Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Address For Help in DSS case

Brothers and sisters,

I have been overwhelmed at the numerous emails from so many people that I don't know who are praying for us. I am extremely humbled by your love and God's graciousness. Many of you have asked could you help us financially since we are going to have to acquire an attorney. Our attorney is Dr. George Gaddis. He is a godly man and very skilled in DSS cases in SC and abroad. This will be an incredible amount of money. We will be sending him $2300.00 to start everything and since this will more than likely go to trial, we are very unsure just how expensive this will be. We have prayed that our Father will meet the need and I realize that money will not fall out of the sky, but God uses means. Please do not feel pressure to give. If you are unable, then if the Lord brings us to mind, please pray for us. But if you desire to help, you can send donations to the other elder, Tim Davis, at our church and these will be tax deductible. You may send them to:

Heritage Community Church
1627 Laurel Lane
Gastonia, N. C. 28054

I truly am humbled by the ourpouring of love and concern from brothers and sisters in Christ. I am much more comfortable being on the giving side than the receiving end. However, we are in desperate circumstances and are completely dependent upon God and His people. From the bottom of our hearts, Thank you and may God bless you all.

Tim & Denise Brown, Tori, Caleb, Hannah, Dakota, Tabitha, Hailey, & RC

Monday, February 19, 2007

What you need to know about DSS

I promise this blog will not become about DSS:) However, I know many of you have children or are expecting children in the near future. I obtained this information from, where the owner seems to live in Massachusetts. I am posting this information here so that you will know exactly what we and, yes, even you are up against should someone report you to DSS. This is written by Gregory A. Hesssion J.D.

