decision « WordPress.com Tag Feed

Decisions, decisions... v2.0

m0u5y — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:07:35 +0000

When making an important life decision, or even a small choice, we need to look deep into ouselves and understand what is right for each of us. But remember, the key to choosing is knowing the difference between what feels comfortable and what actually feels right. Just because one choice makes you feel comfortable, it doesn't always meant it is right. Learn to differentiate between the two.

-Fran

The Polls Have Closed, The Douche Election of 2008 Has Been Decided

friesenpoint — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:11:56 +0000

As many of you may remember, I recently had a mock election, hoping to find out who was the bigger douche, Bobby Flay or David Blaine. The results were mixed, and in the end, I declared it “too close to call.” It is no longer so.

Last night, I witnessed something that sealed the deal, something that made me ashamed to have even posed the question. Ladies and gentlemen, I’m about to blow this thing wide open.

And the coveted position of Biggest Douche goes to…

…Bobby Flay

I’m sure this comes to a surprise to no one. Bobby Flay is a huge dick, and his show is about him being a dick. But what I saw last night was offensive on a whole new level.

Last night, I saw an episode of Throwdown that was called “Country Fried Steak Throwdown,” but should have been called “New Low Throwdown.” Bobby Flay went to visit fellow Food Network star Paula Dean as a guest on her show Paula’s Party, but his ulterior motive was to challenge her to a country fried steak throwdown, on her show.

Paula Dean is a genuine TV personality, and although she’s annoying and a little too excitable at times, she’s just about cooking and having a good time. She’s not about tricking people into pissing contests.

Here’s what gets me about this: Bobby Flay is so starved for attention that he isn’t even satisfied by being a guest on someone else’s show. No, he has to be the goddamn show, or he’s not satisfied. What kind of supreme narcissist has the nuts to go on someone else’s TV show, only to attempt to turn it into his TV show? It’s one thing to go on someone’s show and let your irresistible personality take over, but it’s another thing altogether to literally take over.

“This is no longer Paula’s Party! Bobby Flay has spoken! I know you thought I was going to be a guest on your show, but Bobby Flay don’t play that shit. You’re a guest on my show, bitch!” What a fucking dick.

Ladies and gentlemen, it’s official: Bobby Flay is the biggest douche in America. A bigger douche than Bill Maher, a bigger douche than Terrell Owens, a bigger douche even than whoever keeps making those Saw movies. I’m sure his mother is quite proud of him.

Confidence

kathavarta — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 05:17:49 +0000

Hypothetical situation where 20 executives board an airplane and are told that the flight that they are about to take is the first-ever to feature pilotless technology:

It is an uncrewed aircraft. Each one of the CEOs is then told, privately, that their company's software is running the aircraft's automatic pilot system.

Nineteen of the CEOs promptly leave the aircraft, each offering a different type of excuse.

One CEO alone remains on board the jet, seeming very calm indeed.Asked why he is so confident in this first uncrewed flight, he replies: "If it's the same software that runs my company's IT systems, this plane won't even take off.

Moral:
This is called Confidence

El Corazon Helado

KatheRine =.D — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:27:50 +0000

A veces me pregunto si todas las decisiones que he tomado son las correctas... a veces me duele tomar decisiones porque no se si estare bien o estare mal, pero siempre me arriesgo a pensar que soy yo la que tengo razon... trato de hacerle caso a mi corazon helado o el sexto sentido que le dicen...

El sabado pasado tome la decision de no quererlo, remember?

Para serles sincera, yo habia aguantado bastante y es porque en mi pseudo-relacion pasada [solo hablabamos de que ibamos a salir juntos con el chavo y esas cosas, pero simplemente no] muchas personas que conocian al ninho en cuestion me decian que no, que el era aqui, que el era alla, espere dos semanas a ver como se comportaba y realmente si encontraba hechos raros. Le dije que ahi terminara lo que nunca empezo y el como es bien calmadito me dijo: un consejo te voy a dar, no escuches lo que te dice la gente porque muchas veces solo es por hacer el danho que hablan...

Bueno, intente seguir el consejo con Edgar pero o sea, no se puede tapar el sol con un dedo... desde el principio, todos todos, incluido Raul [el mejor amigo de Edgar] me dijeron que el no, que no me involucrara con el porque el era aqui, era alla y trataba a las bichas de esta manera... y yo indagando, como las trata? contame todos los detalles! y me decian pues asi, asa...

Me ponia a compararme y les decia: a mi me trata super diferente! el no es asi conmigo! y cuando me traian chambres del cipote resulta que yo ya los sabia por medio de el [en mayor o menor proporcion!] yo decia que juela el me trataba bien diferente a los demas y todo eso, hasta crei que me agarraba en serio! Pero por cosas de la vida, no por chambres, el sabado pasado decidi que pues, ya no y ya no.

Viene una de mis mejores amigas de la iglesia y me dice que queria hablar seriamente conmigo que no se que... que paso?

Es que fijate que yo no se mucho la verdad a mi, mi mama me conto que hay una 'ninha nueva' en la colonia desde hace 5 meses que se mudo y al parecer tiene ondas desde hace 3 meses con el chino [Edgar] supuestamente es ella la que se le mete a el pero igual vos lo conoces y el chino que no se deja, verdad?

Yo le dije: hehehe, puya, gracias por contarme vos, por lo menos se que si algo pasa ustedes siempre me van a avisar pero mira nena, no te preocupes, ya le conte aqui a la punche [eramos 3 cheras hablando en esos momentos] que desde el sabado pasado ya nada con el vos :) pero igual, gracias!

amiga: ihhh! en serio!? Katherine por DIos! [me abraza] no sabes cuando le pedi a Dios que te hiciera ver bien las cosas! Gracias Dios mio que me escuchaste!

[que lindo saber que alguien te lleva en oracion]

Eso fue lo que paso, pero yo me pongo a pensar, si mi decision del sabado pasado, que me dolio llegar a eso, no la hubiera tomado definitivamente, quizas y muy probablemente esta noticia de ayer si me habria dolido mucho, demasiado... y aunque fue al mismo tiempo que 'estaba conmigo' es como que no me duele, no me interesa...

Ahora estoy mas que segura que el sabado pasado tome la decision correcta al definirme por cerrar ese capitulo :) porque como el son pocos... pero como yo? ninguna :D

Asi que mi consejo de ahora es que siempre escuchen a su corazon lo mas que puedan... pero escuchen a su corazon helado :)

Ralph Nader: Champion of the People

johnofsilence — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 16:13:12 +0000

Nader is more than just a solution to the problem, he is also a case of how our government is terribly imbalanced. If you look into exactly how he's been ostracized from the debates and the ballots, you will begin to see just how miraculous it is that he is still fighting and has manged 10% in the polls and is on the ballot in 45 states. We will never encounter another candidate who has fought harder for what is most important on behalf of the majority of Americans. History will remember him not as a spoiler but as a champion of the people. Although we are in a political dark age now, we will emerge eventually and remember all he did and how well he did with such horrible conditions. Less we forget that it was the third parties who pressed the hardest issues throughout history: woman suffrage, black suffrage, minimum wage, the list goes on and it was because of their support for these issues that the major parties had to incorporate them. Now today we have Nader who warns about corporate abuse and fraud, who presses for impeachment of the worst President in history, who argues for single payer health care, who truly wants to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, who fights to open the debates from duopoly, who warns about the deregulation of Wall Street and always speaks on behalf of the people. Think different, think third party. Vote Nader.

