Tuesday, January 5, 2010

recommended reading

I have thought about this for a while.
Essentially in my theological journey I have always been a loner. Thought not necessarily by choice. Even in ministry I had not one particular mentor but several. And while I appreciate the lives of these ministers I assumed I would get a little more attention. I think now looking back they indeed had appropriate relationships in the fact that that they did not constrain my to their ideas and philosophy, but instead encouraged me to grow as an individual to get my instructions directly from God.
In the same way as a theologian I was a loner. I started out in a Christian liberal arts college.(this is where I felt the call from God to become a minsiter) While there I took my first OT and NT survey courses. I would also take my first missionary trip to Northern Ireland. It dawned on me that I would have many different groups and religions who would want me to preach there version of the gospel. I knew that if I was going to minister to people and tell people about this Jesus who saved my soul, then I needed to know His Word. Growing up I had read select verses, the book of Matthew, Job and Ecclesiastes. The rest I knew from listening to Sermons. While on my missionary trip, I notticed the devotion of my fellow missionaries and realized that I need to fully understand the scriptures to keep myself from bias. And so I read non-stop for about 5 months and completed the Bible the day before my first day of Bible COllege.
Obviously, I would go on to leave this christian college for Bible college where I got my bacheloreate.
I was trained in theology from a new eveangelical reformed calvinistic baptist perspective. I was thank for a lot fo my training specifically regard the fundamental foundational teachings of the faith. However, as time grew on I knew that I could not fit into their camp. I wished I could just for sake of relieving social preassure yet as I read the scriptures I found that there were some key scriptures that Calvinist would ignore and I could not ignore my Savior's words.
While training at this college I realized that I needed to be free from bias so I would study other denomenations. Some I paid more attention to. Yet I was constatly in search of different perspectives. Not only did I study, but I took the time to vist about 17 different denominations of churches. I also collected over 30 translations of the Bible.
After bible college I became a youth minister. I also study at theologically moderate southern baptist institution for my masters degree. While there an ironic thing happened. Instead, as some would think, of growing more liberal with the liberal teaching I was getting, I grew much more conservative.
I was committed to a sovereign God who had inspired an infallible Bible. Therefore I was able to investigate what made my colleagues reject the word of God. Soon I found the new evangelical compromises that have been plaguing our churches and was able to focus on scripture to illuminate a truly New Testament Faith.

Now in terms of fitting into a camp and recommended reading.
I have found authors and books which had a great deal to offer me. These are not an exhaustive list. I am writing what simply comes to mind.
I do not see these writers as instructing me on anything. The Bible is my soul authority and God deserves all the glory. Instead these writers are brothers who have shared there labors and with whom I find comradery.
They seem to have a grasp on the same spirit which made me born-again. When they read the scriptures it reminds me of when I read the scriptures. If these men fail, I forgive them. I am never betrayed by them since I never place my faith in them. I only have faith in God. So without further adew,

recommend authors

Henry Morris) I believe that when we are in Heaven, Dr. Morris will be vindicated as the most valiant defender of the faith among the more popular apologist in the 20th century. Unlike C.S. Lewis He did not restrict himself by arguing for "mere Christianity". Instead Morris defended Biblical Christianity letter for letter! It was Morris who first helped us to understand that evolution was both unscientific and unbiblical. Giving scientific evidence for the flood and defend the Bible in literally every academic arena, Morris laid down the guantlet for today's less than worthy apologist.

Keith Green) Though a musician, Keith Green had a spark that flipped today's worldly evangelicals on their heads! Not only was music biblical and inspiring. But as you read Keith's Biography "no compromise" you find someone who is both down to earth and yet has their eys toward heaven. You will rarely if ever read of someone with such living faith.