How to Fight False Allegations of Abuse and Neglect

DSS is completely in control. Even judges can't reign them in.
This is one of the dirtiest and least known secrets of how DSS is able to destroy so many families, and the source of their power: DSS is in control, not the courts.
Ever since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided two cases back in 1995, Care and Protection of Isaac, 419 Mass. 602 (1995) and Care and Protection of Jeremy, 419 Mass. 616 (1995), the DSS has had almost complete control of all children in its custody. A judge will only interfere if DSS is committing what is ridiculously called an "abuse of discretion."
When does DSS abuse its "discretion" enough for a court to step in and stop them?
Generally, never. The Courts have become rubber stamps for DSS. Death, torture, broken bones, bruises, wounds, medical neglect, and other 'minor' problems caused by DSS do not seem to bother courts very much. However, if the parents pray, spank, or yell at the child, then they will authorize the DSS to take your children and give them to a family who cannot be told not to abuse them. Foster parents and DSS approved programs and institutions can usually abuse children at will, often with no consequences whatsoever. As long as it's their guy doing the abusing, nothing will happen.
Not only will a court refuse to stop DSS caretakers from abusing children, it will usually not mind if DSS is falsifying records, committing perjury, taking children on false pretenses, illegally stretching out a case for years, or demanding that a wife commit perjury by getting a false restraining order against the husband.
In other words, DSS is accountable to no one, and no one can stop them, unless the state legislature or a higher court steps in and changes the state of the law.
Well, can't I sue them?
As with all things in the strange world of "child protection", the DSS has been given a gift of protection from lawsuits, called "qualified immunity". That is a fancy name for being lawsuit-proof in most cases. Right now, until someone succeeds in getting a court to change the situation, DSS agents are immune from suits for all "discretionary" decisions.
"Discretion" is when they decide to do just about anything they want: to kidnap your child from you, to keep your child, to adopt your child out, to hurt your child, to emotionally manipulate your child, to stop your child from hugging you at visits, or just about anything else. Only when they violate a "clearly established" constitutional right can they be sued. That is almost never.
It is ridiculous, but the courts have continually protected foolish and biased social workers from any liability for wrongdoing. We are going to try to change this. See the section about our DSS lawsuit.
What are "clearly established" constitutional rights?
Technically, they are rights specifically listed as being protected in the Massachusetts or federal constitutions, such as the right to free speech, or the right to bear arms.
Parental rights are not specifically listed in the either the state or federal constitutions. However, parental rights are "reserved powers", which means that any power not specifically given to the government by the constitution belongs to the people. All powers, including parental rights, which are not mentioned in the Constitution, are kept by the people under the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Because most courts now operate more by a political agenda than by law, they will often only protect 'enumerated', or listed rights. However, the constitution is not supposed to work that way. All rights are yours by natural divine law. The constitution does not create rights, but only binds down the government from interfering with them. The Massachusetts and Federal constitutions list several rights as examples in the Bill of Rights, and then basically say that if we forgot any others, they are protected, too.
However, most judges now believe that government creates and grants rights, rather than preserves existing rights that are bestowed by our creator, and which cannot be taken away. Thus, they will ignore your parental rights if it suits them.
Judges often merely explain rights away if they do not favor them politically, as they have done with gun rights, for example. They treat the rights protected under the constitution like an accordion - they expand certain ones that are in political favor, and contract others that are not politically correct.
Do parents have ANY rights?
Not really. The problem is that our founders never dreamed that anyone would ever think of intruding into families, so they did not write specific protections into our state and federal constitutions. They assumed family government would exist peacefully alongside state and church government. Now, when the rights of parents to raise children are being challenged, there is little protection available from courts against the savage predators in the DSS.
A parents' right to direct the upbringing of their children was never questioned until recently. Now, the state sees itself as the parent, and they let you have temporary custody of your own child, unless and until you do something the state doesn't like - then the child goes back to its true parent - the state. There is even a Latin lawyer term for this: Parens Patriae, which means, "father of his country". The Real Life Dictionary of the Law defines parens patriae as: "the doctrine that the government is the ultimate guardian of all people under a disability, especially children, whose care is only entrusted to their parents."
Are you getting this? The state now owns your children, and entrusts you with them, until you do something politically incorrect, like home school them, spank them, pray with them, or otherwise try to keep them out of the hands of those who want to make them into obedient world citizens.
You have told me all that I CAN'T do. Is there anything I CAN do?
Yes, but there are no easy answers. Read on.
II. THE GRIZZLY BEAR (Adapted from material written by Mike Humiston at
A grizzly is a dangerous creature. They are arbitrary, vicious, and they are not afraid of you. Sound familiar? If you encounter one in the wild, you must be very careful. . .
Should I throw sticks and rocks and scream at him?
Only if you want him to kill you.
Then I should turn and run, real fast . . .
Only if you can run very, very fast.
Then what should I do?
Stand firm, don't show any signs of fear or anger, then carefully, quietly, back away.
The grizzly is the child welfare system . . .
But I thought somebody else's government was the Great Bear . . .
Indeed. Always be polite when dealing with caseworkers and the police. Always, always!
Because the police carry guns, for crying out loud! And because you are dealing with terrorists, and they have your children. If you argue with the caseworker or the judge, you will only antagonize them. Nothing you say is going to change their minds or make them quit twisting your words. So don't try. Don't give them words to twist. There's no use throwing sticks and stones at the grizzly.
What about running away?
If you can do so legally, then do so. If the state has legal custody of your children, it is illegal to take them and leave. If you're going to break the law, then as with the grizzly, you better be able to run pretty far pretty fast. There are people sitting in prison at this moment for "kidnapping" their own children.
Are you telling me to give up?
