The Forerunner

These are my comments relating to some of the articles found at www.forerunner.com. Check back for my random thoughts on eschatology, world missions, God's Law and Society, theonomy, Christian Reconstruction, pro-life activism, evangelism testimonies, Neo-Puritan theology and social theory, revival and spiritual awakening, church history, and so on.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

"The Occult Roots of Abortion" audio sermons on-line

This is from a pastor, Scott Johnson of North Fort Myers, Florida, who found my (co-written with Eric Holmberg) website article: The Occult Roots of Abortion. He preached a three part sermon reading the articles and expounding on the text relating it to scripture throughout.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1119072034224

I am amazed. I posted the .mp3 audio sermons on my website. Here are the links:

http://www.forerunner.com/audio/wicca1.mp3

http://www.forerunner.com/audio/wicca2.mp3

http://www.forerunner.com/audio/wicca3.mp3

It is ironic. I sat down today to capture the audio for a video I have started on "Witchcraft and Abortion." I was searching to see if there were any photos of these Wiccan abortionists on the Internet. I found these .mp3 files by chance. I wrote and edited the articles in 1993 and later combined this with Eric Holmberg's Massacre of Innocence video script
. There was a period of time in 1996 when I first posted my website that I would get up to 30 emails a day from enraged Wiccans who protested these articles. It was at that time that Forerunner.com was "discovered" by a mass audience of Wiccans and Pagans. Ironically their attention helped the fledgling website's overall popularity in the search engines.

To think I spent several hours doing the audio for a video (that will later have to be redone by Eric Holmberg anyway) and I found a pastor on the Internet who had already done the same thing! I'll be posting the video in segments on YouTube prior to the production of the final DVD.

Stay tuned.

You can subscribe to my YouTube channel if you want to get updates via email.

http://www.youtube.com/jcr4runner

Labels: , ,

Friday, March 20, 2009

A Question from a Reader about Theonomy

Mr. Rogers,

First of all, I wanted to thank-you for the blessing that your ministry at The Forerunner website has been. I was very pleased to find that website a few weeks ago and I've been since learning through your ministry and enjoying the articles. I know this is rather presumptuous, but when I had some questions regarding theonomy, you immediately came to mind. If you're too busy to answer that's completely understandable. I hope I'm not out of line by asking.

I guess my main question is: What is the primary difference between the theonomic view and the typical evangelical understanding of the law? All evangelicals are agreed that the ceremonial law was abolished with the fulfillment of the "types and shadows" in Christ's atoning work. When it comes to the moral law, however, I confess I don't see that theonomists have much disagreement with typical evangelicals. I don't see any Christians claiming that they are no longer under an obligation to keep the Ten Commandments, that it is morally permissible to commit adultery, murder, steal, etc. However, if the main difference between the theonomic and traditional camps is on the matter of the civil law, then why is it that we find most of the defenses of theonomy directed against those who would claim that the moral law is no longer in effect? I haven't found anything that argues specifically for the current application of the Old Testament civil laws.

Also, I've heard it said by many theonomists that the Old Testament civil law is not to be imposed from the top down; rather the establishment of a theonomic government will come about through revival, and changed hearts, as the majority of people willingly submit themselves to God's law. Is the theonomic view of the civil law that it is a type or shadow of what will be established in Christ's Kingdom? Just as the ceremonial law was a shadow of Christ's work? Also, would you consider it to be wrong to try to enforce those laws now, from the top down? Again, thank-you so much for your ministry at The Forerunner; it's truly been a blessing to me. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to read this email. Have a blessed day!

In Christ's Name,

- Q.P.



Dear Q.P.,

Many evangelicals are operational theonomists. They want to ban abortion, homosexual marriage, allow school prayer and promote family friendly policies because this is in accord biblical law.

It's the issue of biblical sanctions that separate the two groups.

What do we do about abortionists and the parents who kill their children? Should they be executed as murderers or should hey be regulated by a government agency in the same way that the FDA regulates the sale of beef.

That is just one difference.

Theonomists ought to teach that we cannot advance Christ's kingdom through law. This needs to happen through conversion. We cannot emphasize that enough.