身外還是身內

Jade — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:12:16 +0000

It's been tough lately, emotional wise. I guess I'm the kind of person who walks by feeling a lot of the time, so I started to make decisions according to the facts. I have to make a very important decision lately, will affect myself and my family. I don't know if this is right, but the fact is telling me that's the best way to go. However, once I have the thought of making this decision, I have extreme sadness especially for my parents' situation if I decided to. I think I will at least seek and see how the opportunity works for me, if everything went well it could be very possible that many things could be resolved and my life will ease down a little, emotional wise. I have to pray and seek, and see how it goes...

God Decides 2008!- When Does Election Happen?

Todd Burus — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 05:01:09 +0000

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved." -Ephesians 1.3-6

"And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." -Romans 8.28-30

We concluded our last question with the following information in hand: first, that there is a group of people set apart by God who are known as the elect, and second, that all of those who are numbered among the elect are saved. Up to this point, our conclusions, though not accepted by all, is uncontroversial enough that people from all ranges of Arminianism to Calvinism can (basically) accept it. However, we now must ask the question which really leads to the division, that being the question of when does election occur in regards to salvation, specifically, is election based on salvation or is salvation based on election?

The first place I think we must look, this being a tried and true passage on election, is Romans 8.28-30. From this set of verses we can lay out the two opposing views, which we will then analyze in light of further Scriptural evidences. So, the passage again:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8.28-30)

The first view, which is known in Calvinist terminology as the Unconditional Election view, is that, when the text says, "for those whom he foreknew he also predestined . . . , [a]nd those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified," then what it is saying is that God elected the person based on no merit of their own but simply his foreknowledge of who they are THEN called them THEN saved (justified) them.

The opposing view, call it Conditional Election, says that the foreknowledge with which God used to predestine the person was a foreknowledge that "looked down the barrel of time" and saw that that person would choose Jesus, and thus God saw that persons choice to believe THEN he elected them THEN he called them THEN he saved (justified) them.

As you can see, this is quite a quandary, and I want to take it slow in order to be fair to both sides. What I am going to argue is that the Conditional view of election creates a contradiction between Romans 8.28-30 and other Scriptures and thus is not an acceptable reading, and that with this freedom then we are opened up to a reading of Ephesians 1 which essentially seals the deal.

The first verse I would like to turn to in order to show a contradiction in the Conditional view of Romans 8.28-30 is John 6.44:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

This verse, which is shadowed again in verse 65 of the same chapter, here saying "unless it is granted him by the Father" in place of drawing, has a clear indication. Without pushing it too far (which I think we may do, but I do not feel necessary here) we may reach the conclusion that a persons coming to faith in Christ, whether by their own choosing or by God's sovereign command, must be preceded by a drawing or a granting by the Father. This, most precisely, would be the "call" that is spoken of in verse 30 of Romans 8. However, this puts us in the position with the Conditional interpretation that God's knowledge of a persons choice precedes their election which precedes their calling which precedes their ability to choose, which clearly is impossible. Thus, either John 6.44 is wrong, Romans 8.29-30 is wrong, or calling is not the Father "drawing" a person to him, none of which I believe are tenable, and thus this must be a contradiction.

Yet, let's give the Conditional view another chance, thinking maybe we missed something. Alright, then let's look at this passage in comparison with Romans 3.23-24, 27-28:

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus . . . . Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

This passage, just five chapters prior to the one in question, tells us that justification is by faith and grace, a combination we see presented in Ephesians 2.8 as well for our salvation. So, when viewing this in light of the mention of justification in verse 30 of chapter 8 the act of calling must then be the completion of faith, since it is faith which leads to justification, and lest one is to assume that calling is just a throw-away act, the presence of faith must not proceed calling. Then, by the Conditional interpretation, we have that God's knowledge of a person placing faith in him precedes their election which precedes their calling which precedes their faith. But again, this hands us a contradiction, and therefore, I believe that we cannot accept the Conditional approach to foreknowledge and election as a plausible interpretation of Romans 8.28-30.

That said, we now want to see if their are any other passages which support the Unconditional interpretation of this text. The one I would turn to would, of course, be Ephesians 1.3-6:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

This passage, in my opinion, stands above all as an announcement of how God's election was established, saying that the elect were "chose[n] . . . before the foundation of the world" and that they were "predestined . . . for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ." If the elect were to be chosen on the merits of their choosing God first, then it would not be God predestining anyone for adoption, but instead would be God simply acquiescing to the adoption that they chose. Yet, seen this way, it seems all too clear that the elect, the chosen ones set apart by God, all of whom receive salvation, were thus chosen before they were saved, and therefore, were chosen to salvation, which makes God all the more to be praised!

US BAPTISTS ENDORSE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

Particular Kev — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 23:09:39 +0000

The executive board of the California Southern Baptist Convention unanimously endorsed the state's proposed constitutional marriage amendment during its meeting Sept. 11-12 and encouraged Southern Baptists in the state to do the same, reports Baptist Press.

The amendment, known as Proposition 8, will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot and would define marriage as between one man and one woman, thus overturning a May decision by the California Supreme Court legalizing "gay marriage." The board passed a resolution acknowledging the Bible as the "Word of God" and the "standard by which all human conduct and religious opinion should be measured." (See the full text of the resolution at the bottom of this story).

The resolution acknowledges: "The Bible also teaches that marriage was the first institution ordained by God at the beginning of creation when it was established between Adam, a male, and Eve, a female, as the pattern for all time."

The resolution calls on California Southern Baptists to pray about the issue and conduct voter registration drives through Oct. 20, the cutoff date for voter registration. The resolution urges pastors to inform their congregations of issues related to the ballot measure and encourages them to participate in the grassroots effort.

Additionally, the resolution encourages California Southern Baptists to financially support Proposition 8. The resolution points to Internet resources such as those at www.csbc.com/protectmarriage, www.ProtectMarriage.com and www.protectmarriageca.com .

In presenting the recommendation to the executive board, Don Fugate, communications committee chairman and pastor of Foxworthy Baptist Church in San Jose, said the resolution is something all California Southern Baptists should support, and that he believes it is at the core of what Baptists believe about the family.

Following is the complete text of the resolution supporting Proposition 8:

"WHEREAS, The Bible is the Word of God, written by men, but divinely inspired, the Bible also is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is God-breathed and inerrant, and all Scripture is true and trustworthy. It is the standard by which all human conduct and religious opinion should be measured; and

"WHEREAS, The Bible teaches that God loves all people and commands us to do likewise; the Bible also teaches that marriage was the first institution ordained by God at the beginning of creation when it was established between Adam, a male, and Eve, a female, as the pattern for all time. Since the beginning of time societies, cultures and religions have endorsed marriage as the union between one man and one woman for a lifetime. Marriage provides the framework for intimate companionship, the avenue of sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation. It also is God's unique gift to demonstrate the relationship between Christ and His church; and

"WHEREAS, The family unit that God intended -- a father, a mother and children -- has fallen into disarray while the divorce rate in our state and nation is at an all-time high, and the percentage rate of divorce in the general population is reflected in the church; and

"WHEREAS, California voters in 2000, by more than 61 percent of the vote, approved Proposition 22 which reads, 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California;' and

"WHEREAS, The California Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, disregarded the will of the people on May 15, 2008 by striking down Proposition 22, thereby granting marriage privileges to 'same-sex' couples; and

"WHEREAS, Same-sex marriage is legally unnecessary since homosexual couples in California already are entitled to all the legal rights and privileges of marriage, short of the name; now, therefore be it

"RESOLVED That the California Southern Baptist Convention Executive Board, meeting September 12, 2008, endorse Proposition 8, a California constitutional amendment that states, 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California;' and be it further

"RESOLVED That California Southern Baptist Convention churches and members are urged to pray about this important issue, and that at least 7 million Californians will vote for traditional, biblical marriage; and be it further

"RESOLVED That churches are encouraged to conduct voter registration drives between now and October 20 since as many as 50 percent of Christian eligible voters are not registered to carry out this civic privilege; and be it further

"RESOLVED That California Southern Baptist Convention pastors are urged to inform their congregations of the issues and encourage them to participate in the grassroots effort; and be it further

"RESOLVED That California Southern Baptists be encouraged to financially support Proposition 8 by making donations to ProtectMarriage.com by Oct. 10; and be it finally

"RESOLVED That California Southern Baptist Convention church leaders are urged to avail themselves of resources provided on the World Wide Web at www.csbc.com/protectmarriage , www.protectmarriage.com , and www.protectmarriageca.com ."