Richard Baxter) While I am not sure of all of Baxters theological conclusions(I do not know of his views on baptist and the church). Baxter si one of the great devotional nonconformist/puritans of his generation. A pastor who had converted his entire town with only two exeptions! a must read "The Saints' everlasting Rest"

Dave Reagan) Dave Reagan is one of the most practical prophecy speakers I know of. He makes the study of Bible prophecy simple and sound. IF you are new to studying the end-times he is the man to go. Although I must warn about two teachings which I do not endorse. First Reagan believes in apostasy while teach "eternal security". Secondy Reagan belives in a temporary Hell. That there is a spiritual prison until the final judgement and the lost while only be annihilate in the lake of Fire not burning forever. this is an understandable but false teaching. Yet other than this Reagan is a very effective minister for the gospel of Christ.

Dave Hunt) Hunt is one of the leading thinkers in the evangelical community when it comes to understanding cults as well as the occult. IF you think that your church maybe getting wtered down by the world. Read Hunt and He will unveal exactly what is going on.

Alberto Rivera) If Hunt were a hammer then Rivera is a Jack Hammer! Reading the Alberto Rivera series literally tipped my world upside down. I kept thinking this is to extreme! Yet fact after fact was confirmed by historical research. If people think the "davinci code" was thrilling, then i have one thing to say. "truth is stranger than fiction"!! The series has to be factual for one simple reason. It is so fantastic a story that there should have already been a movie made about it. only NWO forces would be responsible for not bringing this out to the public.

John R. Rice)In my studies a lot of my theology is summed up by combining landmark and disensation theology to New Testament interpretation. Rice was already ahead of me. I never got the priveledge of meeting Rice. But if he is anything like his writings it must have been something to see.

W.A. Criswell)Criswell is a decent scholar and preacher. I found him to be valuabel early in my education. Unfortunately he does have a few flaws. He was pro-chice and a member of the free-masons. But if you can get past these issues He is a good resource.

recommended books

"refuting Compromise" Jonathon Sarfati
Sarfati is a brilliant creation scientist. His writings help me accept God's word concerning a young earth creation.

David Sorenson "touch not the unclean thing" this was a key book in bringing me over to a traditional text position.

David Larson "Jews Gentiles and the Church" this book help me to secure the foundational understanding of God's plan for Israel in the end-times.

"progressive dispensationalism" william craig.
This is a good book for understanding dispensationalism. Ultimately I feel there qare strengths and weakness to ultradispensationalist, classic dispensationalist as well as progressive dispensationalist.

there are many others I will bring up later.
God bless,

In Christ,

BRo. Matt Singleton

Saturday, January 2, 2010

Liberty and traditional marriage

It has come to my attention that some liberty minded thinkers have assumed to the idea of traditional marriage and/or the idea of constitutional traditional marriage amendment to be discriminatory against gays. While this idea is definitely antagonistic to gay activist; the reality is that amendment is not meant have the government step in against homosexual groups but instead make the government recognize the primitive and original building block of society, the family. So I would like the time to make that case.

A. An imposition of religion?
Some argue that this is a religious values being imposed upon people through the government. However, this is not strictly speaking, a religious debate. It is a debate over family ethics and morality and what role the government plays. While religion takes sides on this issue, it is not simply the idea birthed from one particular religious establishment. Protestants, Catholics, Jews, muslims, hindus, and even Buddhists have in the past denounced homosexuality and supported traditional marriage So it is not based on a particular world view. The issue barely involves a religious establishment. But it does have to do with how the government behaves itself around such matters.

B. the main opposition of the homosexual movement regards a presupposed bias in the tax code.
First of all the reason for this supposed bias is that traditional married couples are more likely to raise children.
Secondly this is an issue that can be easily resolved through limited government. The most pro-traditional marriage candidate Mike Huckabee argued for a fair Tax which would eliminate all bias in the tax code by doing away with the income tax system. Replacing this system with a sales tax. Other systems doing away with the IRS would accomplish the same goal.