But let's say that the majority of voters were converted. Let's say that situation were true today. (For example, there are supposedly 65 million evangelicals in the United States and less than that number voted for Obama in the last election.) Then the question becomes: Whose law should we legislate? God's or man's? If we won't enforce God's law because it no longer applies, then where does man's law derive it's authority?

The homosexual wants marriage rights. We would deny that, but on what basis do we have the authority to deny it?

Someone's law has to rule. Should it be man's law or God's law? Or some combination of the two?

All Christians ought to agree that God's law -- even the capital case laws -- in the Old Testament were put in place by a just and loving God. There is not one God of the Old Testament and another God of the New Testament. There is only one God. However, most evangelicals believe that the laws governing Israel were put to rest under the New Covenant.

The question remains: Whose laws ought we to have on the books?

I personally believe that God's moral law and the sanctions found in the Bible ought to be the basis for our civil code. Judges would have the right to show mercy in capital cases with the exception of premeditated murder. Another thing we can imitate is that ancient Israel had no prisons. The prison system ought to be abolished in favor of a system of double restitution paid to victims of non-violent crimes.

It is important to remember that this has nothing to do with bringing about the salvation of the criminal. We cannot be saved by law. We cannot bring about revival by legislating righteousness. However, revival ought to result in righteousness and the righteous ought to stand for God's morality in every sphere of society -- family, school, business, church, civil government, art, science, etc.

At most, the Law of God acts as a tutor to show us where we have sinned (and in civil cases, where we have become criminals) and it can lead people to Christ by showing His eternal standard of righteousness and our need for grace and forgiveness. Civil judges can model the mercy and compassion of Christ to criminals who are truly repentant and willing to make restitution for their crimes.

But the fact remains, all law is an attempt to impose someone's morality from the top-down. If we are a Christian people, whose law do we want? Do we want Barney Frank imposing laws that govern our economic system and whether homosexuals should have the right to marry?

Someone has to rule and these rulers will decide which laws will be the standard.

See also: God's Law and Society

Labels: ,

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

An Account of Britain’s Sea Battles

“For the King and His Crown Rights!”

Of all the valiant captains who served in His Majesty’s Navy in the 18th century, none is so resiliently popular as Sir Edward Winthrop, who was in his day the most feared and respected man on the high seas. Edward Winthrop’s famous declaration — “For the King and His crown rights!” — fired the hearts of his brave sailors who served under his command.

In one famous sea battle, three pirate ships took Winthrop by surprise on a return voyage to England. But Winthrop’s badly provisioned ship maneuvered cleverly to run one pirate crew aground on a coral reef, sunk another with one cannon volley, and quickly out ran the third. Several days later, they found the three crews hiding in a nearby cove together on one ship. With great indignation, the captain bellowed out his famous words — “For the King and His crown rights!” A fiery deluge of smoke and lead descended on the pirate ship, demolishing one of the last pirate crews in the Caribbean. Winthrop’s “take no prisoners” philosophy was what made him feared by all the enemies of the King of England.

The ship which Edward Winthrop commanded, the H.M.S. Ecclesia, had an even longer and more illustrious history. By the time of its decommissioning in 1830, the Ecclesia had fought in over 100 battles and had been restored or rebuilt many times. Her name first appeared on a rustic galleon 250 years earlier. Only the U.S.S. Constitution (or “Old Ironsides”) even closely rivals the Ecclesia’s fame and longevity.

Yet most Americans today are vaguely aware, at best, of this great monument to the expansion of British civilization. The Ecclesia first appeared in the battle of the Spanish Armada in 1588. At that time, the Ecclesia was an old unmaneuverable ship used for powder storage and supplied other ships in battle. Smaller ships, called “sea dogs” under the command of Sir Francis Drake, ran circles around the larger Spanish galleons in the English channel. With superior seamanship, English and Irish sailors quickly sank the majority of the Spanish fleet, clearing the paths of the high seas for the King’s dominion of the New World.

A smaller, fitter Ecclesia was commissioned in the early 1600s to protect convoys of settlers off the shores of Virginia, New England and later Georgia. Decked with tight rows of cannons, the ship fended off any threat to the colonial settlers. She fought many battles in the Caribbean, defending British settlements, and sinking many Spanish ships. Not only was she used in battle, settlement and commerce, but the Ecclesia returned to English port often bow laden with Spanish gold, winning several of her captains great honor among the monarchs of England. In all, three captains of the Ecclesia were knighted: Sir Calvin Edwards, Sir Luther Robinson and, of course, Sir Edward Winthrop.

