*and some of everything else, too

Latest Comments

I God real

In response to: A-alethic Atheistic Rhetoric

I God real [Visitor]
The stickers send a very bold message. It is very offensive but this is America and people are allowed to be jerks at will.
PermalinkPermalink 06/03/12 @ 21:57

In response to: Does John 6 Teach Irresistible Grace?

Ed [Visitor]
If by "radically free" you mean apart from or outside of the will of God then the answer, I would think, is No. Just as God cannot create the rock that is to heavy for Him to lift neither does He have the capacity to create man without also knowing the outcome of his creation. Any choice of a "radically free creature" would already be known to God prior to the time of its creation. It could only be said of God, that by knowing what his creation would be and creating it, we are what he created us to be (or that we were created unto the choices that we make). If we are what He created us to be then how "radically free" can we really be?
PermalinkPermalink 05/25/12 @ 03:08

In response to: Does John 6 Teach Irresistible Grace?

bcreamer [Member]
Is it possible for God to create us as radically free creatures?
PermalinkPermalink 05/24/12 @ 21:43

In response to: Does John 6 Teach Irresistible Grace?

Ed [Visitor]
Can we be anything other than what God has created us to be?
PermalinkPermalink 05/15/12 @ 01:06

In response to: The Sovereignty and Freedom of God: Part 3 of 4

bcreamer [Member]
Yes. You heard correctly. I discuss the statement in a post at http://forchristandculture.com .
PermalinkPermalink 11/02/11 @ 10:59
Larry Zamora

In response to: The Sovereignty and Freedom of God: Part 3 of 4

Larry Zamora [Visitor]
Dr. Creamer,
I heard you make the statement that you felt that you would be responsible for someone else's eternal position if you were disobedient to share the Gospel with them. Did I here you correctly ?
PermalinkPermalink 11/02/11 @ 10:52
David Hill

In response to: Nietzsche and Christianity

David Hill [Visitor]
As a type of "shower" after reading that filth, may I recommend 1 Corinthians 1:17-31. God Bless.
PermalinkPermalink 09/22/11 @ 08:22

In response to: Relativism's Relativity

bcreamer [Member]
I hate to admit it, but I think I simply agree with you. Nicely said,
PermalinkPermalink 08/24/11 @ 10:12
Robert Woodruff

In response to: Relativism's Relativity

Robert Woodruff [Visitor]
I think that you missed the point in your comments about responsibility and gift. By His example Jesus showed us that all He said and did was directed by the Father. It was not a matter of His deciding to use what He had been given naturally. In the same way Paul set aside all that he had gained before salvation and depended absolutely upon what Christ was doing (with a few exceptions). The point is then that it is not a matter of how well we can sing or speak but on how well we follow the Lord in what we do. That is what He will bless and as Paul said in 1 Cor 3:7 It is not a matter of who does what but of God who works out the details.
PermalinkPermalink 08/24/11 @ 09:05
malaya kumbhar

In response to: Getting Marriage Right: Why Marriage Is Not a Right

malaya kumbhar [Visitor]
Dear Brother in Christ,

Greetings to you in Jesus name ! nice to see ur blog artical :Getting Marriage Right: Why Marriage Is Not a Right.
i like one sentance that you maintion like that , same sex marriage people ignored and That ignorance is a shame.

my self malaya kumbhar, we meet in BHUBANESWAR, ORISSA, INDIA.
did you remenber that. nice to cautch you in your blog. i am very happy to see u after logn time. convey my regards to ur family members.

thank you
malaya, india
mail: rmalaya@gmail.com
PermalinkPermalink 08/23/11 @ 11:34