Absolutely not! We're telling you to be smart. Know your rights and control the flow of information, but do it with a smile on your face and with total graciousness. "I'm sure this treatment plan is okay, but I'd just like to have my attorney go over it before I sign it. I believe you when you tell me they're just routine, so I'm sure you don't mind if he just has a look before I sign." Remember, the guy who tells you don't need an attorney is the guy who has something to hide. Just because their forms are "routine" does not make them right.
Unfortunately, you cannot do as much as you would really like to do to fight DSS yourself, except to AVOID doing the wrong things. You can learn about many of those wrong things, and about DSS dirty tricks, on this MassOutrage web site, and the linked sites. However, even if you learned it all, that is only the beginning.
Knowing the things you can learn here, simply doesn't give you the whole scope of the process. Courts and lawyers have made it so complicated (probably to keep a lot of their buddies employed) that very few people even inside the system completely understand the process and all its legal requirements.
In sum, fighting DSS is so hard, so technical, and there are so many pitfalls, that you are better off to work with a good lawyer rather than try it yourself. There is just so much to fighting one of these cases, that it is about like doing brain surgery on yourself to try it alone.
So. . . .
1. Get a good lawyer.
The single biggest ingredient in fighting the DSS menace is to get a good lawyer. What is a good lawyer? Here is the list of qualities I would look for:
Hates the DSS;
Committed to parental rights over government power;
Knows the DSS law, regulations and policies;
Will stand up to DSS social workers and judges, not collaborate with them;
Is YOUR lawyer only, and is not being paid by the state;
Will work with, not against, your spouse's lawyer to get your kids back, if appropriate;
Respects you;
Respects the Constitution and other founding documents;
Does not think lawyers are God, and will work WITH you, not talk down to you;
You trust him and he trusts you. You are both going to take a blindfolded walk down the plank in the dark, so you better trust each other.
2. Work with your lawyer.
The most important thing you can do to get your children back, in addition to avoiding falling into any of the DSS dirty tricks, is work with your lawyer to help him or her get your kids back. How?
You can help review the DSS record, which is very tedious, to look for any evidence you can use against DSS. You can make a chronology, or a time line of all the major events so far, so that the lawyer can get a clear overview of your case. You can pay the poor guy, so he can endure the endless days and nights of attention to your case. You can be patient with the delays, knowing that it is not your lawyer, but DSS and the Court, who have caused them.
You can do everything he tells you in the way of counseling or drug testing or parenting classes, so that he can go back to DSS and report that you have been a good little boy or girl. You can clean up your act, if it isn't: Straighten up your house, your heart, and your life.
You can attend every visitation that your child's kidnappers allow, without fail, even though they will cancel the visits any time they feel like it for any selfish reason. (Irony - they often cancel to care for their own child). You can smile (though gritted teeth) at your child's captors, and work with them. Never, never show your anger, even though the social worker may deserve to fry in the lowest part of Hell.
Listen to your lawyer. Trust your lawyer. If you can't, get a new one. Even if you have a state appointed lawyer, due to lack of finances, fire him if he does not work for you. If he is laughing it up with DSS, fire him. Most lawyers who do this work actually like DSS because they get a lot of work from it. Me - I'd be very happy to be put out of the DSS business tomorrow, if they were abolished.
What about the Government School? Can they get my children there?
They sure can. In fact, it is the preferred method. No pesky parents. Only sympathetic statists who embrace big brother and believe that the government has the best interest of the child at heart, as opposed to the parents. Government school, you say? Is that a PUBLIC school? Yes, and it is financed by, supported by, and run by the same government who wants to steal your children.
If they have any suspicions about your home whatsoever, the DSS agents will come to your child's government school, all smiles, and take your children aside. They will use suggestive and coercive techniques, and get "disclosures" about what goes on in your home: things like spanking or other discipline, prayer in the home (that is now 'abuse'), yelling or arguments between parents (that is now 'domestic violence'). Since this is done alone, no one will be able to fight the DSS agent's lying version of the "abuse" that they will coerce out of the child.
If I can't trust the government school, who can I trust?
No one but your own private lawyer, as stated above. The government has a snitch network of so-called "Mandated Reporters" everywhere a child is likely to be. Nurses, doctors, school counselors, police, dentists, therapists, teachers, day care workers, and many others MUST report anything they think is suspicious, or risk a big fine.
They have manipulated these former helping professionals into becoming snoops for the "Central Party Committee". These people used to be able to help folks in trouble. Now, if you go to them, they will turn you into the DSS. The authorities have beat them into submission, and most of them now have the attitude of : When in doubt, report.
At this point in our history, only your lawyer can keep your secrets, by law. Everyone else is a snitch. Tell them to no one else.
What should I do, then?
GET YOUR CHILDREN OUT of the government school, and do it now. That is the major pipeline through which the DSS steals children from families. If you are taking government aid of any sort, get rid of it, if you can.
If you decide to compromise your family by keeping your children in danger there, then at least teach them that if some DSS agent comes to talk to them, that they demand to have their parents present before answering any questions.
Teach your children the sanctity of the family. The schools are teaching your children to rat on you. Teach your children the other side, the danger to which they expose your whole family by reporting you to the authorities. Teach your children that dozens of children have committed suicide while in foster care. Hundreds have died. Thousands have been tortured and abused.
Teach them that they have the right to remain silent, and if they choose not to remain silent, each and every word they say will be used against their mommy and daddy. Love them, love them, love them.
Teach your children this: "Kids, this is our family attorney, Mr. Smith. He is our family's only attorney. He is the only attorney that we talk to. If somebody else comes to you and says he is your own attorney (e.g. the DSS agent, or guardian ad litem) anything you say to him will be used against our family."
One of the best things you can do is buy and read Suzanne Shell's book, Profane Justice. It can be ordered for $15.00 by calling 1-800-447-3081, ext. 7794, or write to: Sage Wisdom Press, P.O. Box 75863, Colorado Springs, CO 80970. Forewarned is forearmed.
What about real child abuse?
Real child abusers should go to prison. And the traditional due process protections of criminal law are more than enough to separate the true abusers from the falsely accused. Just because O.J. was acquitted of murder does not mean we should dispose of all due process. Likewise, just because some abusers will get away does not mean we should take away all children.
[Compiled from numerous sources.]