Of interesting note to historians, Edward Winthrop was named by his parents in honor the first captain of the Ecclesia, Sir Calvin Edwards. Edward Winthrop’s father, Francis, also served as a crewman on the Ecclesia. Oddly, Francis Winthrop was both a distant relative of Massachusetts Governor John Winthrop and Sir Francis Drake. Sir Edward Winthrop’s mother was a distant relative of John Knox, the Scottish Presbyterian reformer. Thus this illustrious family rose in fame with the exploits of the H.M.S. Ecclesia.

During the reign of England’s Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, Francis Winthrop sailed with a Puritan crew under the command of Captain Cotton Blackstone. The fame of the Ecclesia began at this time, when she helped to run pirate ships out of the Mediterranean Sea.

In the 1730s, under the command of Captain Isaac Howells, the Ecclesia ferried Christian missionaries to Georgia during the administration of Governor Oglethorpe. It is rumored that George Whitefield took a brief trip on the Ecclesia which ended abruptly off the coast of England when a mast cracked in the high winds. This record conflicts with the sea log of another ship, however, and it is impossible to tell from Whitefield’s writings whether he sailed on the Ecclesia since he had long before abandoned his practice of keeping his journal.

Under Sir Edward Winthrop’s command, the Ecclesia rose to the zenith of her fame. Winthrop had a reputation among his men as being stern in discipline, but fair in its dispensation. On a south sea voyage, one crewman threatened mutiny, an offense for which, according to maritime law, he could have been keel-hauled or set adrift on the high seas. Instead, Winthrop cast him in irons until he could receive a “fairer trial in the Christian courts of Britain’s capital.” During the trial, the court found conflicting testimony and set the man free. When some of Winthrop’s crew protested the ruling, Sir Edward supported the court’s decision, saying, “When common law proceedings are made a mockery, though it be only in the case of one man, the entire nation may soon suffer shipwreck.”

Winthrop hated the slave trade to the Americas most of all, which he called “the execrable sum of all villainies.” After slavery was outlawed in England, some British subjects still took part in the illegal West Indian slave trade. On one occasion, Winthrop apprehended a British crew aboard a slave ship off the coast of the Canary Islands. He interrupted his journey to Cape Verde in order to cast the British subjects in irons. His wrath was never more severe, as he commanded his men to give the slavers five lashes across the back each day of their voyage back to England. Quoting scripture, Winthrop sentenced them: “For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.”

When Winthrop died in 1828, pirates had long since become a rarity. But occasionally, a crew would prey on lone ships carrying rum and molasses. Ecclesia’s last captain, Darby Scofield, suffered an attack by one of these rare pirate crews in the Virgin Islands. Unfortunately for Scofield, the ship was long overdue for repairs. Had the Ecclesia been more seaworthy, Captain Scofield may have stood his ground and fought. But he believed that the ship was at the end of its service and he doubted the loyalty of his men under attack. Furthermore, their cache of powder was not sufficient for a drawn out battle.

After suffering only one canon volley, the Ecclesia began to take on water. Scofield commanded his crew — “It’s no use boys to polish the brass on a sinking ship. Abandon!”

Ecclesia’s crew sought haven on island within view. The pirate crew, though fewer in number, boarded the ship and managed to repair the cannon holes by running her aground at low tide. When high tide surged in, the pirates had commandeered the Ecclesia. Indeed a sad chapter in the annals of British sea lore!

A convoy carrying some men who had been under Sir Winthrop’s command appeared within a few days. Miraculously, the crew of the Ecclesia were rescued and the convoy set out in search of the pirates. Less than one week later, the pirate crew raised a white flag at the first sight of the British fleet and three high flying Union Jacks.

The scene stood in stark contrast to Sir Edward Winthrop’s famous battle cry forty years earlier. The episode was an embarrassment to the crown, for the Ecclesia had never before lost a battle. A few months later, the British parliament voted unanimously to retire the H.M.S. Ecclesia rather than restore and recommission her.