Report from the Christian Telegraph

It's been decided.

.tink. — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 01:21:37 +0000

We're getting a divorce.

Hello, depression!

Laura — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 22:08:39 +0000

How I'm feeling now, this is what I call depression.

The hiding, the crying. The fear, the listlessness.

And it's all the worse for being, at least partly, self-inflicted.

If I would just see the doctor again, if I would just get help. They might be able to find a medication that worked. They might be able to help me. I might never have to feel like this.

But I won't let myself get help. Because I don't want my parents to find out again. Because I can't communicate how bad it is anyway. Because the CPN and psychiatrist never believed me. Because the medication never worked.

But doing a bad thing for good reasons doesn't make the thing any better.

There's no righteousness, no smugness, that I'm sacrificing my health and happiness to avoid worrying my parents.

I have a choice: a) get help, or b) don't get help. And I weighed it up in my mind and I decided that, for me, b was better.

But both choices are awful, and the fact that one of them is better than the other doesn't stop it from being awful.

It doesn't make this horrible, overwhelming depression any easier to deal with.

I decided that I might get help when I've completely moved out of home (instead of just being away at term-time), when I'm properly independent. And I think about how that'll be two years at least and I just don't have the strength to do this for that long.

I lie to myself. I tell myself that it might go away, that I might get better without help, that it's just a matter of time and waiting.

And all the while I'm wondering if I can make it through another day.

Altar Calls, Invitations are Dangerous!

Scott — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:32:23 +0000

The Dangers of the Invitation System!

Reposted on 10-3-2008 by Scott Bailey

by Jim Ehrhard

As a young minister, I once made the “mistake” of closing a Wednesday evening service without extending a public invitation.¹ Early the next morning, an irate husband came to my office. For the first time in years, his unsaved wife had come with him to church. “If you had only given an invitation,” he angrily explained, “she would have gone down the aisle.”I explained that if the seed of God’s Word had been planted in her, then she would come to faith. Then she could “go down the aisle” on Sunday and share what God had done. My explanation fell on deaf ears. I had missed the opportune time, and if she never came to Christ, I would have to bear her damnation on my conscience for eternity, he retorted.

In the ensuing months, God granted me many opportunities to speak personally with this lady about her spiritual condition. Not only was it obvious that she was not under conviction of sin; but she had little real understanding of the gospel. Through our conversations, she came to see her sin and real conviction made her life miserable. One morning she called and said, “I’ve finally come to Jesus. Now I understand what you’ve been talking about.”

This experience, and many similar that followed, led me to reexamine my views of the invitation system that I had always assumed were as much a part of the gospel as the death and resurrection of Jesus. My involvement with a Christian college ministry, attendance at a number of schools of evangelism, and my denominational traditions had led me to see the public invitation as vital to evangelism. Studying the Scriptures and the history of preaching and revivals began to lead me to a different conclusion. But the process of laying aside something that was so “normal” to me was a great emotional struggle. I needed to know that the dangers of such a system outweighed the benefits that everyone claimed.

² I needed to know that I could still be evangelistic without extending a public altar call. I needed to see a better way.It is my hope that this article will help you in these areas. To do a thorough analysis of the system and its history is far beyond the scope of this undertaking. But perhaps as we examine this issue, we can see the dangers inherent in this system and chart a course for a better way.As we begin, one thing must be made thoroughly clear. I am not advocating that we not invite people to come to Christ. The invitation to come to Christ is one that we are called to make. Should we shrink back from such a call, we would be rightly accused of being “ashamed of the gospel of Christ.” Thus we should do everything possible to be more proficient in extending God’s great invitation to come to Christ.

However, God’s invitation that must be extended to all is not synonymous with man’s invitation system. Only since the 1800s has this system been employed to bring men to Christ.³ Since that time, this system has been refined and employed to such an extent that many today equate “coming to faith” with “coming down the aisle.” Such an equation is not only inaccurate; it is dangerous because it deceives many into resting their faith on a “profession” rather than on Christ, who alone is “able to save to the uttermost” (cf. Heb. 7:25).

The Dangers

Evangelists often seek biblical support for this practice in a number of passages. One evangelist says, “Christ always called people publicly, and this statement is confirmed by texts such as ‘Follow Me,’ or ‘Whosoever shall confess Me before men, him will I confess before My Father which is in heaven.’”⁴ But to conclude that Jesus gave altar calls on the basis of those passages is to fail to be honest with the text. No doubt Jesus called men to Himself. But do we see any example where He (or the apostles, for that matter) appealed for people to “come forward” as either a testimony to their decision or as an act of accepting Him?

1) The danger of promoting a method not promoted in Scripture

Furthermore, what is Jesus calling these to? Is it merely to make a “one time” decision about Him, or to follow Him all their lives? The invitation system gives the impression that the former is Jesus’ intent. And what about “confessing Him before men”? Is Jesus saying that by a single act of confession one becomes a believer? Or is He teaching that one mark of true faith is a life that continually confesses Him? Again, the invitation system leads many to trust their eternal destination to confidence in a “confession,” though they openly live in rebellion to Him throughout their lives.

In summary, many passages show that Jesus and the apostles called men to repentance and faith. But no passage indicates that either used any form of “invitation system” in bringing them to faith or in confirming their faith.⁵

2) The danger of eliciting an emotional response based upon the personality of the speaker or the persuasion of the appealIn Mark 4, Jesus portrays four types of hearers of God’s Word by using the parable of the soils. In the second soil, Jesus describes those who, “when they hear the word, immediately receive it with gladness.” But, Jesus cautions, “they have no root in themselves, and so endure only for a time.” Jesus knew the reality of being heard by crowds who had no desire to truly follow Him.

