I tell somebody I'm going to say a rosary for them, and then I do, and in the process I might have told somebody else, and so I end up with two, three, four people - I'm just wondering, is that diluting it some way? Or is better to say individual - well its probably better - but is it diluting it some by combining several people?

I think that's a good question, but I don't think you have any fear of that, because if you are praying the rosary with sincere intent to pray it for several people instead of just one, the weakness would not be with you, but the weakness would be with God. And God isn't weak. He can make sure that that prayer that you pray is responded to for each of those individuals, because God is perfectly capable of hearing your prayer and reaching out his wonderful fingers to touch 4, 5, 6, or 10 people just as well as one. And as long as its your intent to pray for them, and you say, "Lord, this person has a real need here, and this person there, and this person there, and this person there, and I only have a half an hour to pray Lord, but I really really want you to help every one of those people I'm going to pray for, so when I pray, would you please make up for any of my weakness of mind, and my weakness of memory, and you take care of them for me." I guarantee by my little experience with God, and by knowing who He is and what He wants to do. He actually wants to help those people more than you want Him to help those people. So I think you add as many people as you want, and you pray for them, and then you watch God work in their life.

Lord, I only have one half hour to pray, but I really really want you to help every one of the people on Earth who has a need, and each person in Purgatory who is suffering the temporal punishment of their sins. So, when I pray, would you please make up for my finite mind and my finite knowledge of all their particular problems, and their particular names, and take care of them for me.

Here is the Wednesday evening devotional from the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church from 3 John.

The heretics, all of whom are children of the devil and clearly bear the sign of God's reprobation, have a horror of the Hail Mary. They still say the Our Father but never the Hail Mary; they would rather wear a poisonous snake around their necks than wear a scapular or carry a rosary.

Blessed Alan relates that a man he knew had tried desperately all kinds of devotions to rid himself of the evil spirit which possessed him, but without success. Finally, he thought of wearing his rosary round his neck, which eased him considerably. He discovered that whenever he took it off the devil tormented him cruelly, so he resolved to wear it night and day. This drove the evil spirit away forever because he could not bear such a terrible chain. Blessed Alan also testifies that he delivered a great number of those who were possessed by putting a rosary around their necks.

"I thank God for Chris Arnzen and his Christ-centered ministry with IRON SHARPENS IRON. Most grateful am I for his unwavering commitment to the absolute truth of Scripture. Here is a rare voice on the radio today. May the Lord set a wide and open door before this vibrant program for all to hear." ---Dr. Steven J. Lawson, Senior Pastor of Christ Fellowship Baptist Church, Mobile, AL

"Chris Arnzen's love for and confidence in Scripture causes him to address issues without fear while showing great respect for those who may disagree with his views. That's what makes IRON SHARPENS IRON such an informative and beneficial radio program. If you want to hear clear, concise thinking from a biblical perspective, listen to this show!"---Dr. Tom Ascol, author, Executive Director of Founders ministries, Pastor of Grace Baptist Church, Cape Coral, FL

This is an excellent post from James Swan (hey, why didn't he post it here?)! It has always amazed me to watch Roman Catholic apologists citing this patristic source or that, and when you actually take the time to read the arguments put forward, you are left shaking your head and saying, "THAT is supposed to be a compelling argument?"

A fascinating exchange between Richard Reid, the "Shoe Bomber," and an American judge.

Back on June 30th I posted a short note regarding the abuse inherent in depriving a little child of a father and a mother that comes from "same sex unions." I made reference to a picture, posted on the Internet, in a major news source (MSNBC) as a glowing example of just how self-centered "same sex unions" have to be by nature. Here is the article I posted.

I was contacted by "jennifer kozumplik/nicole webber" (name provided on the contact page) and told to remove the image, found in the above linked article. I have done so pending my getting legal advice on the matter. You will find the image on the following websites, and something tells me "jennifer kozumplik/nicole webber" haven't contacted USA Today, MSNBC, etc., demanding that the picture be removed. As I have said many times, and as more and more people are discovering, homosexuals do not ask for equal rights: they want super-rights, including the ability to shut down all expression of belief that reminds them of the moral evil by which they have chosen to identify themselves. This is a glaring example. Note the use of this picture by such national online sources as MSNBC and USA Today. Google will provide you with lots of examples, such as this one.

