About Me

My photo
My real name is Charlie Albright. I am the pinnacle of evil who God has flooded with His mercy. Declaring my sinful self righteous and holy in His sight! Lavishing His grace upon me by the blood Jesus shed on the cross! Carrying me through this life and giving me satiatfing joy! Anything good about me is only because of His grace!

Sunday, December 30, 2007

Year's End

O Love beyond Compare
thou art good when thou givest,
when thou takest away,
when the sun shines upon me,
when night gathers over me

Thou hast loved me before the foundation of the world,
and in love didst redeem my soul;

Thou dost love me still,
in spite of my hard heart, ingratitude, distrust.

Thy goodness has been with me during another year
leading me through a twisting wilderness,
in retreat helping me to advance.
when beaten back making sure headway

Thy goodness will be with me in the year ahead;

I hoist sail and draw up anchor,
With thee as the blessed Pilot of my future
as of my past.

I bless thee that thou hast veiled my eyes
to the waters ahead.

If thou hast appointed storms of tribulation,
thou wilt be with me in them;

If I have to pass through tempests of persecution and temptation,
I shall not drown;

If I am to die,
I shall see thy face the sooner;

If a painful end is to be my lot,
grant me grace that my faith fail not;

If I am to be cast aside from the service I love,
I can make no stipulation;

Only glorify thyself in me whether in comfort or trial,
as a chosen vessel meet always for thy use.
(Valley of Vission. page 204-205)

Thursday, December 27, 2007

The God Man

“Jesus is God and man in one person: man that he may feel our woes, God that he may help us out of them.”- Charles H. Spurgeon, “Immanuel - The Light of Life” (sermon on Isaiah 9:1,2)

That was today's gospel quote from the blog Of First Importance. I really liked it and wanted to past it on.

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Why we Celebrate this Holiday

This Christmas let us not forget the reason that we celebrate this holiday. The transcendent God of the universe stepped down into our world. This world full of it’s wickedness and rebellion against His ruler ship. Yet, He came to destroy the darkness and redeem for Himself a people. All of this according to His eternal plan to glorify His name by the salvation of sinners.

How did he choose to enter into this world? He should have came in judgment! Parting the skies, raining down His fury and wrath against such traitors! Punishing them for the infinite transgression that have waged against His perfect, pure, name!

Oh, but He did not come like this! 2,000 years ago a defenseless, dependent baby was born to a peasant girl in the mist of a nation under oppression. This baby, however, was no ordinary baby. That God, who should have flooded the world with His wrath. That baby born to that girl was Him! The God of the universe in the flesh of man! lying in a manger, in the heart of this wicked, broken world. Amongst those who constantly raise their fists in His face. Proudly walking against His ways! This God, chose to be born in this world.

From this child would come salvation to the world. people from every tribe, nation, and tongue would have their lives changed by the life of this child. For this God man came to seek and save the lost. His light broke through our darkness, giving hope and joy to all those that he calls and believes in His work. He came into this world through such a humble entrance to fulfill the requirements of the law by His life, to die upon a cross to satisfy the wrath of God, and be resurrected from the dead! How amazing is that! He did not come bringing wrath, He came to appease His wrath! He did not come with the law, condemning us for not doing it. He came to fulfill His law by His life! He did not come bring the sentence against us. He came bring complete pardon for all our sins!

God stepped into our world to give us what we could not have possible given or achieve by ourselves. What was impossible to us was possible to God! What love, greatness, majesty, grace, and mercy was shown to us that day 2,000 years ago when Christ took on the flesh of man to accomplish the eternal plan of salvation! That is why we celebrate this holiday!

By Mark Altrogge

We have come today to worship
We have come to praise the One
Who came down into our darkness
Born a lowly virgin’s son
You who did not come with splendor
Pomp and strength and majesty
You who came to us in weakness
Born to us in poverty

Emmanuel, Emmanuel, Emmanuel
In You alone we hope and trust
Jesus, Savior, God with us

We were blind and lost and godless
Wandering a trackless waste
Then hope arose, a glorious beacon
Like the star the wise men chased
Down from heaven came a Savior
Born a child, so small and frail
Taking up our pain and troubles
Conquering where we had failed

You who with a word created
Sun and moon and seas and sand
Lay there sleeping in a manger
Cradled by Your mother’s hand
You who made the mighty forests
Would lie down upon a tree
Fastened there with nails for sinners
Would bleed and die to set us free

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Internship at Captital Hill Baptist Church

A funny video about the life of a intern at CHBC

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Worshipping with the Community

As Christians living in 21st Century America, individualism is something that has been ingrained into the mind of the believer. Because of this, we tend to only think of our worship of Christ as a individual pursuit. The aspect of worshipping as a community of believers is either minimized or forgotten. "Worship is something that I am to engage in on my own." Yet this goes against the Biblical teaching of teaching and admonishing the brethren with songs, hymns, and spiritual songs. We do not come together on Sunday mornings to just get by ourselves to worship.

I say all that to just direct your attention to a post Bob Kauflin did on how we are to address each other in worship and what practices hinder the communal aspects of worship. I encourage you to read it. The individualness of worship in America churches gets to me now and them. So, Bob Kauflin is just speaking right up my alley.

True Manliness

I read this sermon by Dr. Van Neste on what true manliness is. What he had to say was very convicting ,very need in today's culture and I was rebuked by what he had to say many times. I know that God's grace has brought me far, yet I have so far left to go!

HT: Justin Taylor

Monday, December 3, 2007

The Media...Again

I find it interesting that right after I posted on the twistful ways of the media this story has came up.