Sunday, February 18, 2007

A Great Exhortation from 16 Centuries Ago

This morning in our fellowship I was greatly encouraged. First, in our responsive reading we read from Psalm 109. If I have ever truly believed in imprecatory prayers it is now. I truly believe that everyone there sincerely prayed this Psalm before the Lord today. Then our fellowship gathered around us and prayed for us.

Do not keep silent, O God of my praise! 2 For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful Have opened against me; They have spoken against me with a lying tongue. 3 They have also surrounded me with words of hatred, And fought against me without a cause. 4 In return for my love they are my accusers, But I give myself to prayer. 5 Thus they have rewarded me evil for good, And hatred for my love.

6 ¶ Set a wicked man over him, And let an accuser stand at his right hand. 7 When he is judged, let him be found guilty, And let his prayer become sin. 8 Let his days be few, And let another take his office. 9 Let his children be fatherless, And his wife a widow. 10 Let his children continually be vagabonds, and beg; Let them seek their bread also from their desolate places. 11 Let the creditor seize all that he has, And let strangers plunder his labor. 12 Let there be none to extend mercy to him, Nor let there be any to favor his fatherless children. 13 Let his posterity be cut off, And in the generation following let their name be blotted out. 14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD, And let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. 15 Let them be continually before the LORD, That He may cut off the memory of them from the earth; 16 Because he did not remember to show mercy, But persecuted the poor and needy man, That he might even slay the broken in heart. 17 As he loved cursing, so let it come to him; As he did not delight in blessing, so let it be far from him. 18 As he clothed himself with cursing as with his garment, So let it enter his body like water, And like oil into his bones. 19 Let it be to him like the garment which covers him, And for a belt with which he girds himself continually. 20 Let this be the LORD’S reward to my accusers, And to those who speak evil against my person.

21 ¶ But You, O GOD the Lord, Deal with me for Your name’s sake; Because Your mercy is good, deliver me. 22 For I am poor and needy, And my heart is wounded within me. 23 I am gone like a shadow when it lengthens; I am shaken off like a locust. 24 My knees are weak through fasting, And my flesh is feeble from lack of fatness. 25 I also have become a reproach to them; When they look at me, they shake their heads. 26 Help me, O LORD my God! Oh, save me according to Your mercy, 27 That they may know that this is Your hand—That You, LORD, have done it! 28 Let them curse, but You bless; When they arise, let them be ashamed, But let Your servant rejoice. 29 Let my accusers be clothed with shame, And let them cover themselves with their own disgrace as with a mantle. 30 I will greatly praise the LORD with my mouth; Yes, I will praise Him among the multitude. 31 For He shall stand at the right hand of the poor, To save him from those who condemn him.

Second, came during my study of Revelation 8. In all of Revelation we see the sovereign hand of God in protecting His people from those who seek their harm and pouring out judgment upon the wicked who oppose His people. During that study I was struck by this quote from Augustine who addressed pagans who claimed that God had failed to rescue His people from their enemies:

: “The whole family of God, most high and most true, has therefore a consolation of its own – a consolation which cannot deceive, and which has in it a surer hope than the tottering and falling affairs of life can afford. They will not refuse the discipline of this temporal life, in which they are schooled for life eternal; nor will they lament their experience of it, for the good things of life they use as pilgrims who are not detained by them, and its ills either prove or improve them.

As for those who insult over them in their trials, and when ills befall them say, ‘Where is thy God?’ [Ps. 42:10] we may ask them where their gods are when they suffer the very calamities for the sake of avoiding which they worship their gods, or maintain they ought to be worshiped; for the family of Christ is furnished with its reply: Our God is everywhere present, wholly everywhere; not confined to any place. He can be present unperceived, and be absent without moving; when He exposes us to adversities, it is either to prove our perfections or correct our imperfections; and in return for our patient endurance of the sufferings of time, He reserves for us an everlasting reward. But who are you, that we should deign to speak with you even about your own gods, much less about our God, who is ‘to be feared above all gods? For all the gods of the nations are idols; but the LORD made the heavens’ [Ps. 96:4-5] .” Augustine, The City of God, i.29

It is truly good to know that our God cares for us and has appointed us, not for wrath, though there may be trials and tribulations (these He has promised), but life and salvation. To Him be the glory forever and ever! Amen.

Finally, in our study of Galatians we covered 2:11-21. In speaking about Paul confronting Peter about not being straightforward about the gospel we spoke of our emotions (a disturbance of the intellect) determining our actions rather than our minds (knowing and understanding the Word of God as to what is right and what is wrong). Quite often, if not always, our sins are a result of us being led by our emotions rather than our minds. It seems Peter faced the same thing. He felt the pressure of the Jews, rather than doing what he knew to be right. We spoke of the fact that though Peter may have not said with his mouth anything about being a Jew to be justified or being circumcised to be justified, his actions betrayed the gospel. After all, Peter was given divine revelation concerning the gospel and the fact that there was now no longer the ceremonial uncleanness spoken of concerning the Gentiles. Paul addressed it and openly and publicly rebuked him for it, because his actions had compelled others to follow him such as Barnabas, a great evangelist of the church. God really did open my eyes to my own situation and once again I was repenting. I do not want the gospel to be maligned or distorted in the circumstances we are facing now. May God grant us the power of His Spirit to be straightforward concerning the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Saturday, February 17, 2007

DSS Update 2-7

Before launching into my thoughts concerning paedo baptism, I wanted to give an update. Well friends, I have seen the face of DSS and it is ugly. It has been beaten with several ugly sticks. Every branch on the ugly tree was hit. It’s mother, or I should properly render it, father is ugly. I attempted to be forthcoming and give DSS a chance to prove to me they really were doing their job and nothing more. However, in just one day they have shown me that they are incompetent, unable to answer the simplest of questions without turning the tables on me and threatening legal action, and a clear practice of deception and above all a show of cowardice.