The two individuals have likewise posted similar pictures on Facebook; even those without a Facebook account (such as yours truly) can see them.

Even Flickr has them as well.

I wonder if they wrote to The Ledger as well? That one even provides the very same image they have demanded I remove in a zoomable form.

Clearly, these two individuals are not camera shy, and they surely did not grant "rights" to all of these sources to post their pictures. No, the reason for this is clear: homosexuals use the cover of "tolerance" as a demand for "silence" on the part of those of us who still identify moral evil as moral evil. These individuals are glorying in their rebellion against God's moral law, and they are damaging not only themselves in their rebellion, but others too young to even understand what is being done to them. But they are intent upon making sure that no one reminds them of these facts that they know all too well.

I have been asking those "in the know," and since the picture is an AP picture, all one needs is an account with AP to post it. These individuals do not have the right to selectively determine which sites post the pictures and which do not---they lost that right when they allowed the pictures to be taken in the first place. But their demands cannot change the reality of their actions, and the actions of all of those rushing off to California so that they can pretend that marriage is a term humans get to define (instead of an institution God Himself ordained) before common sense returns to that state (Lord willing) in November. My original post only used their picture as an illustration of a general moral evil that is being promoted in our day. They are not alone in putting their own sexual desires before the good even of themselves, let alone of a little child. It is the very essence of homosexuality, and the very essence of man-centered Western culture.

My sincere apologies for having to cut short the program today! I will make it up Thursday by starting half an hour early, hence, the start time will be 3:30pm PDT, 6:30pm EDT (2:30pm AKDT for my friends in Alaska!). I'll get to the clips I had mentioned but did not play. Here's the program (free/high quality).

I preached at Anchorage Grace Church on Sunday morning, from Romans 12:1-2. Here's the sermon.

I spoke on the topic of the "eternal law of progression" in Mormonism in Anchorage this morning. Here is the video.

Greetings! I somehow managed to get this partial video uploaded. My battery died, so, this is only half of the sermon, but, it cut out at a fairly decent place, so I offer it anyway. Due to differences in how my Mac handles video, my head is cut off in this view (I'm learning, I'm learning), but that's almost a good thing. The substance is in the words, not in yours truly, that's for sure! So anyway, here is at least half of my sermon on John 8 from the conference here in Anchorage, Alaska.

I am currently cruising at about 36,000 feet on my way to the conference in Anchorage, Alaska. I was doing what is normally called "sermon preparation," but for me of late, that has been focused very much upon the text itself. That is, I have found great freedom (and the people of God have seemed to be especially blessed) when I speak directly from the original language text itself. This involves a flowing translation of the text, commentary thereon, followed by exegesis of the key passages. I was reading John chapter 8 when I encountered these familiar words from Jesus' encounter with the Jews, "And He was saying to them, 'You are from below. I am from above. You are of (from) this world. I am not of (from) this world" (καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· ὑμεῖς ἐκ τῶν κάτω ἐστέ, ἐγὼ ἐκ τῶν ἄνω εἰμί· ὑμεῖς ἐκ τούτου τοῦ κόσμου ἐστέ, ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου. John 8:23). I was struck once again by a theme I have pointed to many times in my preaching. We are so often used to hearing Jesus speak in the context of His divinity that we often do not "hear" how very strange His words would have sounded in their original context. We know Jesus is the Incarnate Lord, the eternal Second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God, and so these kinds of words do not amaze us. But we must put ourselves in the context of the Jews standing in the gazofulakion, the treasury room of the Temple. And I think what caused me to especially focus upon this text at this time is my upcoming debates with Muslims.