Come to find out, the Gospel of Judas is not what people said it was.

HT: Albert Mohler

Friday, November 30, 2007

Tonight's interview with Dr. Mohler

I just got done watching the interview that NBC Nightly News did with Albert Mohler on the the subject of young evangelicals and politics. From what I saw I will say that I was very disappointed with NBC. The only part of Dr. Mohler's interview that was used was reduced to a very short clip.

The topic that was on a new generation of evangelicals (the group was labeled "emergent." However, the church in the interview was far more "emerging.") and what this means to politics. The new generation of Christians are less likely to pledge their allegiance to the Republican party. Thus, the question was, how is this new movement of evangelicals shaping the political scene?

They interviewed and focused on one young pastor Tadd Grandstaff of Pine Ridge Church who was suppose to represent this growing tide of evangelicals. He used the most modern lighting, screens, podcast, and blogs. He made the point that declaring his church "Republican" and bring the politics in the pulpit would turn away all the non-republicans they are trying to reach.

That was one part of the topic. Wanting to say that younger evangelicals, those that will inherit the church, vote other than Republican.

Then the interview got on the topic of homosexuality. It was said that the young group was not as "doctrinaire" as old evangelicals. Though, Pastor Tadd says that homosexuality is a sin, they want to talk about the good of true marriage, not the sin of homosexuality. He does not have to bash or speak against homosexuality. Now, this is where I have to back off because I distrust NBC's interviewing. I do not know what the preacher believes in full. For NBC will use what parts of an interview they want to. This was just a clip with no context, or time for the pastor to clarify. So, I cannot say yea or nay about the pastor.

Then, to back up the pastor's position, NBC interviewed a member of the church on this matter. Now, once again, there is no room for a definite say on what the pastor believes and teaches. Is this a member since the founding of the church? Did the person just become a member? Is this one of those members that only comes to church every three months? We do not know. But, the member said that homosexuality is a private matter and should not be an issue in the church. (even the fact she was talking about homosexuality can be questioned) scary! But, like I mentioned, no way to tell what the pastor teaches.

Then comes the interview with Dr. Mohler. Of course, this is the context which within he is put on! All that this interview consisted of was Dr. Mohler saying that The Christian faith sets
boundaries that believers must live in. End of interview.

Then the the interview goes back to Pastor Tadd and the question of if rules set down by older members of the church were to strict. (a.k.a Albert Mohler) Once again, the interview was just clips from pastor Tadd and no way to tell if he knew the question was sprung from what Dr. Mohler said. I don't believe that pastor Tadd would disagree at all with what Dr. Mohler said (as briefly as it was said at that) and affirm it completely.

my response to all fo that was, "That's it!"

Sad in my opinion. The only thing that I came away knowing was that news service's interviews cannot be trusted. Clips taken form here, there, this person, that person. No way to tell what each party truly believes. In fact, I'd say that Dr. Mohler and Pastor Tadd would agree on a lot of things.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Christianity, Unity, and Creeds

In an article in the Tennesee Baptist Newsjournal, Baptist & Reflector, a messenger at the Tennessee Baptist Convention raised a motions calling for prospective trustees and committee members to not be required to affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. He said that the question should be, “Do you affirm God’s Holy Word, the Bible, as his perfect and complete revelation.” This was for the purpose of unity in the Body of Christ and not making the standard a document written by men.

This got me thinking about Christianity, unity and creeds.

I have had to deal with this issue before. Having gone to a Christian Church college for a semester. The Christian Church believes that denominationalism is wrong and we should not be known as Baptist, Methodists, and such, but just as Christians. Thus, the issue of denominations was raised frequently.

First off lets look at unity. What does the Bible say in regard to unity and Believers. Psalm 133 goes like this,

Behold, how good and pleasant it is
when brothers dwell in unity!
It is like the precious oil on the head,
running down on the beard,
on the beard of Aaron,
running down on the collar of his robes!
It is like the dew of Hermon,
which falls on the mountains of Zion!
For there the Lord has commanded the blessing,
life forevermore.

So unity among believers is good and desirable. This passage compares unity with the anointing of Aaron. This harkens the reader back to Leviticus 8:12 where Aaron is consecrated to the Lord by anointing. Thus, unity among brothers is compared to an act of consecration to the Lord. Then it is likened to the dew from Hermon falling on the mountains of Zion. Wind from the Mediterranean Sea would blow the dew from Hermon, which was in the north, on the mountains of Zion. The goods of one mountain would be given to another. So, those that are unified are an aid to each other. Unity is pleasant, good, sanctifying, and providing. Unity is not something to be thought of lightly. Unified should be a place that is sought after.

I will say that to many times unity is not taken seriously. People will argue and divide over things that should not be divisive. Yet, because our eyes are on others things beside the things that are from above and our hearts are not overwhelmed in gratitude of the Savior’s love and His blood spilled in our behalf we divide. We will not take the time to be humble and gentle in our discussions and disagreements. Unity is to much a vision amongst believers as it should be a reality.

The Bible has more to say about unity. Yes, as Christians, unity is to be pursued in our local churches and amongst every body that confess the Lord Jesus Christ. But listen to Paul’s words to the Philippians,

Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether
I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in
one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,
(Phil 1:27)

A goal is set for unity attain. We are to stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side. Yet that is not the end of what Paul wants of the Philippians. The unity has a purpose; it is for something. They are side by side for the gospel! Unity is not an end itself.