C.Arguments about insurance and hospitals is mainly privatized.
Discrimination in insurance is strictly and economic matter. It has been repeatedly statistically proven that the gay lifestyle leads to more health risk, less sanity, and more violent relational situations. This will lead to insurance companies stamping a higher price for the lifestyle.
No major social conservative I know has argued that gays should not have hospital visitation rights. This is strictly a problem with the hospitals themselves.
However these are independent businesses and the private sector should be allotted such freedom whether right or wrong.

D. The homosexual movement has been a source of socialism in this fight.
The homo-sexual movement has been consistently tied to socialist strategies. Besides the obvious notice of the gay influence on democrats; Pro-gay legislation has been put in unconstitutional mean of judicial activism. Whenever put to a vote among the people traditional marriage has won even among the more liberal states.

E. The idea of an Amendment is defensive, not offensive.
The traditional marriage position has been one of defense and not offense. There are no new laws and legislation by traditional marriage advocates besides preserving the definition of marriage.
It is the homosexual lobbyists who demand extra protections, even though many homosexuals are financially well off in upper-class segments of society.
Traditional marriage advocates would like Homosexuality to not be inculcated in public schools and they would like an environment where their underage children are proselytized into a perverse lifestyle which leaves their families barren. Yet the government has stepped in and has already been introducing several methods of teaching our children fornication so that this battle would be easier.
Just so long as we have to pay for these social experiments on our children with our tax dollars.

F. There is no major enforcement of this amendment.

Gay rights groups argue this to be like “prohibition”. They see it as a misuse of the constitution to restrict freedoms that will be impossible to enforce upon gays.
This argument is utterly preposterous. Because it does not restrict they gays from moving together or calling themselves married. It only restricts the government from recognizing it. There is hardly any tax dollar price to use in enforcement.
Also homo-sexuals may not be aware that marriage is asking to give up liberties. First it is saying that the government encourages homosexuals to practices homosexuality all their life with a moral imperative to stay that way at the risk of health(in sickness and in health(even with STD). The government also then gets the right to divide up the gays property upon divorce. (we see this already Massachusetts and California) So this takes gay rights away.

G. the gay concept of Marriage is ludicrous
Gays are not truly asking for basic rights, but to destroy the governments understanding of marriage and family.
If we are discriminating against homosexuals in recognizing marriage as between a man and a woman; then we are obvious discriminating against other perverts.
Polygamists are a major minority group that will have the right to redefine next. Then we have beastility and child molestors and incest couples. There is already a group (N.A.M.B.L.A. North American Man-boy love association) advocating in Canada for rights to have sex with minors.There was already a film festival award for a movie “ZOO” advocating beastility between a man and a horse. You can not say you are not discriminating against these groups while supporting homosexuality.

H. This will lead to a breakdown of sexual ethics within our legal code
The end result of all this is an elimination of all sexual law. Once all these restrictions are annihilated, there will be rape and gang bangs and eventually all forms of violent crime will be accepted. Human sexuality must have controls. If there is no control then we will end in anarchy.
I. The God Factor
This argument may at first seem contradictory to the first argument brought up. However this is a point of probability. Just as many environment laws have been formed because of probable threat (even though global warming has been shown a haux).
The fact is we must deal with probabilities. The majority of the world and especially the united states acknowledges the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is oppose to the practices and will curse a people who blatant accept it. Even when California judges accepted gay marriage the state went up in flames with Forrest fires.(don’t miss the irony that the derogative british term “faggot” originally meant firewood)If God is real and America promotes the homosexual lifestyle then it would be like that the country will be cursed.
18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
18:28 that the land vomit not you out also, when ye defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. 18:29 For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people.
Leviticus 18:22,298

3:6 Shall the trumpet be blown in a city, and the people not be afraid? shall evil befall a city, and Jehovah hath not done it?
Amos 3:6

Considering these factors support for traditional marriage is not a government attack upon gays, instead it is a defense of traditional American Values, which reiterates our stability and liberties.

Thanks, Matt Singleton