Denise and I are currently listed as “indicated”, which basically means that we are found guilty by these people. Mind you, they are an entity that has immunity. That’s right. They seem to be able to violate your constitutional rights, jump to huge leaps of illogic and proclaim that you are guilty. What is so ironic in this situation is twofold: (1) Those investigating us have small children that they neglect everyday, when they come to work for DSS (either leaving them at daycare or with someone else rather than caring for them as parents, while I try and make provisions for my wife to be at home with our kids (which DSS is in fact disrupting). (2) While the doctors at CMC who reported us (and they have to do this by law, go figure) go about their merry lives, they did absolutely nothing for my son. Did you get that? Nothing. Even the doctors now who we are made to see claim he is unhealthy because he doesn’t fall on a curve somewhere on their chart, yet CMC says there is no medical reason for this. So when I ask can he be healthy and small, the response is “No”. The answer given is, “Because he doesn’t fit on our chart.” And yet he continues to gain weight and be alert and mobile and happy. If this is such a life threatening issue and the child is in danger, then why wait 2 weeks in between visits? Shouldn’t he be admitted somewhere that can find out what is wrong as soon as possible? See?? Incompetence. So we are now in hold mode until our attorney files the paperwork.

Please pray for us. I realize this is a sovereign work of God. I know His hand is in it. And yet there is both a righteous anger in me at what is being done to us in the name of “it’s for the best interest of the child”, and also I confess some fleshly anger. I realize that my sinful desires are not justified because of the sins of others. It is unacceptable and I have repented several times. Pray that my repentance might be genuine and that I would indeed honor the Lord. Please pray for Denise as well. It has been very hard on her being accused of such things. No one loves her children like she does and to be told that you are basically guilty of not loving your child because you don’t take them to the doctor for “well visits” is simply outrageous. Please remember R.C. as well. He is the one caught in the midst of all of this and unless something can be done legally, then we will probably have to have him endure some very uncomfortable procedures in order to demonstrate that DSS has absolutely no idea of what they are doing.

Brothers, thanks for your prayers and words of encouragement.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Dissing Dispensationalism 8: The Final Post

Ok, this will be the final response in regards to Dan’s post on dispensationalism.

21. "For all the promises of God find their Yes in him" (2 Corinthians 1:20a). As if there's a dispensationalist that disbelieves this verse. I'd suggest that it's the decoder-ring set that disbelieves it. Dispensationalists believe that Christ will make good on all the Trinity's promises, as He carries out all the will of the Father, and is King of the mediatorial Kingdom. It's the CT's who would turn this verse to "For all the promises of God find their 'Ha-ha, fooled you!' in him," or "For some of the promises of God find their No in him."

Ok, this is a cheap shot. If you are going to slander CTs by saying “ha-ha fooled you”, then please provide the evidence and then respond to the material and the interpretation laid out from that. But don’t put words in their mouth. CTs do not say that God has fooled anyone, nor do they say that some of the promises of God are no in Him. Let’s actually hear a quote from a reputable CT theologian (tick, tock, tick, tock).
What is with the decoder ring thing? What Phillips fails to deal with is the fact that the New Testament, because it is progressive in nature as to its revelation, gives us the proper understanding of such things as Jew, Israel, the elect and the realities promises in types. From the dispensationalist point of view, they would rather hold on to the shadows and picture books, as it were, and not move on to the reality and true grammar and language. Thus, this becomes a problem when they attempt to understand the two covenants. Many, but certainly not all will actually state that Old Covenant believers actually merited God’s favor to some point through their obedience! They fail to see the continuity throughout all of Scripture which sees anyone who is saved is saved in the covenant of grace. With that said, I don’t think Dan falls into this category. He is Calvinistic for goodness sakes.
Finally, the fact that Dan tries to make Christ have two different kinds of kingdoms is simply a stretch here. I never read in Scripture where Christ spoke of two kingdoms that He was to rule over. If you ask me, this is where the decoder ring is needed, because you don’t find it in the Bible. Jesus simply spoke of the kingdom that was His and that it was given to Him by the Father and that it was from above.

22. Dispensationalism teaches two ways of salvation. Sigh. Maybe if this is answered for the 950,000th time, it will go away? This old corker has been responded to and documented more times than a department-store "Santa" has said "Ho ho ho."
So what, exactly, are we talking about? Oh, you mean like this? "Grace offers escape from the law only as a condition of salvation -- as it is in the covenant of works --, from the curse of the law, and from the law as an extraneous power." Oh yeah, that's bad. What rotten dispensationalist wrote that? That "rotten dispensationalist" Louis Berkhof (ST, p. 291). Allis and others have made similar statements that, isolated, sure sound like offers of two methods of salvation. Statements capable of misunderstand and misrepresentation are not the sole provenance of dispensationalists. Golly, it'd be nice to wake up tomorrow to a world in which I can focus on the text, and not constantly see the discussion derailed by red herrings like this one. Could there be a reason why anti-dispies don't want to do that?