The ship was bought by a Presbyterian church in Brighton and the lumber was used to construct a meeting house and a parsonage. The house of worship stood for 53 years and bore a plaque with the likeness of Sir Edward Winthrop. Underneath the image is inscribed the ironic question: “What is Christ’s Church? — A wrecked pietistic vessel, or a Puritan battle ship?”



NOTE: This tale is not a true account, but is an allegory used to illustrate the point: “What is your church?” Soon after circulating the first draft, I found that some still did not get it. Hence this footnote.

Labels:

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Raped and Pregnant?

I have several pro-life videos on YouTube warning about the dangers of elective abortion.

I occasionally get a comment from a viewer who tells me first to stop being so judgmental because she was "raped and pregnant." It seems the perfect retort because who can argue with that? It's truly an example of a "crisis pregnancy" and I don't doubt it's a horrific ordeal to go through. But my response is usually the same.

"You were never raped and pregnant."

How can I say that so callously?

I just find it unlikely that on one vlog (for example) of 115 comments, I would have even one person who was raped and pregnant. It is claimed that about one percent of all abortions are due to rape. And even these numbers are based on false testimony.

One percent of 1.3 million would be 13,000 abortions due to rape.

Is that possible?

Justice Department statistics for 2004 had approximately 0.4 rapes per 1,000 people. And that is from a broad definition of "rape" that would include various types of sexual assault. According to the Justice Department, of the average annual 200,780 sexual assault victims in 2004-2005, about 64,080 were victims of "completed rape."

Obviously, only a "completed rape" could result in a pregnancy.

To arrive at the "raped and pregnant" statistic of even one percent of all abortions, 13,000 (or over 20%) of these 64,000 rapes would have to result in a pregnancy.

Then to get to the number of even 1 percent of 1.3 million, 100% of those pregnancies would have to be aborted.

I've heard of other studies that show the number of rape-pregnancies leading to abortions is less than 500 per year.

That's why if you tell me you were "raped and pregnant," I am skeptical.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Flames from John YouKnow

Every once in a while I get flames (hate email) from people I don't know and neither can I tell why they are so upset with me.

Okay, maybe not once in a while, it's actually more like daily.

It could be a response to one of several stances I've taken on abortion, paganism, witchcraft, homosexual politics, and so on -- this time it was my Christian Reconstructionist leanings. But I found out only after several emails went back on forth. It's an example of how to engage a God-hater in the opposite spirit -- something we too often forget. I often can't resist getting in a few little jibes at the expense of the self-professed enemies of God -- as David, Paul and Jesus sometimes did -- but sometimes it's useful to think about the fact that these people are God's enemies, not our own.

Here is the exchange (I have corrected his spelling):

Dude, you are a complete lunatic, you do realize that right?

It would help me a lot to know what you are referring to -- an article I wrote, an article written by someone else on my website, a video?

Lol, you are overly nuts. Let's all live like the bible says. What a dumb@$$ approach to take on life. Listen, I could care less what delusions that you have bu the minute you start trying to enforce your views on anyone else we have a problem. You have no evidence at all for your view on life, none, it is true only because you say it is true. Go live in Iran if you want to live according to strict religious principles. It's funny because you don't even realize it, but you are....just....like.....them.

Where have I tried to "enforce" views on people? No one can control the thoughts or the conscience -- only God can do that.

@$$#*!% You have formed a "political group" that has the aim of turning America into a society governed by laws of the Old Testament. So while you do not have the power to enforce anything on anyone at present, given the opportunity you would force all to submit to a mythical book, written by men more ignorant of the ways of the world then the modern eight year old. God controls nothing. How dense can you be? What evidence do you have that God controls ANYTHING? What a %#*&! You make me laugh.

The goal of Christian Reconstruction is regeneration -- changing people's hearts thorugh true faith and true repentance from sin -- then for a grassroots reformation of society. You cannot change a society by capturing political power and then legislating righteousness from the top-down.

(More to come ...)


Labels: ,

Friday, March 06, 2009

The Evolution of Jesus Mythicism

Here's a ministry idea. Someone with a YouTube account ought to read this on video. Do a rant in your own inimitable tone. Make sure you cite the author because when it goes viral he'll be wanting royalties. I didn't write this. This is from a guy named Vinnie, who obviously has some kind of gift. Don't ask me what it is though.