In response to: Getting Marriage Right: Why Marriage Is Not a Right

bcreamer [Member]
Thanks for the cogent question. The point of your question is exactly why I had to insert parenthetically (twice, by the way) that while marriage is a social expression, its moral reality is not defined by that society. So society's definition of marriage is as right or wrong as it is in accordance with what marriage really is. More on that (what marriage really is) in a moment.
The point for this post is that regardless of what else is metaphysically true about the nature of marriage, to claim it as a right is nonsensical, since rights are for individuals, and since marriage is intrinsically about the society's act, not about the individual's act.
But back to your point directly now: for limitations against same-sex marriage to be morally equivalent to limitations against women voting or blacks going to school with whites the underlying issues would also have to be morally equivalent. If homosexuality is equivalent to being black or being a woman, then the question you've raised should force society's hand and bring them to a new definition of marriage. But if there is some moral distinction between being homosexual and being a race or a gender, then society's limitation on marriage is not only defensible, but laudable. Of course, I do believe homosexuality is inherently wrong---which is what I keep pointing out I'll have to argue another day.
If your question really raised a reason for society to doubt its definition of marriage, and to doubt its restraint from approving same-sex marriages, then it would also force society to question its disapprobation of polygamous, pederastic, and bestial marriage. There are, after all, people who want each of those to be legal as well.
So in short, society is doing exactly what it should be doing when it says some things are marriage and other things are not. Marriage is limited, or it is meaningless.
Again, thanks for the excellent comment.
PermalinkPermalink 08/19/11 @ 17:19

In response to: Getting Marriage Right: Why Marriage Is Not a Right

Trey [Visitor]
"Those who claim to favor tolerance by advocating same-sex marriage are actually demanding that the whole of society approve of what it does not approve of, a stark and unsettling act of intolerance at the highest level."

This being the case, how would you argue against someone who says that this is the same kind of "stark and unsettling act of intolerance" that led to Women's suffrage and the civil rights movement?
PermalinkPermalink 08/19/11 @ 15:10
Linda Cross

In response to: How a Healthier Population May Be Much Sicker Than It Thinks It Is

Linda Cross [Visitor]
I recently received my Master of Art Education. I created ceramic pieces that showed the eagle as a symbol of guidance and friendship. As part of my master's thesis, I had to write a poem for my artist's statement and write my own definition of Art. As I expressed my Christianity, I could not mention Jesus in my poetry. As a result, I was able to create ceramic pieces that glorify God. I couldn't believe the results. My artwork is now part of worship to God.


O guide me with your friendship.
Give me the strength I need.
Let me hear the rumble of the thunder
Through every feather in your wings.

Each feather as it flutters
Through the air a lofty heights.
Reminds me of each blessing
I see throughout my life.

These wings so strong,
Yet gentle,
Lift me up throughout the day.
Each feather is a promise
Of the blessings on my way.

O Friendship of the Feather,
O Blessing in the Clasp of the Talon,
Support me in the Storms of Life
Until I reach the Place of Rest
Within the Eagle's Nest

My definition of Art:

Art is my life's journey:
It is my physical act of creation;
It is my psychological act of healing;
It is my emotional act of passion;
It is my spiritual act of worship.

PermalinkPermalink 08/10/11 @ 17:56
Terry Price

In response to: How a Healthier Population May Be Much Sicker Than It Thinks It Is

Terry Price [Visitor]
I have never heard a sermon on whether Jesus had a soul. The Bible talks a lot about His Spirit, so it seems that Jesus was just body and Spirit. If He had a soul, it would seem more possible for Him to sin and without a soul, it would be impossible. Could you enlighten me on this subject?
PermalinkPermalink 08/06/11 @ 03:43

In response to: The Sovereignty and Freedom of God: Part 1 of 4

chad [Visitor]
hmmm... this is 'Part 1 of 4'... did I miss something? I can't find the other three! I assume they will be posted at a later date?
This is great! Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts on this subjetct!

-Undecided in DFW area (but just not close enough to attend your church
PermalinkPermalink 04/26/11 @ 08:17
Pregnancy After Miscarriage

In response to: One More Way a "Right-to-Healthcare" Eviscerates Liberty

Pregnancy After Miscarriage
Awesome post. Great.
PermalinkPermalink 03/23/11 @ 02:31

In response to: The Sovereignty and Freedom of God: Part 1 of 4

chris [Visitor]
Hello Dr. Creamer, I enjoy lessoning to you show when the opportunity presents its self.
I would like to solicit you and your audience on a problematic quandary I think we face as a body of followers.
Let me first give you a back ground on where I see the issue. I work for a hotel in the area, and we see a lot of local business done by varies Christina organizations. Now I know the dilemmas that arise from putting together a church founded event and to be a good steward of the recourses allotted to you must border for the best price possible. That being said I work in an office of both fence straddling Christian as well as non believers.
At what point do we stop being good stewards and start begin to give Jesus Christ a black eye through are actions. To be a light to this world shouldn’t we make every possible prevision to pay the bill asked by those who dwell among us instead of saying will I’m praying you can drop the bill or this is for Jesus Christ & excreta.
Is that not why Abraham insisted on paying for the cave for Sarah’s tomb even thou it was offered as a gift. Do we not blaspheme the Lords name by doing this?
Each time we have an organization that comes into my hotel and dose this it saddens me because I hear a room full of mockers who are further pushed away from Christ than they were before because they relate all Christians to their behavior
I want give any of the organizations name for fear it would become gossip but do feel we need to address this as a body.
PermalinkPermalink 03/10/11 @ 17:31

