taking this way too personally. Indeed, you ask the Galatians if you are now their enemy. Does everything have to be so black and white to you?

Paulos, what will unbelievers think when they read this letter? Do you think this will commend the gospel to them? This kind of harsh language just makes us look like a bunch of angry people. They see we can’t even love each other, and over what? Circumcision? This is a terrible advertisement for God’s love to an unbelieving world. You have given plenty of people permission now to disregard Jesus, if this is what his mouthpieces sound like.

We hope you will reconsider your approach. We know that you catch much more flies with honey than with vinegar. We are concerned that your ill-worded letter signals a divisiveness that threatens to fracture the church. We beg you to reconsider how important these minor issues are, and how in the future you may speak in ways that better reflect God’s love.

The grace—and the love!—of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brother.

HT: Justin Taylor

I had an interesting experience today reviewing some children’s curriculum materials put out by a Christian publisher. The publisher claims, in big bold words on their web site, “Christ-centered”! They offer the chance to download and sample a good representation of the leader and children’s materials in their program. I was dismayed and shocked that in all the download materials, the only time I saw mention of Jesus was in the obligatory, “In Jesus’ name, Amen” tagged on to the end of prayers. But not a word about the Gospel or Christ anywhere else in the materials. None. Zero.

Let’s be clear about something. If Christ is not at the center of what you are talking about, what you are talking about is NOT CHRIST-CENTERED. If you are not explaining, proclaiming and teaching the good news of Christ, what you are doing is NOT GOSPEL-CENTERED.

Here’s a great quote from Martin Franzmann I found on Pastor Strey’s blog site, that speaks directly to this point.

Many have found the idea of an actual redemption, a ransoming with a price, by the substitution of a Life for the lives of many, an offensive one, unworthy of the God of love. The idea of “redemption” is therefore limited by them to the idea of release from servitude without any idea of purchase. Paul does use the word family of which “redemption” is a member simply in the sense of “deliverance,” without any direct suggestion of a price paid to secure the deliverance (e.g., Rom. 8:23), as the Old Testament also does. But where, as here (i.e. Rom. 3:24) and in Eph. 1:7 and 1 Cor. 1:30, the death of Christ is in view, the full sense of redemption is surely present. It should be noted that Paul also uses the ordinary Greek word for “purchasing” with reference to man’s redemption, with the price either expressly mentioned (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23) or strongly implied (Gal. 3:13; 4:5). The idea of substitution, which lies at the heart of redemption-by-ransom, finds drastic expression in Paul’s letters: Christ was made to be sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21), He became a curse for us (Gal. 3:13). It is doubtful, moreover, whether any Greek-speaking reader could fail to associate the idea of price with the word which Paul uses for redemption. Words of this family were commonly used for the freeing of slaves by purchase and for the ransoming of prisoners of war. These considerations forbid any softening-down of the austerity of the New Testament revelation concerning the death of Christ. God’s grace was a costly grace. He “ransomed” men from their ruined past “with the precious blood of Christ” (1 Peter 1:18-20) and did not spare His Son (Rom. 8:32). God gave Him the cup of judgment to drink (Matt. 26:39; John 18:11), He smote the Shepherd (Matt. 26:31), He forsook Him on the cross. (Matt. 27:46)

…But if we dare not take away from the revelation, we dare not add to it either. We dare not make of the God of grace an irate pagan deity whom someone else must mollify. For it is the God of wrath and judgment who Himself supplies the redemption. He sent His son to do the redeeming work that makes men sons of God (Gal. 4:4 f.). He put forward Christ Jesus “as an expiation by His blood.”

- Martin H. Franzmann. Romans: A Commentary. St. Louis: CPH, 1968, 1986. 68-69 (Discussion of Romans 3:24-25)

US court rules, university wrong to exclude student group
ENI-10-0623

By Adelle M. Banks
Washington DC, 10 September (ENI/RNS)–The University of Wisconsin should not have prohibited the use of student funds for the worship-related activities of a Roman Catholic campus group, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The University of Wisconsin at Madison distributes funds from student fees for activities of registered student groups but rejected paying for worship, religious instruction and proselytising by Badger Catholic, a student association, Religion New Service reports.

“A university cannot shape Badger Catholic’s message by selectively funding the speech it approves, but not the speech it disapproves,” wrote Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1 September decision.