Actually, that’s not the point Dan. Neither would the quote you cited bear that either from Berkhof. Classic Dispensationalists do hold to two means of salvation. For instance, though many people nowadays count Dave Hunt as completely out to lunch, he would readily point to the fact that there is merit in law keeping or obedience in the Old Testament. Those of the Darby kind readily point to such things as well. As with any view, there are those who are conservative and those who are very liberal, so while there are those like Dan who would fight that tooth and nail, there are those who would easily embrace that.
Second, there are many both dispensational and not who would see two means of salvation and this comes out clearly in discussions that surround the death of infants, mentally incapacitated and also those who have never heard the gospel. Somehow, there are those, and the only ones I’ve talked to are dispensationalists, who would hold that all in the first two categories will be saved (SEE Safe in the Arms of Jesus by MacArthur (a dispensationalist). Clearly this is not the difference of Israel as nation under the Old Covenant and Israel as the Church in the New covenant, but the point ends up being the same: there is not the comprehensive understanding that throughout Scripture there is One overarching covenant and that is the covenant of grace. This covenant was not instituted in the Garden, nor at Sinai, nor specifically at the cross, but in eternity between the Father and the Son. This covenant was ultimately shown to men in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. All of the elect in the past, present and future are in this covenant, whether Jew or Gentile.
So, to this argument, Dan may disagree, but if he is honest, then he must concede that there are many dispensationalists who do hold that God has a different covenant TODAY with national Israel (whatever that actually is and in dispensationalism, it is actually the nation we call Israel) than he does with the True Israel, the church.
23. "Hey, I'm a CT/amill/postmill/preterist whatever, and I use grammatico-historical exegesis on everything!" Suuuuure you do, Bunky. And I'm a muscular, slim 25-year old published author with multiple doctorates who pastors a successful church and teaches in seminary -- plus I have a full head of hair! It's really more than just a river in Egypt for you, isn't it, brother? When you tell me that Israel is the church, that only the prophetic curses have realtime fulfillment, but that the prophesied blessings are all spiritualized, you and G-H exegesis have long since gone the way of the Beatles. CT is your Yoko.

So, Dan, I wanna hold your hand as we look at this claim you are making as we take a ride in our yellow submarine. Now while I might let you Drive My Car, I can’t stand by and let you broad brush the entire CT community with such language. For instance, I will readily admit that there are some who do take the view that you present. However, I find them to be in the minority, especially among conservative CTs.
There is no question that God poured out the exact curses He said He would in the Law upon Israel when they departed from Him. This was proven many times in the Old Testament, such as in the prophecies that Jeremiah revealed, Ezekiel spoke of and Daniel actually saw, not to mention the fact that ultimately God brought His judgment down upon Israel in 70 AD in finality concluding and bringing to an end the specific promises of that nation’s apostasy. With a Little Help from My Friends I’m sure we could pile up enough evidence to make this quite clear.
When Jesus comes in Matthew 5 and lays out the heart of the Law again, (NOTE: Jesus did not bring a different Law. He brought the same Law. While Moses delivered the Law to the people, it was God who gave the Law. Therefore, if we say that Jesus brought a different Law, wouldn’t that imply that there is some disunity in the Godhead?) then weren’t the blessings clearly outlined?
The problem is this crazy idea of “literal interpretation”. Literal by what standard? Maybe The Two of Us could Come Together and hash this out a bit. This is the biggest hurdle that people have, in my opinion. Let me give an example of the literal interpretation. Anyone reading in the Old Testament who came upon the words, “I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness” would have simply took this to mean that God was speaking of the nations that sprang from Jacob and Esau and that would be correct. However, the inspired apostle uses the CT method of interpretation and quotes the passage in favor of individuals. Now Dan is a Calvinist and readily agrees with the apostle Paul. However, is he being literal? I’ll leave that to be decided by the reader.
24. Dispensationalism divides the people of God. Wait -- isn't it complementarianism that does that? The Bible says, "there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28) , but complementarians teach that men and women are still distinct, even though they're in Christ, and have distinct roles. Calvinists/Reformeds tend to be complementarians, yet they affirm that men and women are distinct in Christ in one way, yet they affirm that they are one in Christ, in another way. Isn't that a contradiction? "But-but-but," sputters a Reformed complementarian, "that's stupid! You can be distinct, and yet one! Look at the Trinity! The Persons are distinct, yet they are one God! They have different functions, and there is an economy of relations, yet they are one! That's an inane criticism!"
Oh, I totally agree. It's inane. It's stupid. It's lame. So... why do you go for the same inane, stupid, lame line of reasoning when it comes to Israel?
I just keep wondering why the same people who have no trouble understanding why men and women can be distinct and yet one, fall all apart into hysterics and start doing horrible things to the Bible when it comes to Israel. Why can't Israel have a certain and sure ethnic future (as God promised, in the starkest and most undeniable terms, about a gazillion times), and yet be part of one people of God? Why do we have to turn God into a liar and a promise-breaker (see Jeremiah 31:35-37), in order to salvage some preconceived construct we made up?
Having said all that, I don't think it's fundamental to dispensationalism to make divisions as stark as some pioneers did, as if Israel's eternity is 'way over there, and the Church's is right over here, and never the twain shall mix. I don't tend to think that way, myself.