In response to: The Sovereignty and Freedom of God: Part 1 of 4

MushinMan [Visitor]
Your four categories miss the most important issue in regarding free will: active consciousness.

To "Decide" to do something out of "free will" there must be a conscious choice. However brain scans clearly show that the conscious mind is following the orders of the sub-conscious mind and making up the story to make us think that the conscious mind is actually deciding.

In one experiment, the experimenters could see SEVEN SECONDS AHEAD OF TIME exactly what choice a person was going to make before he or she indicated the decision point.

So, if free will exists, it seems that it exists in the unconscious mind. It seems more and more like our conscious mind is just a story our brains make up.

Oh yeah, any answer you have to this post was already wrapped up and decided upon before you decided it was decided upon.

Science baby. It's really cool stuff. At least until the robots become sentient and take us over ...


PermalinkPermalink 03/09/11 @ 13:27

In response to: The Sovereignty and Freedom of God: Part 1 of 4

Jason [Visitor]
I enjoy your show! Thanks
PermalinkPermalink 03/02/11 @ 21:37

In response to: Change

Chad [Visitor]
I agree, excellent post. But, hmmm... is this post only about 'change' or is it mostly an introduction to the introduction of your 'Freewill and Determinism' topic for this week?

Many thanks for what you do!
PermalinkPermalink 03/01/11 @ 10:30
Barton Ramsey

In response to: Change

Barton Ramsey [Visitor]
Excellent post. Thanks for wanting to miss out on sleep.
PermalinkPermalink 02/20/11 @ 22:19

In response to: Human Nature Revealed in Deep-Freeze U-Haul Tire

MikeZ [Visitor]
I love how God's creation draws us to Him. One of my favorite examples is the north star. It is unique among stars because it always appears in the same place and so has been a guide to travellers for 1000s of years. Jesus is our north star. Always there. Always a ready guide. All the stars revolve around the north star. For us, everything revolves around Jesus.
PermalinkPermalink 02/07/11 @ 16:50

In response to: What an Income Cap Really Means

bcreamer [Member]
Regarding the claim from both Luther and Kelly that government does have a rightful claim to certain money, of course I agree. The argument and point of the post is that the government's rightful and certainly prudent claim to that money ceases where it goes beyond its (the government's) purpose for existence. Government does not create wealth---neither in the U.S. constitutional sense nor in the essential nature of centralized planning. Government, both in Romans 13 language and in terms of the constitution, maintains the structures in society which allow for the unhindered economic participation of the members of the society. Anything government does to "direct" the economy only hinders the free interaction of agents in that economy. (e.g., subsidizing natural-gas taxis through front-of-the-line advantages promotes monopolization by the large taxi companies as mom-and-pop cabbies are punished for not already having enough resources to make the non-economically motivated move to natural gas.)
And regarding the "centralized planning" problem, I recommend Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. But the basic point is that if we use non-economic power to force a certain thing on society because the economic forces won't get us there, then we contradict ourselves by saying it is worth (we want it) more than it is worth (we're willing to pay for it). Things are actually worth what we are willing to pay for them. There is nothing else money means in terms of purchasing power.
And none of the things we would say are "worth" something more than money can buy are things we want the government sticking its hand into. (Which is why, by the way, rights are negative---but I'll have to write a post on that issue another day.)
One more quick note: America's economic prosperity does not come by stripping the wealth of other nations. That economic picture is antique and misguided. Economies grow. The more economic benefit there is for other nations, the more there is for America as well. The economy is not a pie. And we are no longer mercantile in our economic understanding. Environmentalists and anti-capitalists would do well to figure out that Bill Gates' prosperity is due to the benefit his productivity gave to everyone who paid him for what he produced---again, a topic for another day.
PermalinkPermalink 02/03/11 @ 09:15

In response to: What an Income Cap Really Means

Luther [Visitor]
Hey, Brother Barry. It's good to see you online. I'll try to keep up more. I had a couple quick comments from this post.