The church is unified for the spread of the glory of Jesus Christ among every tribe and tongue to the glory of His name. We live with one another to treasure, keep, and proclaim the gospel. For this purpose we are unified!

Taken together, Unity is good, pleasant, sanctifying, and providing if it is used in keeping the faith of the gospel. If it does not complete the goal then unity of the body is a failure. For it does not ultimate profit people. If unity becomes the focus instead of the gospel then the only message that can satisfy man and redeem him from the wrath of God is not preached. Lies start to over take truth so that no one is offended.

On this point, I will say that most attempts to unify the church today break away from the purpose Christ intended unity to have. What is called unifying today is usually people selling away truth for the approval of man. Satisfying the division between men has become more of a priority than satisfying the division between one and God. Offending man has become far greater a crime than offending God. These actions are completely contrary to what God had in mind when He called His church to be unified. What is happening in the church today, under the mask of unity, grieves the Holy Spirit and eclipses the gospel from a lost and dying world.

Unity is to glorify Christ by being for the faith of the gospel. Unity is pleasant and good if it accomplishes this. And that is the unity the church must strive for. Not rebellion masquerading as unity.

From what the Bible tells us about unity, should Christians use Creeds or just say, “we use the Bible.”

If unity is about the gospel, then our question of membership should be about the gospel not about one’s views of the Bible. (I am not saying that one’s views of the Bible will not affect the gospel, I believe that in the end it will. I am just saying that it is not the first and only question.) If the church is to be unified with whoever just says, “I affirm God’s Holy Word, the Bible, as his perfect and complete revelation.” then we show that we have no concern for what they believe the Bible to teach. The Christian faith is not about the book, it is about the message of the book. It is because we cherish the message that we cherish the book. The message is what distinguishes between who truly believes.

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you
received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast
to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. (1 Cor 15:1-2)

The message (gospel) is what we received. It is what we are standing on. It is the means by which we are being saved.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ
died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he
was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he
appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five
hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have
fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all,
as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (1 Cor 15:3-7)

Our unity is founded on the gospel that we have received.

The test of unity must be that of the person’s belief of the message. Thus, to simply ask, “Do you believe that the Bible is the only Word of God?” is to miss the test of true unity amongst Christians. We must ask the person what they believe the Bible to teach.

This is where Creeds and statements of faith become an essential. For they are means to test if one holds to the message we believe. If it is a good creed or statement, then it will lay out the message by which we see who accepts and who does not.

What about the fact that they are written by men? I really do not understand this problem. If a Creed contains the message that we have received then how in the world does the message lose its authority? How does clarification and translation diminish or remove the message? If that is the case, then one’s translation of the Bible is the same level as a creed. It was printed by men and written in a different language of all things. It did not come directly form the mouth of God. Also, what is the difference between what is written by men and what is spoken by men? Any clarification of a verse during a conversation with a lost person immediately means that the verse has lost its authority? Or not even clarification, just saying it puts it in the words of men. Especially if it is not in the original Greek or Hebrew. So, I am not bought with the “words of men” argument.

Unity is to guard and spread the glory of Jesus found in the gospel to the world. This is why we seek to be unified with the brethren. When we seek the unity as a means for the dispersion of the gospel then unity is good, pleasant, sanctifying, providing, and well pleasing to God. Thus we unify ourselves on this message. Anybody that does not agree with is message is reach out to with hope that they will receive the message. Anybody that believes it and cherishes it is embraced. And Creeds and statements of faith help us in make this distinction.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Preaching Select Attributes of God and the Effect of that with the Practice of Denying Penal Substitution.

Here is a paper I wrote for one of my classes last semester. It could only be a short paper so I could not get that indept. Any how, I think it gets the main point of this debate.

Choosing to see and worship select attributes of God’s character can lead to truths of the Bible being denied. It is costly to preach only the attributes of God that you and your hearers want to believe and hear about. An example of this tendency is the denial of penal substitution because the doctrines if sin and God’s wrath are ignored.

An evangelical pastor made this statement about the doctrine of penal substitution (Jesus completely satisfying the wrath of God by His death for those who believe on Him) not to long ago,

"The fact is that the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed…If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus' own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil." (Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003], pp. 182-183)

Such was the statement made by this pastor, the belief that Jesus took the wrath of God upon Himself at the cross is equated with “cosmic child abuse.” The rejection of this truth, however, is not only coming from him. If one keeps an ear tuned to theological circles, he will come across more and more people who count penal substitution as a worthless or a offensive doctrine. Why is this happening?

Stand under most gospel presentations today and you will here a reduced gospel message about humanity. D. A. Carson sums up this gospel message preached today very well,

"In recent years it has become popular to sketch the Bible's story-line something like this: Ever since the fall, God has been active to reverse the effects of sin. He takes action to limit sin's damage; he calls out a new nation, the Israelites, to mediate his teaching and his grace to others; he promises that one day he will come as the promised Davidic king to overthrow sin and death and all their wretched effects. This is what Jesus does: he conquers death, inaugurates the kingdom of righteousness, and calls his followers to live out that righteousness now in prospect of the consummation still to come."(Why Is the Doctrine of Penal Substitution Again Coming Under Attack? by: D. A. Carson.)

Notice that missing from most gospel presentations is any mention of the offense that sin is to God and the wrath that He has against it. Sin has been reduced to pain and sorrow in this world. It is the troubles and grief that is brought on a person because of their bad choices. God’s response is simply to remove it from humanity. Sin is not a abominable act that insults the character of God. God’s view of sin is ignored or seen only in terms of it effect on humanity.