While this psychological element ought to be reason for concern and caution in using the invitation system, proponents actually argue that this element is all the more reason to extend an appeal for a public decision. Billy Graham teaches that the pressure brought upon the human soul is so great that an emotional outlet must be given. He argues:

Many psychologists would say it is psychologically sound. One of the reasons why our films and dramas usually have such a bad effect is that they stir the emotion to such a high pitch and do not offer any practical outlet for action.⁶

Evangelist George Sweazey agrees: “To stir people religiously without giving them anything they can do about it leaves them far worse off than they were before.”⁷In reality, most psychologists would agree with Graham’s assessment of the psychological pressure of the appeal, but would conclude that the response to his call is largely the result of this psychological pressure. One psychologist, George Target, gives such an assessment:

All present are told to pray, instructed to close their eyes and bow the head, and the form of the words is the auto-suggestive one that hundreds of others are already going forward, finding happiness, peace, love, God. … The counselors planted all over the audience make the first few moves, create the sense that the statement is true even when it very often is not. … It might all be true, there might be some nameless peace down there with all the others. The tension screws to the breaking point and beyond. The wonder is that so few actually obey.⁸In his book, Preaching and Preachers. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones cites an example in which the invitation appeal given by an evangelist was, by program necessity, separated from the message by a half-hour of hymn singing. In explanation of the disappointingly small response to his appeal, the evangelist stated that the effect of his appeal was diminished by the half-hour of hymn singing. Lloyd-Jones observes that the evangelist’s “admitting that half an hour of hymn singing can do away with the effect of a sermon… is a striking illustration of the fact that direct pressure on the will can produce ‘results.’”⁹

Lewis Sperry Chafer, a well-known evangelist and one of the founders of Dallas Theological Seminary, used the invitation system until he saw the inherent dangers:

Because of satanic blindness to the gospel of grace (2 Cor. 4:34), unregenerate man cannot comprehend the true basis of salvation, and is therefore ever prone to do the best he knows. This is to attempt to work out his own standing before God by his own efforts. It is this natural tendency to do something of merit that prompts many to respond to the evangelist’s appeal. … A leader with a commanding personality (and every successful evangelist must possess that characteristic in the extreme) may secure the public action of many, when the issue is made one of religious merit through some public act.¹⁰

To make matters worse, many go away from the “altar,” told that they are now Christians, knowing that they are not changed one bit. As a result, their unbelief may harden into skepticism toward anything Christian. R. L. Dabney notes:

They feel that a cruel trick has been played upon their inexperience by the ministers and friends of Christianity in thus thrusting them, in the hour of their confusion, into false positions…. How natural to conclude that those [experiences of conversion] of all others are delusions also? They say: “The only difference between myself and these earnest Christians is that they have not yet detected the cheat as I have.”¹¹ The extension of an appeal for public decision may result in a purely psychological response that provides a catharsis for the emotional pressure of the sermon. Such persons falsely assume that their action has made them right with God. In others, it may drive them further into skepticism and doubt about the reality of the conversion of anyone. Such dangers ought to alarm every person sincerely concerned about the salvation of lost souls.

3) The danger of confusing the “coming forward” with salvation

There’s nothing about the mechanics of coming forward that saves anybody’s soul. Coming forward is an open acknowledgment and a testimony of an inward experience that you have had with Christ. But this inward experience with Christ, this encounter, is the most important thing.¹²

But examination of the invitation used by Graham shows just how confusing the system is. Keep in mind that Graham has already noted that the coming forward is a “testimony of an inward experience that you have had with Christ.” When is the person converted? Why are they coming?

I’m going to ask you to come forward. Up there - down there - I want you to come. You come right now - quickly. If you are here with friends or relatives, they will wait for you. Don’t let distance keep you from Christ. It’s a long way, but Christ went all the way to the cross because He loved you. Certainly you can come these few steps and give your life to Him. …¹³At the “altar,” the confusion continues as he addresses those who have come: “You have come tonight to Jesus Christ, you have come to receive Him into your heart. …” Which is it? Have they already come to Jesus, or are they coming now to receive Him? Graham continues: “He receives you; He died for you; He says, ‘Thy sins are forgiven.’ You accept that. The past is forgiven, God forgets…. He cannot even see your sins.”¹⁴ Then he leads them to repeat a prayer known as “the sinner’s prayer.” The question again is obvious: have they been forgiven, or will they be when they pray the prayer?

To make matters worse, many often add so many things to the invitation that one cannot be certain what he is being asked to do. This was especially true in the invitations of Billy Sunday who often exhorted people to “Come on down and take my hand against booze, for Jesus Christ, for your flag.”¹⁵

Even Spurgeon warned about the potential for confusing any system¹⁶ with salvation:

Sometimes shut up that enquiry-room. I have my fears about that institution if it be used in permanence, and as an inevitable part of the services…. If you should ever see that a notion is fashioning itself that there is something to be got in the private room which is not to be had at once in the assembly, or that God is more at that penitent form than elsewhere, aim a blow at that notion at once.¹⁷

Who can observe the invitation system today and not see that many are in danger of confusing this practice with coming to faith in Christ?4) The danger of counting great numbers who only discredit their profession by their lives

I am convinced that the giving of some kind of public invitation to come to Christ is not only theologically correct, but also emotionally sound. Men need this opportunity for expression. The inner decision for Christ is like driving a nail through a board. The open declaration of it is like clinching the nail on the other side, so that it cannot easily be pulled out.¹⁸

In other words, the giving of an invitation ought to result in an even higher percentage of “converts” living out their profession. Yet the very opposite seems to be true.

Even the statistics compiled using the invitation system show that only a very small percentage of “professors” show any signs of conversion even a few weeks after the decision. According to Sterling Huston, a survey after a crusade in the Pacific Northwest indicated that only 16 percent of the inquirers became new additions to the churches. While one should be appalled at the low rate of retention, Huston actually considers this a significant fact showing the value of the crusade!¹⁹While pastoring in New England, our church participated in two Graham crusades. We received the names of 10 converts from one crusade and six from the other. In our follow up, not one was interested in church, the Bible, or even talking about their “new-found faith in Christ.” Other pastors reported the same results.

Ernest Reisinger notes: “This unbiblical system has produced the greatest record of statistics ever compiled by church or business.”²⁰ But such an observation is not new to our times. A century ago, Dabney observed, “The thing is so well-known that in many regions the public coolly expect about forty-five out of fifty, or even a higher ratio, to apostatize ultimately.”²¹

Such was not the common experience before the use of the invitation system. Those who were converted were so thoroughly changed that there was no need of a system to encourage decisions or record them before there was fruit. False conversions were the exception rather than the rule in the ministry of Finney’s contemporary, Asahel Nettleton. For example, of the 84 converts in an 1818 revival in Rocky Hill, Conn., all 84 had remained faithful according to their pastor’s report 26 years later! Similarly, only three spurious conversions out of 82 professions were noted in a similar pastor’s report on a revival in Ashford, Conn.²²

Toward the end of his life, Charles Finney, after reflecting on the many who claimed conversion but had since fallen away, had mixed thoughts about the genuineness of his work. In fact, his development of a doctrine of perfectionism (”entire sanctification” was the term preferred by Finney) came out of his attempt to answer the question as to why so many of his “converts” lived such godless lives. The use of an invitation system eventually leads to a two-tiered approach to the Christian life to explain the difference between those few who have been changed by their “decision” and the multitudes who have not.²³

5) The danger of giving assurance to those who are unconverted

That is exactly what the invitation system does. It encourages people to make a response that “settles things” and, through subsequent counseling, to never doubt that decision. Anyone who is involved in personal evangelism can share countless examples of persons who, though presently living in gross sin, will nonetheless tell the evangelist that they are fine because they “made a decision for Christ” a certain number of years ago. They have never had any change in their life; they have no interest in church, the Bible, or even God. But they have made their “decision.” Can we not see how dangerous such a system is to the souls of men?

Two centuries ago, evangelist George Whitefield warned about this danger:

I am glad you know when persons are justified. It is a lesson I have not yet learnt. There are so many stony ground hearers, who receive the Word with joy, that I have determined to suspend my judgment till I know the tree by its fruits. That makes me so cautious now, which I was not thirty years ago, of dubbing converts so soon. I love now to wait a little, and see if people bring forth fruit; for there are so many blossoms which March winds you know blow away, that I cannot believe they are converts till I see fruit brought back; it will never do a sincere soul any harm.²⁴

Likewise Spurgeon warned:

Sometimes we are inclined to think that a very great portion of modern revivalism has been more a curse than a blessing, because it has led thousands to a kind of peace before they have known their misery; restoring the prodigal to the Father’s house, and never making him say, Father, I have sinned.”²⁵In The Soul Winner. Spurgeon cautions against using pressure to secure quick decisions:

It very often happens that the converts that are born in excitement die when the excitement is over…. Some of the most glaring sinners known to me were once members of a church; and were, as I believe, led to make a profession by undue pressure, well-meant but ill-judged.²⁶

For years, we have heard about the values of the invitation system. It is even widely intimated

(often plainly stated) that one who failed to give public invitations could not be concerned for the souls of men. Yet could it be that the very opposite is true: that the very extension of such an appeal might be the means for deluding many into a false state of assurance ultimately resulting in their damnation?