"Unfortunately, since it is not the government's own productivity (read, 'hard work' or 'limited inheritance') which gave them the money they are about to spend,"

There are some arguments against this: the government's protection of our society is what makes John's wealth possible. Maybe God "gave them the money they are about to spend" (cf. Romans 13, Luke 20: 20-26). More literally: they are being productive in taxing, right? Is their hard work in taxing the money (to pay for everything they do to make the "production" of it possible) any less ethical than Joe's taking advantage of where he lives to accumulate so much money (from those around the world whose opportunities are taken away because of laws, sanctions, wars, neglect, etc., caused / contributed to by his government, his American competitors, his colleagues, his employees, and him)?

"and since they are centrally planning from ivory offices rather than responding to real market pressures, the government's use of John's 'excessive' money will actually squander a huge percentage of it."

I guess I need it delineated a little more: since the government's productivity didn't get them the money, and since they plan centrally rather than spending according to "market pressures," they are bound to squander a lot of the money?

"In summary: it is wrong to take it since it is his (the 7th of 10 commandments, for those who keep up with such things)"

THE 10 commandments? Adultery? If you're talking about stealing, is it appropriate for us to speak of the government "stealing" from its citizens? I can understand arguing that a corrupt government official is stealing for his own "good," but the government in general? (This isn't even requiring that we think of the government as "we the people," just as the organization that protects society.)

"it is unwise to take it since while it is in private hands it is most likely to increase prosperity in the society."

Some people are good/lucky/blessed with their money. Are the majority? Some people spend their money with the society in mind. Do the majority?
PermalinkPermalink 02/02/11 @ 11:47
Jimmy Hammond

In response to: What an Income Cap Really Means

Jimmy Hammond [Visitor]
Dear Mr Creamer:

Heard your broadcast Monday night for the first time while on a roadtrip through Texas. I enjoyed it as with the candor in your answers. Unlike that evenings spiel, I am the subject of this inquisition.

I have had an unusal life in that I spent a salient portion of my adolescence in a home for boys--a lot of them. i was sent there by my parents will. Apart from that massive issue of abandonment, there was a second incident that happened there and sent me into a greater tailspin that is too lengthy to pen, so I'll get to my biblical question:

With that latter issue in mind, I have had many struggles with certain sins all my life, but always felt that when I received the Lord at 14 in this boys home, I was saved for good. In fact,my entire impetus for doing this was on the ground of my chaplin's statement, "He will never leave you".

While reading scripture one evening many years back, in Hebrews 5 (and forgive me if I do not get the passage correct as I don't have my bible with me) as with 2 Peter 5, which I read later, they effectively state that (paraphrased) Once you receive Christ and fall back to your old ways, it is impossible to come to repentence . . . In Peter it refer to the dog returning its vomit . . .

I ask may pastor if it was possible to lose your salvation, and he said 'yes'. Needless to say, I have lost all hope in what I considered to be impossible. I rarely pray and rarely attend church anymore, and when I do there is no enjoyment at all--I have considered suicide many times because of hopelessness I am consumed by; if I am going to hell for eternity what is the since in prolonging it? I am stopped by the rememberance of what my father's did to me and my siblings, but am living in this void between smiles and tears.
PermalinkPermalink 02/01/11 @ 23:16
RK Brumbelow

In response to: What an Income Cap Really Means

RK Brumbelow [Visitor]
Dr. Creamer, You just said that taxation is wrong because it causes one to commit adultery.
"In summary: it is wrong to take it since it is his (the 7th of 10 commandments, for those who keep up with such things)"

Taxation is not wrong the Bible specifically allows governments to tax those whom they are over Matthew 17:24-27 though it does forbid over taxation with the example of Ex. 30:15
PermalinkPermalink 01/28/11 @ 20:31
How To Blog

In response to: Existentialism and the Heavens

How To Blog [Visitor]
How To Blog
I truly appreciate this blog post. Keep writing.
PermalinkPermalink 01/18/11 @ 09:56
Jared Wellman

In response to: Existentialism and the Heavens

Jared Wellman [Visitor]
Good stuff.
PermalinkPermalink 01/14/11 @ 14:08