Added to this is the removal of the wrath of God upon sin. God is presented these days as a fixer of problems. No indignation from the rebellion that goes on before Him is even spoken of. No floods of anger and vengeance being stored up to be unleashed on God’s enemies is acknowledge. The infinite offense to God’s holiness that is caused by sin is a total stranger to the stereotypical evangelistic message.

So, what we get from this message is a reduced gospel. The problem is not that the story line is completely wrong. It is the fact that only half of God’s character is revealed. God’s justice and wrath are completely eclipsed by the intensification of God’s more acceptable, enjoyable, and delightful attributes. In essence, then, what we get from this selective message is no teaching on God’s wrath and justice. Thus, when the wrath of God is brought before people, it is a foreign and sometimes offense subject.

When one brings these facts to the penal substitution debate, puzzle pieces start falling into place as to why this doctrine is being denied. If the wrath of God is an unknown subject, no one would know that it must be removed? It would seem very odd that Christ would absorb the anger of God if God has not been angry at sinners. It would seem that Christ was given unnecessary affliction in His death. Thus, by the removal of the consideration of God’s wrath, the atmosphere for this doctrine to be denied has been made.

God’s attributes are not decorations of God that can be picked and chosen according to one’s preferences. God is all that He is. All his attributes make up His glorious character. This doctrinal debate is just an example of the consequences of only looking at the attributes of God that we like.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Winter Break

I am back in Knoxville for Winter Break. The only big plans I have are to get a job and spend time with my family and friends. Other then those, there is not much.

Thursday, November 15, 2007



Give me abhorrence of all evil,
As a vile monster that
Defiles thy law, casts off thy yoke,
Defiles my nature, spreads misery.

Teach me to look to Jesus on his cross
And so to know sin’s loathsomeness in thy sight.
There is no pardon but through thy Son’s death,
No cleansing but in his precious blood,
No atonement but his to expiate evil.

May I discern the deadly viper in its real malignity,
Tear it with holy indignation from my breast,
Resolutely turn from its every snare,
Refuse to hold polluting dalliance with it.

Blessed Lord Jesus, at thy cross
May I be taught the awful miseries from which
I am saved,
Ponder what the word ‘lost’ implies,
See the fires of eternal destruction;
Then may I cling more closely to thy broken self,
Adhere to thee with firmer faith,
Be devoted to thee with total being,
Detest sin as strongly as thy love to me is strong
And may holiness be the atmosphere
In which I live

(The Valley of Vision. Page 182-183)

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Resurgence Greek

I was over at Justin Taylor's blog and was pointed to Resurgence Greek. It is a online Greek tool for the New Testament that is free.

Friday, November 2, 2007

If thou but suffer God to guide thee

This is one of the best(if not the best)song regarding trusting God through trials. The message of the song is to trust in God's character and purposes, (for that is what the song is full of) when times are hard and there are few answers. I have been aided multiple times by the truth in this song.

If thou but suffer God to guide thee
And hope in Him through all thy ways,
He’ll give thee strength, whate’er betide thee,
And bear thee through the evil days.
Who trust in God’s unchanging love
Builds on the rock that naught can move.

Be patient and await His leisure
In cheerful hope, with heart content
To take whatever thy Father’s pleasure
And His discerning love hath sent,
Nor doubt our inmost want are known
To Him who chose us for His own.

God knows full well when time of gladness
Shall be the needful thing for thee.
When He has tried thy soul with sadness
And from all guile has found thee free,
He comes to thee all unaware
And makes thee own His loving care.

Nor think amid the fiery trial
That God hath cast thee off unheard,
That he whose hopes meet no denial
Must surely be of God preferred.
Time passes and much change doth bring
And set a bound to everything.

Sing, pray, and keep His ways unswerving,
Perform thy duties faithfully,
And trust His Word: though undeserving,
Thou yet shalt find it true for thee.
God never yet forsook in need
The soul that trusted Him indeed.

(If thou but suffer God to guide thee. Words: Georg Neu­mark, 1641. Information from Cyber Hymnal.)

Friday, October 26, 2007

Reformation Study Bible Sale

TO celebrate the Reformation, Ligonier is offering the Reformation Stuby Bible for a great price. You might want to take avantage of this offer. You can find everything here

Sunday, October 21, 2007

The Tolerance Rant

I have known of Mark Driscoll ever sense DG's conference on Post-Modernism. I haven't made up my mind on some areas in Driscoll's ministry (not doctrinal problems, but pragmatic areas) But I have enjoyed some clips from his sermons.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Take me to the Cross

Take away my roving eye, curious ear, greedy appetite, lustful heart;

show me that none of these things

can heal a wound conscience,

or support a tottering frame,

or uphold a departing spirit.

Then take me to the cross and leave me there.
(from the Valley of Vision. page 167)

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Homosexuality and the Bible

A friend of my posted an article from a discussion board which said that homosexuality is compatible with the Bible. This is my response to the article.

I feel a need to respond to your views of homosexuality and the Bible. Before I begin let me say that I am up for my views being challenged. I have no problem with a person saying that I maybe wrong and giving me reasons why that is so. However, I expect the same attitude from the challenger. He should allow his beliefs to under go attack as well. Allowing the possibility that he may be wrong.
And in all things, Christ’s love and mercy should reign in the discussion. That does not mean things will not get intense. Yet, I am to respect you and not demean you as a person. If I correct you it is not out of hatred but out of love for God’s truth and wanting you to attain God’s truth. So, let me begin.