A Better Way

But some will ask, “What other way is there to bring people to Christ?” I would respond: “The way that was used by Jesus and the apostles, the Reformers, the Puritans, and most others until the 1830s.” That way is simply to proclaim the truth, to call men to repent and believe, and to leave the results in the hands of the Spirit who alone can bring people to faith (cf. John 3; 6:44, 65; etc.).To explain a little more fully, let me give you two “musts” for those who would be evangelistic apart from using the invitation system.

1) We must learn to trust the power of God’s Word to convince, convert, and change lives

Paul said: “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16). In I Corinthians 1:18, he contended: “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” Peter was likewise convinced that the Word of God has power to convert. He reminded believers that they had been “born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever” (1 Peter 1:23).To be evangelistic, we must be convinced of the power that God’s Word has in converting men without the help of our man-made systems. Remember the evangelist whose appeal was separated from his message by a half-hour of hymn singing? It is obvious that he was not convinced of the power of God’s Word apart from the addition of his appeal. We must be, or we will be tempted to add things to the preaching of the Word to secure greater commitments.

Those who ministered before the development of the invitation system saw the awesome power of the Word to work in men’s hearts. David Brainerd testifies to the:

preaching God made use offer the awakening of sinners, and the propagation of this “work of grace among the Indians.” … There was then the greatest appearance of divine power, in awakening numbers of secure souls, promoting convictions begun, and comforting the distressed.” ²⁷

Accounts from the ministry of Nettleton show the deep and penetrating work of the Word of God on hearers:

As he was speaking, a youth sitting near a window cried out like one shot with an arrow. The people were so engrossed in the evangelist’s message that it hardly caused a diversion. Several in one family were aroused at this meeting and went home weeping. The head of the house had gone to bed when they arrived. He listened as their carriage drove up and was startled by a wail of distress coming from without. He leaped from his bed, rushed outside and was met by his daughter-in-law who threw her arms around his neck and exclaimed, “My father, what shall I do? What shall I do?” It was a miserable night for this young woman, but before morning all was well. She received Christ as Saviour and peace came.²⁸

Such occurrences while ministering in the power of God’s Word were not uncommon. In letters to his friend. Philander Parmele, Nettleton described many similar conversions. After a meeting in New Haven, Nettleton wrote:

One young man seized my hand exclaiming “I am a sinner. I am a sinner. What shall I do?” They [people at the meeting] left the house and went home sighing, & sobbing in every direction. I came home & found a number around the door of Mr. Williams’ house, in the most awful distress, Some were standing, some sitting on the ground, & some on the door steps exclaiming “What shall I do?” I shall die. I shall die. “I Can’t live.” This alarmed the neighbors who called to witness the awful scene. With much ado I got them into the house, about eight or ten in number. The fact was, the young man aforementioned, who left the meeting house in such distress, was walking in company with them, when all at once he found relief and exclaimed, “I have found the Saviour.” He was now very joyful. He sat clothed and in his right mind: and they were afraid. My first business now was to warn them against a false hope. Prayed with them and enjoined it particularly on them not to go home together, but to go alone, & be alone, for the business must be settled between God and their souls. Maria (a young woman living in this family) was one of the number. She retired to her chamber, sighing and sobbing, and crying for mercy, and exclaiming ‘I shall die, I shall die.” She came down and went out doors, and returned in the same awful distress to her chamber. And suddenly all was still and hushed to silence. I sat still below and said nothing. I soon heard the sound of her footsteps descending the chamber stairs. She opened the door and with a joyful countenance exclaimed O, Sir, I have found the Saviour. I continued to warn her of the danger of a false hope. She exclaimed “I love Christ. I do love him. O how sweet.” In the morning, early, she called to see one of her anxious mates, who was so distressed the night before; and Lo: Barsheba exclaimed “I have found the Saviour.” That was a happy meeting. The young man aforementioned resided in the same family (this was John Towner’s house). On Saturday evening about midnight another, equally distressed, found relief. Within a few days 8 or 10 are rejoicing in hope. What will be the end. I know not. Do pray for us, and your friend, A. Nettleton.” ²⁹

Such was often the nature of conversion in the days before the invitation system when the Word was boldly preached and left to do its work in souls. Many modern examples of conversions could also be given, such as that of C. S. Lewis, who, after being confronted with the truth, struggled with it until one day he was strangely converted riding in his sidecar.

The real question is: How powerful is the Word of God? Can it change men from sinners into saints without an extension of an altar call? Will it convict and convert (as God promises),or will we need to add something that helps men “settle it”? You will never be able to do without the invitation system until you are thoroughly convinced of the power of God’s Word.

2) We must urgently appeal to all men to come to Christ nowAfter reading this far, one may be tempted to avoid giving any appeal for people to come to Christ. Please do not misunderstand: we are under divine command to call “all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). Erroll Hulse reminds us: “The preacher is free to exhort and command, to plead and implore, to reason and invite. He is an ambassador who speaks on behalf of the great King and whose purpose is to bring about reconciliation.”³⁰

Allow me to note a few particulars about this responsibility.

First, our invitation must be universal. It matters not (for the purposes of this article) whether you view the atonement as limited or unlimited or whether you accept the doctrine of election or not: the scope of our appeal must be universal. Charles Spurgeon, one of the greatest evangelistic preachers, was a thorough-going Calvinist. Yet he understood that our appeal must be universal.In one of his sermons, Spurgeon reminded his congregation about the doctrine of God’s electing some from the foundation of the world. But he noted that our task is to “preach the gospel to every creature,” not to find the elect. Spurgeon said that if God had painted a yellow stripe down the back of each of the elect, he would run up and down the streets of London, lifting up shirttails, and preaching the gospel to the elect. But, Spurgeon reminds us, God has not done so. Instead He has commanded us to “preach the gospel to every creature.” We must urgently appeal to everyone to come to Christ.

Second, our invitation must be urgent. When preaching or counseling about salvation, we must never give men the idea that repenting is something they can put off. Some who have dropped the invitation system because of its dangers have also dropped the urgent call to believe. We must say to men, “You must repent and believe the gospel.” Should they say, “But I cannot,” we must say, “But you must. God has commanded all men everywhere to repent. Your failure to do so only shows the wicked state of your heart. If you saw your sin as God sees it, you would flee to Him as the only salvation for your soul.”John Kennedy, a nineteenth-century British minister, provides some additional instruction concerning counseling inquirers. Notice that he puts the focus of counseling inquirers on the object of their faith:

Faith [by those using the invitation system] is represented as something to be done, in order to [gain] salvation; and pains are taken to show that it is an easy thing. Better far than this would it be to see it, that those with whom they deal are truly convinced of sin, and to labour to set forth Christ before them, in his glorious completeness as a Saviour. To explain faith to them, that they may do it, is to set them still to work, though setting an easier task before them. I know well the tendency there is, at a certain stage of anxious inquiry, to ask, “What is faith, that I may do it?” It is a legalist’s work to satisfy that craving; but this is what is done in the “inquiry-room.” “Who is He, that I may believe in Him?” was the question asked by one who approached the dawning of a day of salvation. Explanations of what faith is are but trifling with souls. How different is the Scripture way! The great aim there is to “set forth” the object, not to explain the act, of faith. Let there be conviction, illumination and renewal, and faith becomes the instinctive response of the quickened soul to the presentation by God of His Christ; and, without these, no explanation of faith can be helpful to any one. The labour to explain it is too often the legal spirit. It were wiser to take pains in removing ignorance and error regarding God, and sin, and Christ. Help them know these, if you would not build them up with “untempered mortar” in a false peace. If you would be wise, as well as kind, work in that direction, rather than hurrying them to belief.³¹

We must be patient to allow the Holy Spirit to work conviction in the heart. That may happen in a few moments, a few hours, days, or even years. But we must remain imperative in our appeal. Our message and our urgency must not change - people must repent and believe today.