I think this is where Dan cannot see who Israel actually is. Paul spells it out plainly in Romans 9 that all who are of Israel are not Israel. The true Israel is the elect people of God. Those who were of national Israel but rejected God and were not Israel, but rather members of Sodom, Gomorrah, Egypt, Babylon. They were apostates, and from the beginning when they left Egypt the unbelievers were cut off from their people, not a part of them. My question to Dan would simply be this, “What is the purpose of these promises to a geo-political entity today that calls itself Israel, but is completely apostate in biblical terms to the true God?”
Again, Dan simply misses the point of Jeremiah 31. Besides, did God make that covenant there with every single individual of the house of Judah, or was He referring to the house of Judah in the light of election? Interestingly enough, Gentiles are included in that covenant in the New Testament. I wonder if Dan thinks that Gentiles become ethnic Israel and are also recipients of that little sliver of land in the Middle East. I like to think of the words of Christ, that not a sliver of land is our inheritance, but the earth is.
As for his final comment, I don’t know what to say. It sure sounds like he makes a pretty big and stark division. He may see some mixing, but it is extremely small from what I hear.
25. Dispensationalism fails to see Christ in every verse of the Bible. Again with the being-more-spiritual-than-God sin. This is maybe one of the most damaging Reformed traditions (in the worst sense of the word): the insistence by some of putting perfectly innocent texts on the rack, and torturing them until they scream "Jesus!" This turns God into a Clintonesque, smooth-talking trickster. He fools His audience into thinking He's talking about Israel, but He's really talking about something they couldn't have conceived of. He offers them an egg and some bread, and then gives them a stone and a serpent. "I promise to bless you, I swear it. {Later} Oops, presto! Not really you at all! Someone else! But I do have a dandy curse just for you -- and this time, I really do mean you!"
Christ is indeed all over the Bible, directly or indirectly (Luke 24:27, 44, etc.). But to insist that a text is unworthy of God if it really talking about what it seems to be talking about is (A) to adopt a suicidal hermeneutic, (B) to make God into the worst unethical bait-and-switch salesman, and (C) to pour shame on the very hermeneutic of Christ and the apostles. If we abandon Scripture to adopt this hermeneutic, we invalidate Jesus' constant refrain to His enemies:
"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" (John 5:45-47)
If this decoder-ring hermeneutic were true, his enemies could justly and correctly have replied, "There is no way we could be judged by Moses' writings, or the prophets. God said 'Israel' and meant 'not ethnic Israel at all, but the Christian church.' He named cities, but didn't mean them. He promised full national restoration in the most specific terms, again and again, but never meant it. All His threats He meant exactly as He said them, and all His promises meant something totally unrelated. So no, Jesus, Your teaching turns revelation into obscurement, and gives us a perfect, bona-fide excuse for rejecting You. God didn't give us the right decoder-ring when He put out the garbled, encrypted code. It's not our fault."
Of course this is nonsense. Christ and the apostles treated the OT with full respect. Bethlehem meant Bethlehem, a donkey meant a donkey, Jerusalem meant Jerusalem, Israel meant Israel. It was because the OT was to be read as outlined in point #10, above, that Jews (and everyone) could then (and now) be held guilty before God: because they rejected the plain and clear sense of the text. What was bad for them is bad for us.
God forbid we "honor Christ" in theory by dishonoring Christ in practice.
This is the hermeneutic God saved me from in saving me from the cult of Religious Science, decades ago. We did the same thing, always finding "deeper meaning" that was in fact opposite meaning to texts we simply didn't like, because they didn't fit into our system. By the grace of God, the folks I'm criticizing don't do it to Christological, soteriological, or other passages. Only to prophetic passages. If they did the same across the board, they'd not be Christian.
It is not dishonoring to Christ to believe that He said what He meant, and meant what He said. The reverse is what dishonors Him, no matter how honorable the intent.

You know what Dan, there are some who do just that, but I don’t hear from them that often. Most will simply allow the New Testament apostles to interpret the Old. I wonder why the apostle Paul, an ethnic Jew, didn’t put hope in a future national geo-political revival. I wonder why the apostle Peter, an ethnic Jew, didn’t put hope in future land promises. I wonder why those of the early church who owned lands that were rightly theirs didn’t hold onto it because it was theirs by divine promise. I wonder………hmmmm. I really do think it’s because those things are yes in Christ and I as a Gentile believer have a yes in Christ and it is not to a piece of land, but to an inheritance that is incorruptible, kept in heaven for me by Christ Jesus. The New Testament apostles do not go the way of dispensationalists. If they were dispensationalists then they would hold up your mantra, but they don’t.