“Even when we believe the Scriptures are "infallible" or "without error," it's terribly dangerous to think that our understanding of every biblical text is also without error. We are human. We are fallible. And we can misunderstand and misinterpret these ancient words. To many people have used the scripture to justify murdering, or condemning homosexuals and other minorities.”

So you begin with a Post-modern assault on our ability to understand. Why is there error in every understanding of a sentence? Is this not what you said? “it's terribly dangerous to think that our understanding of every biblical text is also without error.” Funny that you seem to understand fully what God meant when He said that He is love! If you are going to say that our ability to understand is limited, apply that to yourself as well. Not just on the people you disagree with.
It is agreed that people have and are misinterpreting Scripture. But that cannot be used for your position. You have just as good of chance of being wrong as those you disagree with! To stand up and say, “everybody can be wrong, so follow my beliefs.” is inconsistent to say the least. People have just as good reason to follow what they want to believe.

“I believe with all my heart that the Holy Spirit is still teaching us. When we reconsider the texts that are used by some people to condemn God's gay children, we must fervently seek the Holy Spirit's guidance, or we risk being misled by our own prejudices.”

You need to change the words “some people” in the second sentence to “basically every Christian since the God gave the Law to Moses!” The belief that homosexuality is a sin has been held by the church for 2000 years. I don’t mean this in a mean way but, your belief is the strange one, held by very few believers. (It gets even fewer with you put the word “orthodox” before believer).
I agree that the church is still reforming. Yet, God is not some distant being, waiting and hoping that we get the facts right. God wants to be known. He wants His commandments to be obey by everybody on earth. He became man so that He would be known! And God has not left the church to fight for herself. He has guided her through many trials and hard times. So, when I want to see whose position is correct, where should I turn to? I new movement saying follow us. Or the consistent testimony of believer after believer after believer for 2000 years saying the same thing?

“Because the text says it is "natural" that a man and a woman come together to create a new life, it doesn’t say that people of the same sex who love each other are unnatural. It doesn’t even address any other relationship. Such as those who cannot have children, or those who are to old, or those who are single. And this story is not about sexuality, or fact. It is about Gods power, and his creation of the universe. This story is not meant to condemn anything. The bible is not used as a sexual “handbook” it is a testament to the power of our God.”

You really start going far away from the Bible with these arguments. “it doesn’t say that people of the same sex who love each other are unnatural.” I argue the fact that it does! So lets break from what we are doing to look at the texts themselves

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (Lev. 18:22)

You said, “The only reason that homosexuality is an "Abomination" is because the word in English is different meaning than in Hebrew. The word in Hebrew is (TO'EBAH) and it means: behaviors that people in a certain time and place consider tasteless or offensive.”

Let me be clear and kind about that definition. It is flat out wrong! If that is the meaning, how do you explain verse 30 of the same chapter,

“So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God.” (Lev. 18:30)

God did not believe that those behaviors listed in chapter 18 was for a certain time and place! God’s people were never to practice them.
Lets get the context of this text. In chapter 18 God tells Israel what practices Israel must avoid when they enter the land,

“You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. You shall follow my rules and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the Lord.” (Lev 18:3-5)

All the practices in that chapter were sins before God. And in that list was homosexuality.
You said, “Aside from the fact that Leviticus was meant for Priests so that they would be greater than priests of other nations. Paul and Jesus both said that it wasn’t for Christian believers.”
The first sentence is, once again, completely wrong as Lev 18:3-5 demonstrates. And can you show me were Paul and Jesus said that all of Leviticus was not for Christians?

Romans 1:24-27: Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

You said in regard to this passage, “This is hard to see the true meaning of the text, because it has to do with what Paul did that led to this letter to the Roman church. Why did he do it? Because he was on a travel and he came across temples dedicated to the gods and goddesses of sex and passion. In the temples he saw many lustful sexual acts. All of them rituals to the Gods they believed in….It’s the lustful and pagan like beliefs and rituals that he came across when traveling…It is about letting desire take over, and then lose sight of God.”

Take this from a loving brother in Christ, I call your explanation, “Making something up to get around the clear meaning of a passage!” Where in the verses, or the surrounding context, or the entire book of Romans does Paul give this reason for what he said in verses 24-27! Where is there anything about untamed sex in the verses? No where! Instead Paul is quiet clear in what he is addressing, “men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,” The only sin stated is men wanting other men sexually!

1 Corinthians 6:9: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

The trouble you had for this verse was the Greek word that was translated for homosexual. You also made a remark that was very strange indeed, “Its also important to know who Paul was talking to. He was talking to the Christians of Ephesus and Corinth during a war they were having. He was reminding them to love one another like the 10 commandments say. And then preceded to remind them of the new law. And showed them that God doesn't want us squabbling over who is "in" and who is "out." God wants us to love one another.”

A war that they were in!? What is your historical backup for that belief?
I ask this in love, have you ever read 1 Corinthians? Or even the context of chapter 6? Paul and God was, and still are, very concerned about who is “in” and who’s “out.” Now I am not going to respond to this any further because there is a chance I don’t understand what you are saying about “in” and “out.” Is that in regard to salvation or something else?