Finally, our invitation must call them to Christ. The focus of all the evangelistic appeals in Scripture is the same. Jesus said, “Come to Me … and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). Our appeal must be to come to Christ, not to follow any prescribed method that might cause some to equate their “coming” as coming to Him.

Conclusion

An examination of the invitation system is not an easy one. It is an emotional one. “To reduce sense of shock that some may feel, I would remind them that for well over 1800 years the Holy Spirit completed successfully all His work of saving sinners without this method. It was only with the advent of Charles Finney (1792-1875) that the ‘appeal’ as an organized method really got under way.”³² Even then, it met with much resistance until near the end of the nineteenth century. Today it is accepted as if it was used by Jesus and Paul. Be warned - many will consider you non-evangelistic if you even question the validity of this system, much less consider no longer using it as a method to bring people to Christ.³³But we must be honest about the dangers that we have examined in this article. Is it not clear that the Scriptures “provide an invitation to sinners which is perfect and does not need addition?’”³⁴ Are you concerned about asking people to do something for salvation that was never promoted in the Bible or in early church history?

Do you wish to eliminate possibilities that persons might respond to an emotional appeal or your persuasion rather than to the gospel? Do you wish to reduce the confusion that many have in equating “coming forward” with being saved?

Are you tired of seeing great numbers coming forward only to discredit the name of Christ by professing something that has no reality in their lives? Are you really concerned to see people converted - truly converted - instead of falsely assured? Then please examine this system carefully and honestly.

On the other hand, we must not confuse the invitation system with inviting people to Christ. This we must do with all urgency. “The Great Invitation of the gospel is an awesome and glorious subject. While we are in this world we should never cease making ourselves more proficient and winsome in the employment of invitations.”³⁵

Still, the dangers of this system are serious. The souls of men are at stake. To be biblically evangelistic, we must be certain that what we do leads men to faith, not just to decisions.

Copyright © 1999
CHRISTIAN COMMUNICATORS WORLDWIDE
Scripture quotations taken from The New King James Bible, Copyright © 1991 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Le livre de Julie Couillard: Que du réchauffé!

Richard3 — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:02:41 +0000

J'ai pris le temps de lire, dans le Journal de Montréal, les six pages consacrées à la sortie de Julie Couillard, qui faisait la promotion de son livre, intitulé tout simplement Mon histoire, que l'on verra bientôt dans les librairies.

Personnellement, à part l'affaire du Pepsi (alors qu'elle raconte que Max Bernier se plaignait constamment que son chef, Stephen Harper, mangeait mal, et buvait beaucoup de Pepsi), je n'ai rien appris de plus que ce que je savais déjà, d'abord, et ensuite, rien appris qui me pousse à acheter le bouquin de cette fraudeuse, qui a donné son corps à au moins deux personnes, dont un ministre, afin de décrocher une vente. Je ne suis pas un adepte du Lundi, ni de Photo-Police, et de tout ce qu'il peut exister, comme feuille de chou, entre les deux. C'est donc dire que 320 pages de ragots, non merci, pas pour moi. Même que je vais annuler mon abonnement au JdeM, dans les prochains jours; comme je peux obtenir la même information sur le web, et à la quantité de papier dont je dois ensuite disposer, j'ai l'impression que je paie directement le bûcheron! Je vois déjà Richard Desjardins, face à ma décision, pris dans un dilemme; sauver les arbres de sa forêt boréale, ou les jobs des bûcherons de l'Abitibi?

Une chose est sûre, par contre; j'espère que le livre de Julie Couillard sera imprimé sur du papier recyclé, et recyclable. Ce serait triste de gaspiller des arbres pour imprimer des livres qui ne se vendront que dans les premiers jours suivant sa parution, et qui se retrouveront rapidement dans les ventes de garage, dès le printemps de 2009. (Mais qu'est-ce que je dis là, moi? Sauver les arbres? Virginie Roy, sors de mon corps!)

De tous temps, des vedettes instantanées, ou encore des personnalités de passage, ont tenté de régler leurs comptes avec un bouquin, une entrevue télévisée aux heures de grande écoute, ou d'autres trucs du même genre. Et dans la très grande majorité des cas, ledit règlement de comptes se retournait rapidement contre la personne elle-même. C'est ce qui risque très probablement d'arriver à Julie Couillard. Selon moi, elle devrait faire comme Nathalie Simard, et aller en République Dominicaine. Ou comme Claude F. Archambault, et disparaître dans la nature, pour quelques temps.

Bref, si elle veut se refaire une vie, madame Couillard devrait plutôt se faire oublier.

Un truc qui me fait rire; elle déclare, au JdeM, "Depuis cinq mois, ma vie est arrêtée. Cela a été un tsunami arrivée de nowhere. Un matin, je me suis réveillée. Je suis passée de la femme qui représentait son pays fièrement, qui était assez digne pour accompagner le ministre des Affaires étrangères, pour converser avec le président américain et la first lady, et du jour au lendemain, je suis devenue une traînée, une pute, une tenancière de bordel, une croqueuse de diamants et une Mata Hari. Ma vie est détruite." Pourtant, n'était-ce pas elle qui a décidé de quitter Max Bernier, le printemps dernier? Je crois qu'elle voulait tout avoir, mais ne rien payer. Or, dans la vie, quand on prend le remède miracle, dans le but d'en tirer des avantages, il faut aussi apprendre à vivre avec les effets secondaires. Elle a voulu d'un ministre, elle a voulu le flusher, et elle a fait des déclarations qui lui a coûté son poste, alors elle doit vivre avec les répercussions de tout cela. Elle devra apprendre, un jour, que si la parole est d'argent, le silence est d'or.

EGYPT: COURT GIVES CHRISTIAN BOYS TO MUSLIM FATHER

Particular Kev — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:19:51 +0000

Despite a fatwa from the Grand Mufti, Alexandria judge denies custody for mother.

ISTANBUL, October 2 (Compass Direct News) – Following the Appeal Court of Alexandria on Sept. 24 granting custody of 13-year-old Christian twins to their Muslim father, their mother lives with the fear that police will take away her children at any moment.

Kamilia Gaballah has fought with her ex-husband Medhat Ramses Labib over alimony support and custody of sons Andrew and Mario in 40 different cases since he left her and converted to Islam so that he could remarry in 1999.

The court ruled in favor of Labib in spite of Egyptian law’s Article 20, which grants custody of children to their mothers until the age of 15, and a fatwa (religious ruling) from Egypt’s most respected Islamic scholar, Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, giving her custody.

“This decision was dangerous because it was not taken in accordance with Egyptian law but according to sharia [Islamic] law,” said Naguib Gobraiel, Gaballah’s lawyer and president of the Egyptian Union of Human Rights Organizations.