The Alliance Defense Fund, which sued on behalf of the student group, had argued that Catholics had been the victim of viewpoint discrimination.

“The constitutional rights of Christian student organizations should be recognized by university officials just as they recognize those rights for other student groups,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence.

The 2-1 majority said the recent Supreme Court decision, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, left “no doubt” that the Wisconsin school should reimburse Badger Catholic programs it had rejected for funding.

The higher court ruled in June that a Christian student group must accept gays and non-Christians as members if it wanted to receive official recognition from a public university’s law school.

Circuit Judge Ann Claire Williams dissented, saying the rejection of funding for religious activities is a “neutral exclusion.”

University spokesperson Dennis Chaptman said the school’s attorneys are reviewing the decision. [265 words]

Ecumenical News International
PO Box 2100
CH – 1211 Geneva 2
Switzerland

“Things have certainly changed in the world since the first anniversary of the Reformation. Yet the final, do-or-die questions of theology have remained the same. God has remained constant regarding his wrath and his grace, regarding his Word in Law and Gospel. Christ the Lord has remained the same and is present with us in the Gospel and in the Sacrament as he has been at all times. The Holy Ghost is present and efficacious in the means of grace, as he has always been. And even man has remained the same in his misery, although he would not desire to recognize it. For the man of our times, ostensibly come of age, is really not so elevated above sixteenth-century man. Claus Harms [1778-1855] compared people of the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries in one of his theses for the Reformation anniversary of 1817. “The forgiveness of sins cost money, believe it or not, in the sixteenth century. In the nineteenth, however, one gets it entirely for free, for it is self-serve. That time stood higher than ours, because it was nearer to God.” And what about the progress of modern man on the way to ever-greater maturity? Who does not think at this point about Kant’s [1724-1804] definition of the Enlightenment? With such “maturity” comes distance from God, who is not the God of the wise and clever but of the child (Matthew 11:25). When this maturity is supposed to have grown so great that, as the message of the Lutheran World Federation from Helsinki suggests, modern man no longer understands the question about a gracious God but rather sets up the “far more radical” question of whether God really exists, then what Luther says in the explanation of the First Commandment in the Large Catechism remains true: The question about God is the question about the God that one can “trust and believe from the heart” and who is ever our sanctuary (BSLK p.560, lines 22f.; p. 564, lines 9f.). Any other question about God is philosophy. In all of the religions upon the earth, and still today in idolatry, there is embedded, according to Luther, the great human question of life, the question concerning the gracious God. Were it the case that this question is no longer understood today, then that would not be a sign of maturity, but rather of the spiritual blindness that fosters and precedes spiritual death. Yet every pastor knows that in the reality of life, the question about the gracious God, the question about human sin and divine forgiveness breaks forth again and again and becomes the deepest question of human life.”

Sasse, Letters to Lutheran Pastors #60, 1967.

This Sunday many Christians around the world will confess the faith in the words of the Athanasian Creed. Rev. Dr. Ken Schurb did a spectacularly good job on Issues, Etc. the other day explaining the importance of the Athanasian Creed. I highly recommend you give this a good listen.

Here is the text of the Athanasian Creed:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three Eternals, but one Eternal. As there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.

The Father is made of none: neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before or after other; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal: so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood; Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ: One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

If you have been around teenagers playing video games, you may have heard them say, “I was pwned” which, being translated into English, means, “I was utterly defeated by my opponent.” So, when Rod Dreher used this term in his recent post, you can only but agree.

The infamous militant publicity-hound/opportunistic atheist totally pwned a liberal Christian when he said recently:

[Unitarian;] The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?

[Hitch]: I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

He was, and is, quite entirely correct. Let’s simply face facts and insist on even the most minimal amount of integrity here when we are dealing with liberal mainline theologians who claim to be Christian, or anyone for that matter. I am quite willing to give a person the benefit of the doubt and assume the best, when it is clear that lack of knowledge or ignorance is behind errors in confession of the Faith. But a willful and knowing rejection of the basic facts of the Faith, as beautifully summarized in the Apostles’ Creed, for example, marks that person as a non-Christian. Period. End of story. Then such a person must be treated as such and prayed for and witnessed to as one who needs to come to a saving knowledge of who and what Christ is.