If you can, put yourself in the original context, and "hear" Jesus speaking. What do you hear? What strikes you? Is there not a clear, strong differentiation between the Lord's view of Himself, His self-understanding, and that of everyone around Him? Are these the words of a man who sees Himself as "one of us" in the sense of origination? Surely not. The "below/above" and "this world/not this world" couplets are meant to communicate Jesus' divine origin very strongly. Jesus is not merely saying, "I am in harmony with God, and hence have a heavenly connection, one that you could have as well, if you only chose to do so." He is not saying, "I am a prophet like many before me." No, He is about to say (v. 24) that His opponents will die in their sins: "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that ego eimi, (ἐγώ εἰμι) I am, you will die in your sins." One's eternal destiny, even one's forgiveness of sins, is tied to faith in Christ, and more to the point, faith in what He reveals about Himself. The "I am" saying here (note v. 28, 58, 13:19, 18:5-6) aside from going directly to Yahweh's self-identification in such texts as Isaiah 43:10, flows naturally from the assertion to be "from above" and to be "not of this world."

Isn't it just here that the enemy has been so insistent upon attacking the once-for-all-delivered-to-the-saints-faith? The list of falsehoods concerning the person of Christ propounded down through history (let alone today) is long indeed, but all the heresies of the past and present share this one consistency: they refuse to allow the Scriptures to speak fully in defining Him. The Jews rejected His self-identification in this text as well (8:58-59), and they are followed by the entire Muslim world today. The "Islamic Jesus," though a virgin born worker of miracles, is not divine, but is a "mere rasul, a mere prophet." But what "mere rasul" (إِلَّا رَسُولٌ) speaks to his fellow creatures and says "you are from below, I am from above"? What mere prophet has this kind of self-awareness? Obviously, no sinner can say the words Jesus said, and, of course, this is exactly why Muslims reject the testimony of John, for they, like the Jews of Jesus' day, have a particular traditional understanding of who Jesus can, and cannot, be.

If today you embrace faith in Christ, obey Him as your Lord, love Him as your Savior, and rejoice in the fact that He is the God-Man, let your heart be filled with thanksgiving that He, by His Spirit, has opened your heart to see the very "Lord of Glory" (1 Cor. 2:8).

Greetings from Anchorage, Alaska! Just a real quick note to say that I won't be able to attempt to do a DL today via Skype. The conference schedule is such that I think it would be impractical. But it is great to be with the brethren here in Anchorage, and please pray that the Lord will bless the ministry of His Word this weekend.

He looked like death warmed over. “I’ve done all I can do. I just don’t know what to say any longer.” He looked defeated, and tired.

I sighed and said nothing at first. I had been through this too many times to count, but it never got any easier, never got enjoyable. I settled a little more deeply into the chair in his office and took a deep breath.

“Roger,” I began, “I truly do not believe it is a matter of what you have, or have not, said. People who make this decision do it for many, many reasons, and only rarely do they do so for strictly theological ones. I am sure, if we could dig a little deeper, we would find many personal reasons that have nothing to do with formal theological issues.”

He nodded in response. “Of course, I know. But it is so tremendously difficult to see someone simply abandon the gospel and walk into the arms of heresy. You want to do something.”

“Believe me, I know” I replied. “But I learned a long time ago that you cannot force someone to hear you. You cannot force someone to think rationally, to obey truth, or to recognize error, if they have chosen not to do so. It is beyond your capacity. Nor can you judge your ministry of the Word on the basis of such an action by someone in your congregation. The Apostles faced this same situation, so surely it was not a matter of failure for them, nor for you.”

“I know all these things” he said with a heavy sigh. He paused, then said, “But it really doesn’t make me feel any better right now.”

I smiled, “I know. So, your suggestion that she talk to me was ignored? Let me guess....I’m too, let’s see, harsh? Unloving?”

“You guessed it” he chuckled. “Seems the double standard doesn’t bother her. Her new found mentors can write or say anything, but if anyone responds to their arguments, and in fact refutes them, well, they are unloving and unkind and unChristian. You name the excuse.”