Now back to the Greek word, Having looked at The Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains, Greek-English Lexicon of the Net Testament Based on Semantic Domains, and Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. All translate the word homosexual. Here is the verse in the NET translation and the explanation on why they translated the words as they did,

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners,5 practicing homosexuals,6

5tn This term is sometimes rendered “effeminate,” although in contemporary English usage such a translation could be taken to refer to demeanor rather than behavior. BDAG 613 s.v. malakov" 2 has “pert. to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate esp. of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship.” L&N 88.281 states, “the passive male partner in homosexual intercourse—‘homosexual.’ …As in Greek, a number of other languages also have entirely distinct terms for the active and passive roles in homosexual intercourse.” See also the discussion in G. D. Fee, First Corinthians (NICNT), 243-44. A number of modern translations have adopted the phrase “male prostitutes” for malakoiv in 1 Cor 6:9 (NIV, NRSV, NLT) but this could be misunderstood by the modern reader to mean “males who sell their services to women,” while the term in question appears, at least in context, to relate to homosexual activity between males. Furthermore, it is far from certain that prostitution as commonly understood (the selling of sexual favors) is specified here, as opposed to a consensual relationship. Thus the translation “passive homosexual partners” has been used here.
6tn On this term BDAG 135 s.v. ajrsenokoivth" states, “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9…of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. malakov"…1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27.” L&N 88.280 states, “a male partner in homosexual intercourse—‘homosexual.’…It is possible that ajrsenokoivth" in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with malakov", the passive male partner.” Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification “practicing” was supplied in the translation, following the emphasis in BDAG.

The same reason of 6tn is given for the 1 Timothy 1:10 passage.

Let me get back to your flow of arguments now,

“It doesn’t even address any other relationship. Such as those who cannot have children, or those who are to old, or those who are single. And this story is not about sexuality, or fact. It is about Gods power, and his creation of the universe. This story is not meant to condemn anything. The bible is not used as a sexual “handbook” it is a testament to the power of our God.”

Yes God displays His immense love to us through the Bible. But that is not the only thing. The Bible is the revelation of God’s glory which is His love and justice and grace and all that He is. No, the whole story is not about sex, it is about God. Yet God created sex for the display of His glory. God’s glory is only shown through sex when it is practiced the way He wants it done. So, we must conform our sex lives to the glory that God has revealed to us in Scripture. Namely, obeying His commandments. For His laws show His glory. To disobey them is to diminish the glory of God. So how we view and practice sex is connected with God’s big story.

You said, “This story is not meant to condemn anything.” The story is meant to condemn any person or thing that rises in rebellion against the glory of God! If homosexuality diminishes God’s glory, which I believe God says it does, then this story is against homosexuality.

“Remember that Jesus, the Jewish prophets, and even Paul never even comment on the responsible love a gay man or lesbian feels for another.”

They never commented on the supposed “love” a 53 year old has for a 7 year old either. So I guess, biased in your logic, that is acceptable as well?
What the Biblical writers made clear was, the only sex that glorifies God is done in the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman. That is the only praised means of sexual practice. All others are looked down upon! There is no way you can argue equal footing for gay’s and straights in Scripture. It is not there.

“There is nothing in the bible to condemn it or approve it.”

I have given you my refutations of your arguments and interpretations in this response. I have made it clear that I believe that the Bible condemns homosexual as diminishing the glory of God and thus making it a sin.

Please look to the Scriptures and think about your position. May we, by God’s Spirit, all attain the understanding of the precious truth of God’s Word.

Soli Deo Gloria
Charlie Albright

Saturday, September 8, 2007

Strength Through Songs

There are many things that God uses to strengthen and grow my faith. One of those things is hearing glorious truths about my Savior through the words of songs. Why? Because the faith that Christ gives is not limited to this generation. Many faithful believers in Christ have gone before me. Having walked through the joys and trials of life with a deep faith and knowledge of the God they follow. And along their pilgrimage, they have produced songs. Songs that speak of the glories, faithfulness, love, hope, grace, and wisdom that is Christ. I seek after the same prizes as they. I tread on a path that they once walked. I am carried by the same Lord that carried them. Oh, to marvel at the majesty of God along with Isaac Watts, or trust God through the pain and questions beside John Newton. What tremendous riches of wisdom, comfort, and hope are found in the what these and many more wrote! For, through their words, they lift the curtain to let in the light of the person of Jesus Christ. And I behold the wonder and joy that is Christ!

So then, I am going to share some of these sons to all of you. My hope is that through these songs Christ will become more wonderful and satisfying in your sight! (the truths that really speak to me are in bold)

His Love Can Never Fail
I do not ask to see the way
My feet will have to tread;
But only that my soul may feed
Upon the living Bread.
’Tis better far that I should walk
By faith close to His side;
I may not know the way I go,
But oh, I know my Guide.
His love can never fail,
His love can never fail,
My soul is satisfied to know
His love can never fail.
And if my feet would go astray,
They cannot, for I know
That Jesus guides my falt’ring steps,
As joyfully I go.
And tho’ I may not see His face,
My faith is strong and clear,
That in each hour of sore distress
My Savior will be near.
His love can never fail,
His love can never fail,
My soul is satisfied to know
His love can never fail.
I will not fear, tho’ darkness come
Abroad o’er all the land,
If I may only feel the touch
Of His own loving hand.
And tho’ I tremble when I think
How weak I am, and frail,
My soul is satisfied to know
His love can never fail.
His love can never fail,
His love can never fail,
My soul is satisfied to know
His love can never fail.

Friday, August 31, 2007

Andrew Fuller the reader

It has been about a week since the Andrew Fuller conference. I want to give some things that I took from it. I would have posted them earlier but class work prohibited such. now I got some time to write some things down.

1. Andrew Fuller belief’s of the Scripture.

Andrew Fuller held that the Bible stands above all others means of knowing. Reason, senses, experiences, or any other ways of knowing was never to be put on the same plain as Scripture. God’s revelation stands as the judge of every thought, idea, and system of knowing.