He explained that Egypt’s civic code calls for children under the age of 15 to stay with their mother regardless of their religion. Gobraiel said that sharia tends to favor the Muslim parent in such cases.

“They want to stay with their mother,” said Gobraiel. “They don’t know anything about Islam and sharia. They are Christians and go to church on Sundays.”

The twins have publicly stated their faith, and during a test in a mandatory religious class two years ago they scribbled only, “I am a Christian” on their answer sheets and otherwise turned them in blank. The twins intend to go on a hunger strike if they are forced to live with their Muslim father, whom they hardly know, sources said.

“We only want one thing,” said Gobraiel. “We want the law to be applied in our cases like this one, not the sharia, because the government owes us citizenship. This is a civilized, secular country, not a religious country.”

The decision of the presiding judge, El Sayed El Sherbini, to give the father full custody is not even based on sharia but is purely arbitrary, Gaballah and her eldest son George Medhat Ramses claimed, since the country’s State Mufti had granted custody to the mother in April 2006.

“We don’t want to give them to anyone or comply with the sentence,” Ramses told Compass. “All the legal ways have been wrong to us. We’ve been trying to make it as legal as we can, but the court has not been fair.”

Ramses, 21, who is also a Christian and lives with his mother and two little brothers, said the judged showed bias in favor of his father because he converted to Islam shortly after he left Gaballah.

“The decision was unfair and oppressive,” Gaballah told Compass. “I am treated differently than other Egyptians, as if this is not my own country.”

Gaballah, who has been fighting to keep her sons since the court decided in 2006 that custody of her sons should be given to her ex-husband, fears that her children will grow up without hope and a sense of justice.

“I am so sad and afraid about their psychology,” she said, “because they are facing something that is fundamentally against all the principles I have taught them.”

Gaballah said she is ready to keep fighting with the few means left in her power to keep her sons, even if it means tarnishing her with a criminal record by not handing them over to their father.

“And I’m determined to get justice in my own country, because it is my natural right and my sons’ right,” she said. “I cannot see how I can comply with the people who are taking my rights away from me and taking my children from me to give them to an unworthy father and another woman.”

Labib is now married to his third wife, with whom he has a 4-year-old son. He is a businessman working in exports and travels between Alexandria and Cairo.

Gobraiel said that he intends to send a clear message to Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak and the international human rights community that judgments like this one are hypocritical on the part of a government that claims to be “civilized.”

“How can they think we live in a civilized and secular country when they are applying sharia law on us?” he asked. “We will send a message to human rights organizations in Egypt and around the world to help us. We are angry and we want to declare it!”

Problematic Birth Certificates

Even under their father’s custody, the twins have the legal right to live with whomever they choose in two years, when they turn 15. But Ramses said he doubts the court would let them return to their mother.

“The same law that states that they should stay with mother until the age of 15 is the one that says they can decide where to live after the age of 15,” he explained. “If the court didn’t apply the first part of the law, they won’t apply the second.”

At the age of 16, when Mario and Andrew apply for their identification cards, they will face yet another hurdle, said Ramses. In 2005, Labib went to the population register and changed the twins’ birth certificates from Christian to Muslim, to reflect his own religion.

Now Ramses fears that a Sept. 23 court ruling in the case of Bahia Nagy El-Sisi, sentencing her to prison for three years for “forgery of an official document,” could be what awaits him and his little brothers. Nagy El-Sisi’s father had converted to Islam briefly in 1962, when she was 3 years old, and her documents were never altered to reflect the change as she remained a Christian. She and her sister discovered that their father had temporarily converted to Islam when the sister, Shadia Nagy, tried to issue marriage papers for her son.

Shadia Nagy was sentenced to three years in prison in 2007, also for “forgery.”

“These women are us in the future,” said Ramses.

Over the past few years, as Christians have found out about the twin boys’ case, Ramses said many have called them to give support. Many also have pledged to go on a hunger strike with the boys if they are handed over to their father.

“Christians see them as Coptic heroes and martyrs who stood up in front of all and said they were Christians and held on to it,” said Ramses. “All of them say they see the greatness of their ancestors and Christian heroes of long ago in them … and they carry a lot of respect and love for what they have done.”

Report from Compass Direct News

God Decides 2008!- What Happens to the Elect?

Todd Burus — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:12:35 +0000

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will." -Ephesians 1.3-5

Building upon the conclusion that we made last time, that there is some group of people set apart by God as "the elect," it is now time that we delve into the question of what happens to the elect?, i.e. if they are elect then elect to what? Is this just a name or does it imply something more?

There are many places I think we can look for this, and so the first place I would like to take on is the opening passage of 1 Peter. Here is what it says:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion . . . . Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1 Peter 1.1a, 3-5)

This passage begins with Peter making the salutations and naming the people to whom he wishes to address with this letter, namely "the elect exiles of the dispersion." So, this group which Peter is talking to is a group of the elect. And what does he say to them? He immediately goes into an exposition of the mercies of God who "caused us to be born again" and who is "guard[ing] [us] through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." Then, it would appear that, whoever these elect are, one thing Peter associates with them is a shared redemption and salvation through the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Without pushing it too far, I think that we may make the assumption that Peter believes at least these members of the elect to be saved. However, I feel that if we look further we can see that Scripture gives argument to the fact that all of the elect are saved.

Before that, however, I want to point out another portion of the elect who we are told have received salvation, and they most assuredly separate from the group Peter is addressing. This passage is found in Paul's epistle to the Romans and occurs in a section where he is addressing the question of whether all of the Jews have been lost with the coming of Christ. Paul speaks saying, "at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace" (v.5) and then continues to answer the question: "What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened" (v.7). Here again we find an apostle referring to a gathering of the elect, all of whom have "obtained" salvation.

This leads us to an earlier portion of Paul's Roman letter, chapter 8 to be exact, where I believe the solid evidence is that proves once for all that this elect, a group of people we have already shown is set apart specifically by God, is a gathering of people who are all saved (or to be saved, but that argument comes later):

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." (vv.28-30)

This predestined, which is another naming for the elect, are such that they have been called, justified, and glorified. Now, without getting into too much theology of what all of this means, we can at least say for sure that justification is the act by which we are counted righteous, innocent, before God, and thus are cleared to stand in his presence, which is essentially the essence of salvation (see Revelation 21 for our final relation to God). Thus, all those predestined, those elect, are also all justified, saved.

Of course, if this is not convincing enough for one, look a few verses farther to verse 33 which says, "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies." This verse, again speaking to the issue of justification which is central to salvation, says (or implies in the context) that no one is capable of accusing the elect for they are justified by God and there is none more powerful than him who could sway his decision elsewise. Once more, the salvation of all the elect is upheld.

Therefore, to conclude this question, we find first that there is a group of people who are set apart by God known as the elect, and second, that these elect are sure to be saved. In the next question we must take up the inquiry of whether the elect, all of whom are saved, are thus the elect because knowledge of their impending salvation was held by God, or if their salvation was effected because they were first chosen as the elect; or, as I will phrase it, which came first, salvation or election?

Living and Preaching the Gospels for a Year

revtdg — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:31:49 +0000

At our minister's meeting today I was reminded of something that never really sank in at the 2008 Holtson Annual Conference. It seems as if one of the themes that I was to bring back from the Conference was that of "Offer them Christ". It seems as if the Bishop and the Connectional Table wants every church and pastor to make the Gospels the focus of their ministry beginning in Advent 2008 and running through 2009.

As a part of this plan, pastors are asked to preach only from the Gospels during this time. Churches are asked to devote 2 of the 4 quarters in the coming year to studying nothing but the Gospels in ther children, youth, and adult Sunday School classes.