“Been there, done that.” I leaned forward a bit. “Well, your next move is not enjoyable, but necessary.”

“I know. I can’t believe we have to discipline someone who grew up in our midst.”

“She has embraced deadly heresy, Roger. God’s people must be warned. And we can only hope the seriousness of the response will communicate to her the gravity of what she has done. Besides, I think you will want to spend some time going over the foundations of the faith from the pulpit once again, just to make sure everyone is clear on the basics.”

“Indeed.” He rose from his chair and stood in front of a large shelf filled with books. He pulled down a hefty volume and opened it. “I have always sought to be faithful in preaching the whole counsel of God. She heard it preached over and over again. I thought she loved the truth....” His voice trailed off.

I stood. “Elders are not given a supernatural ability to see into the hearts of their congregations. Nor are you expected to. You exhort, you warn, you encourage, you teach. And you trust in Christ’s promise to build His church, but in His way, in His time. You hope the best, especially for those who are under your ministry for years, but you know that longevity is not a sure sign of calling. And, of course, we don’t know how long this fascination with Rome will last. Sacramentalism cannot long satisfy the heart of the truly redeemed, and if she is, well, the honeymoon can’t last forever.”

“Yes, of course. Well, thank you for coming. I will keep you appraised of any developments in the situation.”

“Please do” I replied, and walked out of his office into the gathering dusk. As I fought through rush hour traffic I pondered yet another example of why it is so utterly vital to not only understand biblical sufficiency, but to be passionate about it, both in one’s own personal faith, and for those called to the eldership, in one’s proclamation and teaching. A fine Christian pastor and church would now face the difficult questions that always follow an act of theological apostasy: why? What are the real reasons? Did the church fail in some fashion? How do we now respond to this person? And for those who are former Roman Catholics themselves, the questions would be even more difficult to answer. Literally millions of people have left Rome, seeking something beyond the dead formalism of sacramentalism based upon man’s acts, man’s merits. So how could someone go the other direction, especially when they had known, or seemed to know, the truth?

In James White's recent video, he claims to believe the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith on "Effectual Calling." Unfortunately, he does not give credible evidence that this is the case, nor does he even accurately read what the Confession actually says.

Steve Ray (a Roman Catholic apologist and pilgrimage tour guide) has again provided an argument for the papacy via his blog (link to Ray's blog). Ray's argument for the paaccomes in the form of a reply to an objection based on the peg in Isaiah. Apparently, this was the “only issue” about Roman Catholicism that “unsettled … scripturally” one of the readers of Ray’s blog (according to the article Ray links to) and additionally it was a question raised by a caller to a radio show where Ray appeared.

If either that reader or that listener happens to find this blog, I’d suggest to him that this is a minor objection. There are many more serious issues with Catholicism that should leave him feeling unsettled scripturally: Rome's views of justification, purgatory, indulgences, papal infallibility, transubstantiation, worship by use of images, veneration of relics, and many more come immediately to mind. In fact, the peg in Isaiah would be so far down the list of possible issues with Rome that I doubt I have ever raised this particular objection, though Ray claims that “I know because I used to propose this as well.”

In the discussion that follows, I will explain the context of the objection (typical misuse of Isaiah 22) and explain some better objections both grammatical (the pluralization of "keys" demonstrates that a different figure of speech is being used) and exegetical (Eliakim in Isaiah 22 points to Christ, as confirmed by Scripture). Additionally, I will explain the objection (since many readers may never have heard of it) and address both legitimate and illegitimate rebuttals to the objection. By the conclusion, the reader will have seen that although the objection posed is not a particularly strong one, and not one that we should favor, an exegetical understanding as to why such an objection is improper confirms that the position Ray advocates in essence attributes to his church what is properly ascribed only to Christ, for the government is on Christ's shoulder. It is Christ upon whom, like an unbreakable pothook, we can safely hang all our hopes. It is by faith alone in Him alone, that we are saved.