The Bible is the sole authority of knowing God. This point ties closely to the first one. When considering and seeking the character of God, The only thing that shows what we are looking for is the Bible. Human reason can never lead people to the knowledge of the Most High. One, also, was not to just look to other teachers for there theology. The Bible should be our guide to who God is.

Yet, Andrew Fuller had a balanced view with regard to reading other teachers. Great Christian minds of the past were not to be rejected. On the contrary, they should be read with open and humble ears. Yes, Only the Bible should determine our theology, but we need to listen to others findings. Fuller, himself, was greatly influenced by the likes of John Owens and Jonathan Edwards.

So, one should study the works of those who thought deeply and walked with God. The Bible, however, should be the only thing we rest our doctrines on.

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Moving at a Snails Pace

Sorry about the slowness around here. This has been and will continue to be a busy weekend. Lord willing, I will get the time to finish my thoughts on Pacifism. But College comes before blogging.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

All Sovereign Grace Messages for Free

All Mp3 downloads from Sovereign Grace ministries are for free now. Solo Feminity has links by author and subject. So, make room in your Mp3 player.

(John Piper has really started something. Which I am gald of)

Saturday, August 18, 2007


Not to be left out on the Pacifism verses war thoughts going on at Agent Tim Online. I want to give my thoughts on Pacifism.

This is one of my thoughts on the subject. This point is not a struggle with the texts of Scripture, per say. It is just thinking about a implication of Pacifism. The Bible should give us the most satisfying worldview in which to act. Thus, I believe, viewing the implications of this disputed ideology is with in the bounds of Christian thinking.

I ask the question, “Can pacifism exist without some person or nation allowing it to exist?” Or why is it that pacifists live in nations with militaries that protect them? It seems to me that pacifists cannot exist on their own. They have to be a attached to a non-pacifist group or nation to keep on living. If a nation said that it was not going to engage in warfare any more, How long would they last? How long would Israel be a nation if they became pacifists?

Pacifism, however, is suppose to be a Biblical teaching. What would happen if, a national leader based his laws on Biblical teaching. What Bible believing Christian would not want that to happen. If pacifism is the Christian position, The ruler would have to dismantle the military and remove all the defenses. His country would be completely open to be conquered. And I doubt the new regime would be as willing to adopt Biblical polices. So, A nation that founds its self on Biblical teaching (if pacifism is Biblical), practically offers its throne to who gets there first. And when another power takes over the Godly leadership that is in place is removed from office and a government that is less godly assumes command . So, the Bible would defeat its self. Causing less righteous rulers to always rule.

I know that this is a hypothetical situation. Or is it. How long would Israel be Israel if the leaders start basing there laws on the Bible that supposedly commands pacifism.

Now most Christian pacifist will say, “If people are not Christians, they do not have to follow this rule. It is the Christian community that should stay away from warfare. Not pagan nations.” But this does not make sense. So, are God’s laws pointless to those on the outside of Christianity? If God commands Christians to abstain from war, is that not the best thing for man to do? And is it not sin to do other wise? So, why should governments be exempt from God’s law? And if they can get away with this law. Why can they not get away with the rest of God’s law? It just does not fit to say that nations can sin and we should do nothing about it.

One could also ask, “How do we pray for a nation if the Bible teaches pacifism?” Is one to pray that the nation will disband the army? Basically allowing any nation to take over? Where does this leave the Christian in Israel? If he prays that his government would be righteous, he is essentially praying that Israel would be know more! That Israel would lower its arms and let the first Arab nation that marches in dominion over the land! So, if Israel wants freedom for its people it better stay far away from Biblical teachings! Or, are we to ask that our nation be righteous, except in one respect. That is, in regard to warfare? “God make our nation and its leaders, mostly, holy. For we still want the people around us free.” Either we want our leaders to be evil, or we do not care about the well being of our nation.

Maybe should not care about who runs the nation? I mean, our citizenship is not of this world, right? So, we should not care if a righteous ruler, or a Saddam Hussein runs the country? Is that really loving the people that are not Christians? Giving no care about the freedom that they should have? (In this respect, pacifism is a little bit selfish.)

All in all, I see Pacifism as a parasite ideology on a nation, if I can call it that. What I mean by parasite is, pacifism can only survive off a non-pacifist nation. It can never exist by itself (or not for long at least). Because it will be taken over buy another nation if does exist by its self. It must take the protection given by the host, non-pacifism, and it gives really nothing in return.

I am going to be coming out with some other thoughts some time soon. But, you can just think over this one for now. If you find in problems in my reasoning do not fear to point them out(in a humble manner, of course).

Friday, August 10, 2007

Man's Dependence on God by Jonathan Edwards

Some quotes from Jonathan Edward's sermon I read this morning,

The redeemed have all their objective good in God. God himself is the great good which they are brought to the possession and enjoyment of by redemption. He is the highest good, and the sum of all that good which Christ purchased. God is the inheritance of the saints; he is the portion of their souls. God is their wealth and treasure, their food, their Life, their dwelling-place, their ornament and diadem, and their everlasting honor and the glory They have none in heaven but God; he is the great good which the redeemed are received to at death, and which they are to rise to at the end of the world.

