Tuesday, August 26, 2003

This is Stupid

Still reeling, the Brownlees were just beginning Monday to come to terms with the painful death of their 18-month-old dream home in the Kettle Creek neighbourhood of southern Kelowna.

Painful death of a home? Either someone has a severe problem with grammar, or with investing inanimate objects with feelings.

Thursday, August 21, 2003

It's Official

After reading through more of the stuff flowing from the conclusions of the "Monroe Four" I have come to the conclusion that I can't stand it.

Monday, August 18, 2003

Nature or Nurture or Neither?

This past Lord's Day I was blessed and encouraged by both the Scripture reading and the sermon. They sermon provided the perfect counterpoint to the OT reading we had in II Chronicles 28. Here we have the sad saga of King Ahaz who burned incense in the Valley of the son of Hinnom, burned his children in the fire, sacrificed and burned incense on the high places, on hills and under green trees, and worshiped the gods of the Syrians because they seemed to be the ones who would help a guy to win a few wars. This is hardly the sort of wholesome atmosphere one would want to subject a covenant child to, and yet his son, King Hezekiah, grew up in this man's home. Moreover, he was faithfull to the Lord God and "did what was right in the sight of the Lord."

The sermon was preached from the text, Mark 14:10-15. What really stuck with me was the beginning part of the sermon which dealt with Judas Iscariot. Here you have a man who spent three years with the Lord of Glory. It doesn't get any better than that. This man was chosen to be an apostle, was commissioned to preach, and even did miracles in Jesus' name and cast out demons (Matt. 10:1). Yet in the end he betrayed the Master to death with a kiss for 30 pieces of silver.

Is it nature or nurture that determines if a child or adult will serve and follow Christ?


It is grace alone.

May the Lord make the means effectual to salvation for our children.

Friday, August 08, 2003

Why I Do Not Believe Matthew 24 is 70 A.D.

From a post I wrote earlier today:

I would agree that Luke 21:5-24 is speaking of the fall of Jerusalem that took place in 70 A.D.

Luke 21:25-26; Matt. 24:3- end of the chapter, and Mark 13:3-37 all are parallel passages that speak of Armageddon. The key verse to look at is Luke 21:37:

"And in the *daytime* He was teaching in the temple, but at *night* he went out and stayed on the mountain called Olivet."

Before you think I have lost my mind, if you look at Luke 211-24, Jesus is outside the temple proper, but still in the vicinity of the temple speaking. But from v. 25 to the end of the chapter, according to Matt. 24 and Mark 13, we are now on the Mount of Olives and he is not answering the same question. The reason it is so confusing is that part of the *pattern* is the same: wars and rumours of wars, earthquakes, etc.

Now carefully compare Luke 21 with Matt. 24.

Luke says v. 10 -- nation will rise against nation, kingdom against kingdom
Matt. 24.v 7 -- nationa against nation; kingdom against kingdom
Luke 21.11 -- great earthquakes in various places and famines and pestilences
Matt. 24.7 -- famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places.

So far it sounds like the same thing is being spoken of right? But the next verses are what tell us that they are not

Luke 21:12 -- BEFORE all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons.

Matt.24:9 -- THEN they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake.

IOW, in Luke 21, the famines, pestilences, earthquakes, wars and rumours of wars all happen AFTER they lay hands on and persecute God's people, but in Matt. 24 the persecution happens after the wars, rumours of wars, famine, pestilences, etc.

Luke 21:5-24 *does* tell us about 70 A.D. but then when you compare the rest of the passage, it is pretty well parallel to Matt. 24:29 and onward.

Parallel passages to look for in regard to Armageddon include Psalm 118; Zechariah 14 and Revelation 19.

Another reason why I don't believe Matt. 24 is speaking of 70 A.D. is because of the abomination of desolation spoken of in V. 15. If you go back to Daniel 12:11, the *earliest* that this could happen is about 700 A.D. There is a huge time discrepancy between 70 A.D. and 700. A.D. In actuality, the papacy was set up in 756 A.D. so this corresponds nicely, I would say.

Ok, that was just a snippet to get you started.