Thisall sounds to me like a terrific idea. However, the underlying assumption is that we are not currently "Offering them Christ". While it is true that there are no professions of faith at my church this year, that does not mean that I have not been "Offering them Christ". If I preach from the Old Testament or the New Testament Epistles, there is almost always a tie to the role of Jesus Christ in our lives. When I give an altar call, it always includes and invitation to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. Thus, the Offer them Christ emphasis for the coming year has left me somewhat perplexed.

In the days ahead, I will be spending some time in prayer trying to decide what the Lord is saying to me about this matter. I would appreciate your prayers on my behalf.

The Best Question Ever??

Sam Puente — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:44:12 +0000

Ok so I have begun teaching a series on Tuesday Night at church. It is very intersting. As you can see the title of the series is "The Best Question Ever". This first week we learned that the when it comes to making decisions in our lives we always ask ourselves questions such as, "How much will it cost me?", or "Does this make me look fat?" j/k :)... The best question that we can ask during times of decision is "Is this the wise thing for me to do?" No so much questioning the morality, the ethics, or the emotional aspect of our decision. But asking ourselves is this wise... Anyways come next week and check out lesson two....hopefully we wont have any techinical problems this time around

So SUPREMELY Unqualified - This is the part of Katie Couric's Sarah Palin interview the McCain campaign pressured CBS not to air...

achievementgap — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:39:31 +0000

"Come on Sarah, can you think of any Supreme Court decisions you disagree with? You can do it!"

"Besides Roe v. Wade Sarah?"

"Well, try this one - Can you think of any Supreme Court decisions at all?"

"Sarah, besides Roe v. Wade"

"Ok, no. How about naming any of the Supreme Court justices?"

"Besides that 'that Italian guy,' do you know how many other justices sit on the bench?"

"No, Sarah, don't worry. They have chairs. Nice big comfy arm chairs. They don't have to sit on an actual bench."

"Yes, I agree, that would be very uncomfortable. Ok, then. Right. Here's an easy one Sarah, where is the Supreme Court?"

"Um, no Sarah. Washington State and Washington DC are two different places.

"Oh, that was a joke. Ok, I get it. Seattle. And, not that it really matters, but Seattle's not actually the capitol of Washington."

"It's Olympia Sarah."

"Um, yeah, right... I'm sure most people do think it's Seattle."

"Yes, it is GREAT that you can name a city in Washingtion. Well done!"

"Yes of course, you can. Can we continue the interview when you're done going potty?"

"Sarah?"

FORM TRUE NOT BLIND BELIEF SYSTEMS.

ambioct — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:42:56 +0000

Do not ask what to believe in,

Ask what experience to anticipate. [ Belief should not be configured after a formed prediction or merely be connected to any existing beliefs without the experience].
Belief should should constrain this experience before .i.e. permit or better yet prohibit any observable [seen/unseen to eyes] sensory experience from happening.
This experience should fuel further predictions.
If it isn't leading to further experiences, then it is time such a belief needs to be abolished.

FROM THE BLOG: OVERCOMING BIAS:Making Beliefs Pay Rent (in Anticipated Experiences)

Words to live by.

clearvision4success — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 03:41:34 +0000

For many years I have been teaching, talking, training and writing about language, words and how the choices you make with them can affect your life. I have developed a model for the cycle we go through when we reach out to each other with words, and I'll explain it here in detail over the next while.

For now it is enough to know that there are words you can live quite happily without. In fact, there are words you will live much happier without. Words like "should" and "but" are the first to be gleefully excised from a visionary vocabulary.

First, let's deal with should.

I saw a sign years ago that read:

I will not should myself today.

My first response? "I love that! I should remember that." And therein lies lesson number one. Should can be a difficult habit to break. But, it can be done.

In order to alleviate the guilt that goes along with the shoulds, I decided to define the word in a more real-world way. I decided that Should means "I will not do it, (because I really don't want to) and I will feel bad or guilty about it." Now with all the other worthwhile things to do with my time, why would I ever choose to feel bad about something I obviously didn't really want to do in the first place? After all, if I really wanted to do it, I would have found some way.

It's like saying you'll try to do something, instead of saying you'll do it.

In the wise words of Master Yoda of Star Wars fame, "Do, or do not. There is no try."

And so I adapted that wisdom to include "Choose to do, or choose to do not. There is no should." When there is an invitation, event or task I simply make my choice to do, or not. Then I accept my choice and move on.

No guilt, no bad feelings.

I'll be honest, it took me a while to get used to the change. And while I did, I found it more and more liberating. I was free of the self-induced guilt shackles and you can be too!

So repeat after me:

I Will Not Should Myself Today!

En la Universidad.

hoyaprendo — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:24:12 +0000

Mientras llegaba a mi primera clase el martes, sentía la soledad, mis amig@s han terminado la carrera y yo con una asignatura de segundo, pero decidí seguir para adelante con la ilusión de empezar un curso estupendo.
Partí con la ilusión de conocer alguna persona. Yo entré en primer lugar a clase, después entraron l@s demás, a mi lado se sentaron dos chicas y decidí dejar la vergüenza a un lado y aprovechar para empezar a hablar con ellas y conocer alguien, me fue bien, hablamos y nos presentamos. En ese momento desapareció la soledad. Pude seguir en soledad pero tomé una decisión que puede ser importante este curso. Gracias Mar y Bea.

"Think for yourself"

John — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:33:47 +0000

I posted this on some blog comment somewhere in response to someone who said you should "think for yourself" regarding the (non-existent) vaccination-autism link. I like how it turned out:

If I was abandoned on an island at birth and somehow survived to this day, I’d probably think the yellow thing in the sky was just a big dot on some firmament, or maybe a big flaming sky-turtle. Who knows. But that’s where "thinking for myself" would get me without the chastening of science. As it is, however, I have all sorts of other people’s evidence to inform me, and I owe it to them and to the rest of humanity to consider it.

Stop The Bailout - YOUR action needed

sparrowshead — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:53:14 +0000

We can do this. This will be the most valuable phone call you'll ever make:

1.    Go to the http://www.bobbarr2008.com/senate-contacts/
2.    Find your state's senators.
3.    Take a moment and realize the tremendous, negative impact that this bailout could have not just on our lives, but your children and grandchildren.
4.    Pick up the phone and dial.
5.    Once connected, state:

"Hi, my name is ________ and I'm a resident of ______. I'm calling to voice my strong opposition to ANY financial bailout. Government regulations caused our problems on Wall Street and the bailout will force my family to shoulder the burden of government's failure. Vote no on the bailout.

"Instead, I ask that you ease regulations like 'mark to market' standards and STOP your attempts at social engineering by rewarding lenders who make bad loans."

Decided?

MarcusDot — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:11:11 +0000

I was trying to make a decision just awhile ago. And I was actually settled with my decision. But then I have other concerns. But when I look back at my blog entry, I have clear all my worries. And I have to seriously thanks my sister for saying what she said.

To actually read more, Click!

quitting

thedaythatidie — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:40:14 +0000

im thinking about quitting school right now. it's been hard. engineering is hard. integral calculus is hard and i feel and i know it will just keep on getting harder soon. so, i'm battling with this doubtful mind of mine whether i should stop or still continue. if i stop, the reason for it is that it's getting hard already. i'm getting over-fatigued and it's not good for me in any way. considering i have MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS. i can't really write as fast as others can and i feel left behind at lessons because of it. so should i stop? but, if i stop, what then? i don'twanna be fed. i want to make my own money even if i have an illness and even if i haven't finished college. grr.. i don't know. i'll decide soon though.