God hath made man’s emptiness and misery, his low, lost, and ruined state, into which he sunk by the fall, an occasion of the greater advancement of his own glory, as in other ways, so particularly in this, that there is now much more universal and apparent dependence of man on God. Though God be pleased to lift man out of that dismal abyss of sin and woe into which he was fallen, and exceedingly to exalt him in excellency and honor, and to a high pitch of glory and blessedness, yet the creature hath nothing in any respect to glory of; all the glory evidently belongs to God, all is in a mere, and most absolute, and divine dependence on the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Now whatever scheme is inconsistent with our entire dependence on God for all, and of having all of him, through him, and in him, it is repugnant to the design and tenor of the gospel, and robs it of that which God accounts its luster and glory.

It is the delight of a believing soul to abase itself and exalt God alone.

Let us endeavor to obtain, and increase in, a sensibleness of our great dependence on God, to have our eye to him alone, to mortify a self-dependent and self-righteous disposition.

Hath any man hope that he is converted, and sanctified, and that his mind is endowed with true excellency and spiritual beauty? That his sins are forgiven, and he received into God’s favor, and exalted to the honor and blessedness of being his child, and an heir of eternal life? Let him give God all the glory; who alone makes him to differ from the worst of men in this world, or the most miserable of the damned in Hell. Hath any man much comfort and strong hope of eternal life, let not his hope lift him up, but dispose him the more to abase himself, to reflect on his own exceeding unworthiness of such a favor, and to exalt God alone. Is any man eminent in holiness, and abundant in good works, let him take nothing of the glory of it to himself, but ascribe it to him whose “workmanship we are, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.”

Thursday, August 9, 2007

Books for the Semester

I have got all my books for my classes. I have already started into most of them. It is read, read, read, and read some more up here! But, I would not have it any other way! So let me give you the list.

For Old Testament Survey I,

Old Testament Today, by John H. Walton and Andrew E. Hill

It gives a overview of the Old Testament. We are, however, only going through the Pentateuch and Historical Literature sections. The rest is for OT Survey II.

Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament, by Walter C. Kaiser Jr.

I have not started into this one yet. This book is to do a review on.

Hammond Atlas of the Bible Lands

An atlas, used in this course and the New Testament Survey course.

Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary

One big book!There is just some selected reading form it for the course. But it is one that I am going to use continually in my ministery.

New Testament Survey I,

Jesus and the Gospels, by Craig L. Blomberg.

The book is to introduce you to the accounts of Christ's life found in the New Testament. Giving the reader historical background, interpretation, and commentary on the Gospels.

(I already told you that the Atlas was for this course as well)

Christian Education,

Purpose Driven Church, by Rick Warren.
Quite a surprise to find this book for Christian Education. I do need to read, so, it works out.

Introducing Christian Education, edited by Michael J. Anthony.

I just got this book, so I do not know anything about it.

Worldviews I,

Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult, by J. DeWeese and J. P. Moreland

A simply overview of philosophical thinking.

Life's Ultimate Questions, by Ronald H. Nash

Introducing one to philosophy. This book gives you a basic course on worldviews and a quick look at some big names in philosophy.

English Composition I,

Student's Book of College English, by David Skwire and Hervey S. Wiener

Basic English text book for college.

Well, there goes my work for this semester. I am giving a educated guess of 2325 pages of reading to do. Not including studying for tests.

Tuesday, August 7, 2007

The Cost of Being Rich

Just in case you thought money gives satisfaction. Read this by Albert Mohler

A Thought on Sin

A thought to muse over,

"Choosing to sin is declaring before God, that wickedness is a more honorable thing than who Christ is!"

Monday, August 6, 2007

Social injustices and Christians

As Christians, our number one priority on this earth is to glorify God in all we think and do and be satisfied in Him completely. And God has called all His children to proclaim His name to wicked in every part of the world, that every person on earth would trust in Him for everything and praise Him above all things. That is the foundation of solving all other problems in the world. The Bible makes it clear the every man is evil in nature "There is none who does good, no not one." (Romans 3:10) So by just appealing to man to live rightly by his own strength would profit none. It is only by God common grace and the holy light of the His Church on earth that keeps this world from turning in to a living hell! The renewing work of the Holy Spirit must take place for there to be a true turn to righteousness. So the proclamation of Christ is the first priority when dealing with the lost world. Christ must be in our hearts for real peace to be on the earth.

Now let’s say that everybody in United States becomes a true believer, yet hostilities still exist between people of other races. My answer would be, yes there is trouble, not because Christ does not really get rid of evil. It is because sin still remains in us. Christians are not perfect until they are glorified in heaven. God's word must still be preached to us and sin must still be confessed from us. With Christ in our hearts, however, true peace and love can be produced in through us by God's Spirit. Though Christians are not perfect, Christ has begun the renewing process in them.

Social justices are important none the less. It should pierce the Christian's heart when we hear of injustices done to people. For God is justice and will fight against those who work injustices. Working for the good of mankind should be near to the Christians. However, seeking to see the lost come to Christ should be before seeing people live a better life. What good is it to see that a person lives with no hate against him, yet, he would lose his spirit in hell. No, we work for the world to come, not just the world here.

Sunday, August 5, 2007

First Weekend at Boyce

Here I am at Boyce College. My family and I pulled in Friday, around noonish. Things have been going good for the most part. I have been able to get to know several of the guys. It is different from JBC in the fact that the guys I have meet are pretty much the same page theologically. (I have a strong feeling that I am not going to run into any Deist here)

Here are some pictures that I took this evening.

This is my dorm room; I got the bottom bunk. And the much needed laundry room.

This is Carver Hall. The front, inside, and back.

Now for some shots around the main campus.

Please keep me in your prayers.

Renewing Thoughts, Up and Running

Well, I have got my blog up now. Yea! Now everybody can hear what I have to say. That may be good or bad...(leans heavily to the bad!)