Just a note for people who don't get this. I constantly get responses to my Real Jesus video series from young postmodernist atheists who insist there is no proof that Jesus ever existed. I know that makes no sense, but welcome to the 21st century. If you do get it, then you agree with me that this guy Vinnie is brilliant.


Mythicism in 27 to 30 A.D.

Yes, mythicists go back to the first century where they were constantly arguing with Jesus about whether or not he existed. Nothing he could do would prove his existence to them. They asserted and reasserted that he did not exist.

One guy who was a real "Freke" traveled to Australia and came back and told Jesus triumphantly "No one has ever heard of you in Australia. Ergo, you do not exist."

Many of Jesus friends (maybe even 500 of them!) testified that this man was in fact Jesus of Nazareth to them but the mythicists accused the men of fabrication and mass hallucination. They were stubborn and unrelenting and would not give up their hyper-skepticism.

Men and women came claiming to be Jesus' family but the mythicists argued that their testimony was invalid unless backed by a scientifically controlled and carefully conducted DNA testing.

Jesus invited the mythicists over to his house one night for supper and when he was done entertaining them he tried one last time to prove his existence to them. But not even the wine they drank loosened them from their hyper-skepticism. Led by their leader "Doherticus ben Earl" they dogmatically asserted that unless he could show them a valid driver's license with his picture on it they would not accept his existence.

Since he had no clue what a driver's license was he was silenced and his opponents assumed victory and taunted him with drunken slurs like "Na na na na na. You don't exist. Na na na na na."

Mythicism in 30 to 70 A.D.

Many who who knew Jesus of Nazareth and followed him during his lifetime believed he was an actual person and they found him to be a great teacher and they continued to follow him after his death and carried on his message.

But the mythicists kept arguing against his existence. They now asserted that the Christians invented the story and they accused them of being Christians! "Because you are followers of this man you are clearly biased and nothing that you say he said or did can be considered as evidence. What could a follower of Jesus tell us about Jesus?" they retorted.

One day during this time period some Gentile converts interpreted something they heard attributed to Jesus to mean that shellfish and pork were now clean. But this only fueled the debate as popular mythicist "Petros ben Gandy" used this material to argue against the historicity of Jesus' existence. He stated, "I lived next door to Jesus and ate with him often. He never declared shellfish and pork clean. You or whoever you heard this from are clearly making this material up just as you make up these claims that Jesus was a real person. He could never provide us with a valid picture I.D. and I doubt you can do any better!"

Jesus' brother James become quite popular and continued to argue that his brother was a real person during this time period but he could never provide the mythicists with their required evidence of a DNA test as he knew not what a DNA test was.

Mythicism from 71 to 95 A.D.

Jesus' original followers were all dead and the mythicists ran rampant during this time period. Anything anyone said about Jesus was considered hearsay because no one was actually there to witness it. The mythicist's mythicist-children now demanded primary-contemporary source data. Anything less than that would not even be considered!

One Christian brought forth some documents that contained a lot of material on Jesus. He said these documents should constitute evidence for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Much material inside them was embarrassing and there wasn't really any valid reason to think that all stuff was woven from whole cloth (let along the really embarrassing stuff like Baptism by JBap) but the mythicists were not swayed. At first they weren't sure how to treat them and they argued that no one ever heard of these documents and they have no name on them so they must not exist. Christians then decided to name them and the mythicists changed their argument. Many of them now speculated that these documents were late second century documents that wouldn't be written for another 100 plus years. This position became central to the mythicist case. It was canonical you could say. "Do you really expect us mythicists in the year 83 A.D. to accept these 2nd century documents that won't even be written for about another 100 years as evidence? What do you take us for? Idiots?" That quickly became their standard response.

Mythicism from 96 to 2000+ A.D.

Nothing has changed and Jesus is now sitting in heaven laughing in heaven at the sight of this nonsense.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

A Muslim Turk converts to faith in Jesus Christ



In this series, Yuce Kabakci tells of his conversion to faith in Jesus Christ as well as his vision for planting churches and ministries in Turkey. He explains that even in a "secular" Muslim country, such as Turkey, there is a cost for discipleship.

I'll be posting some more information on Yuce and his vision in the next few days.

Labels: , , ,