I welcome any additions. I hurriedly put this together to get it off my plate and move on to some other things.

Saturday, February 03, 2007



So I'm back now and I'm already getting picked on:) JK. Nathan issued the tag this time and I found it very interesting. Well there were three books equal in distance from me and yes, all three are being read by me currently. They are Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology (I'm actually trying to use this as devotional material, go figure), Life and Letters of "Stonewall" Jackson by His Wife, and The Reformation Study Bible.

Rules are as follows:
1. Grab the book closest to you.

2. Open to page 123; go down to the fourth sentence.

3. Post the text of the following three sentences.

4. Name the author and book title.

5. Tag three people to do the same.

Here are my quotes, first from the Word of God:

In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore, the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

I'm sure Nathan will appreciate that verse after our discussion the other day:)

From Reymond:

But how can we, on these grounds, continue to think of ourselves as significant persons? Why is it not now, on these ground, just as appropriate to think of ourselves as a mere "accident of nature" (as did Sir James Jeans in his The Mysterious Universe) or as "the gruesome result of nature's failure to take antiseptic precautions" (as did Sir Arthur Eddington in his New Pathways in Science)? And why is it not just as appropriate to regard the elephant as a more advanced stage of the evolutionary process since it has a thicker skin than man?

From Jackson:

I have more than once bowed down on my knees, and thanked our kind and merciful Heavenly Father for the prospect of restoring you to health again. Now, don't get impatient, and come off before you are entirely well... Yesterday Doctor Junkin preached one of his masterly sermons on the sovereignty of god, and, although a doctrinal discourse, it was eminently consoling; and I wish that you could have heard such a presentation of the subject. To-day I rode your horse out to your lot and saw your laborers. They are doing good work.

This is from one of Jackson's letters to his wife dated May 7th, 1859.

I will tag Hank Hilliard and Andrew Lindsey. I couldn't think of anyone else to tag.

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Things as of late

Well, here I am for my few posts this month, LOL. I guess this will help a bit and get the bloodhounds off my trail that Gordon sent out. Thanks brother!

I just wanted to take a moment and let everyone know that things have been a bit hectic around here lately. To make a long story short, all of the kids came down with something just before the end of the year and were sick for several days. R.C. caught it and was just as sick as they and lost a couple of pounds. He was small anyway, and so my wife took him to the doctor. The doctor then proceeded to recommend he be admitted to the hospital, which I thought was ridiculous and for every reason they gave that he should be admitted, I responded with the reasons for their judgment. Ultimately, we decided to allow him to be admitted. I felt as soon as his appetite came back he would be fine.

We admitted him thinking they would immediately start I.V.s and such, because they were talking about him dying, which really upset Denise and frankly just made me mad. They did absolutely nothing for him in the hospital and made us stay there from Thursday till Monday. That Friday, he got his appetite back and was the old R.C. in no time. Several case workers stopped by and the hospital reported us to DSS. Now we have a self pay bill in excess of $4000.00, DSS investigating us and several nurses coming by the house to weigh R.C. for about $125.00 a pop. I put and end to that last one the other day Anyway, in all of this, I am reminded that even though I was aggravated and Denise was afraid, that our God is sovereign. Mind you, at first, I was purely aggravated. I was not spiritual by any means.

However, God graciously brought a highly esteemed lawyer from our state, who argues at the Supreme Court level, and is also a very godly man to our acquaintance for some good advice which we took. So far we are waiting to hear the results of the investigation, but I feel pretty confident that things will go well. This presses upon me to believe and live the doctrines I preach and teach. Therefore, I can count all of this as God working it together for our good and His glory (Rom. 8:28), yes this is part of the all things

Of note also Denise and I celebrated 12 years of marriage Sunday. She is the most wonderful and beautiful woman in the world and can you really believe that the Father would bless me with such a bride? Unbelievable, but true: He has. We actually got to celebrate by going out to the Olive Garden, and we indulged quite a bit as well We dived into two appetizers and two entrees……….I was very close to sinning at that point.

We also spent the past weekend with Jerry Johnson (from the Apologetics Group) and his wonderful family in Draper, VA. We enjoyed seeing the snow fall as we drove up and really took in some great fellowship and relaxing there on the mountain. I also received a copy of Robert Reymond’s Systematic Theology from him for my birthday and a copy of The Coming of the Kingdom by Herman Ridderbas, as well as, began reading a copy of Gordan Clark’s work A Christian Philosophy of Education. We also engaged in some very beneficial discussion of the covenants and the issues regarding paedo-baptism for which I am profoundly thankful. I may post on that in the future.

With that said, I hope to get back to posting a bit more. I haven’t been online as much since all this started and that has not been a bad thing However, I see that my name still comes up in discussions, usually by the Incrediblogger himself. Anyway, I thought I would take the time and let you all know what was going on just in case you might get worried. Be on the lookout Gordan, I am going to change the photo in the near future. I think the Jack Bauer look will be appropriate