IS PUBLIC EDUCATION A FAILURE? NO

Public education in America isn't a failure. But before you shut your computer down, grant me a hearing.

Public education has destroyed the Founding Fathers. Public education has rewritten the history of America. Public education is teaching Critical Race Theory in order to produce a generation that hates its own country and gives them a loathing for themselves and others. Public education is convincing boys that they can be girls and girls that they can be boys, starting in kindergarten. Public education has pushed and encouraged mutilation surgery on children in such cases. Public education is pitting one race against another, seeing one as the oppressor and the other as their victims. Public education has produced a generation indoctrinated to hate their parents.

 Public education is advancing perversion in K-12 and beyond. These perversions are being pushed by public education as normal and to be worthy of the students' and the public's approval. Public education is inculcating a belief that there are more than two sexes, even more than 150. Public education is destroying language particularly on the subject of pronouns. Public education has removed any reference to God and His Son, Jesus Christ, as even the words are on the banned list. Public education is putting pornography in its school libraries while the Bible can't see the light of literary day.

Public education is producing students who know nothing of history, geography, math, or science. Its graduates are dumb and dumber in those subjects. (In a man-on-the-street-interview, a young lady was asked, "In what country is Venice, Italy?" Her reply was, "I'm a teacher, I should know this." But she didn't even though his question had given her the answer.

 Public education has produced dumb teachers, dumb legislators, dumb celebrities, and dumb elites who have been indoctrinated by the system and not taught reading, writing, and arithmetic. So, you might conclude that public education is a failure, but no, it's not because what we're seeing has been its aim and goal all along--to secularize the society to the point of abolishing the dictum of Proverbs 1:7. Public education, therefore, has not been a failure; it has achieved its goals in a spectacular fashion: it has birthed secularized, ignorant, self-loathing and indoctrinated adults in a relativistic society. 

Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of chaos. 

 

ELON MUSK, THE BABYLON BEE, AND THE GOSPEL

 "The Babylon Bee" interview with Elon Musk got awkward. For the unitiated, "The Babylon Bee" is "a conservative Christian news satire website that publishes satirical articles on topics including religion, politics, current events, and public figures." 

As the interview was coming to a close, the interviewers said that the Bee was a Christian ministry so they asked Musk, "Do you believe in God?" 

 Musk said, "I believed in God as a child. I attended Sunday school and a Jewish nursery. I was baptized as a child. But all the stories aren't literally true."  

Musk went on to say that he agreed with the philosopher Spinoza's view of God. Spinoza defined God as "a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence," and since no cause or reason can prevent such a being from existing, it therefore must exist." 

In other words that are more understandable, he didn't believe in a personal God. Musk would agree with what Einstein told Rabbi Herbert, "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." This belief would eliminate the Incarnation, the Bible, and Jesus salvific purpose.

Then they asked Musk about Jesus and he said, "I agree with the principles Jesus advocated." He cited, "Turn the other cheek" as opposed to the eye-for-an eye principle by which he showed that he didn't understand what those words were teaching, but that's not important for our discussion today. He said he liked the principle of forgiving people as we go through life and doing unto others as we would have them do to us. This is a commendation of Jesus as a good, moral teacher but nothing more.

And this is where things turned awkward and caught Elon Musk off guard. One interviewer immediately and abruptly asked, "Will you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior?" Stunned silence. A moment of reflection. Then in his exact words, Musk said, "Hey, if Jesus is saving people, I won't stand in His way. Sure, I'll be saved, why not?"

The two interviewers expressed joy and relief over that answer.

But wait a minute. What kind of a gospel presentation is that? Is it accurate? Does it jive with John 8:24 and I Cor. 15:3-4? No. 

Wait another minute. In any evangelistic sermon in the book of Acts, is that the gospel the Apostles declared? According to the above texts, The gospel is that Jesus is God incarnate, (that wasn't mentioned), that He paid the total and complete penalty for Musk's sins (that wasn't stated) rising from the dead. He should have been told that he must trust Christ and Christ alone, not in his Sunday school attendance or in his baptism nor in his admiration and keeping the Golden Rule.

We cannot conclude that Musk is unsaved or saved, but what we can conclude is that the "gospel" presented during that most awkward interview has never saved anyone and never will.

AN UNCALMING APPRAISAL OF CALVINISM

 

If there is one thing five-point Calvinists hold with vigorous tenacity, it is the belief that there can be no human free will at all. None. The Calvinist will state it this way: God can't be sovereign if man is granted any degree of free will. 

But this view of God actually lessens the greatness of His sovereign power. For if God can't control a universe in which there is genuine free will, and is reduced to the creation of robots, then such a God is of truly limited power.

The opposite is true. The God of the Bible is great enough to create creatures with genuine powers of choice. Yet so perfect is His omniscience of all choices, possible and actual, that He can devise an almost infinitely complex scenario for mankind in which His sovereign purposes are all worked out perfectly through—and even in spite of—the free choices made by His creatures.

If man has no free will at all, none, then there's no place for human responsibility.

It is a logical, though unadmitted, result that if man has no choice to make, there can be no true concept of human responsibility. If man has no free will, he can make no other choices than those for which he has been programmed by God. Man cannot be held truly responsible for “choices” which were mere illusions of choice and which are really the inevitable outworking of a predetermined program to which he is unconsciously subjected.

If the word “responsible” is assigned to such “choices,” the word loses any real significance at all. It becomes a word-game. We might as well say that the chair in which I'm sitting is responsible for holding me up.

It is a vital part of the belief system of the Calvinist that the unsaved man cannot really be called upon to believe the gospel, since he has no capacity to do so. He, according to their system, can't make any choice at all. All "choices" were programmed into him in eternity past. It follows, then, that faith must be a divinely imparted gift which man receives only as a part of his conversion.

According to the system, God regenerates the unbeliever and then gives him faith. So, faith is a consequence of regeneration, not regeneration the consequence of faith. According to the system, things have to be turned upside. (Whereas the Bible says, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." The Bible does not say, "Faith comes by regeneration.") 

This results in a conclusion according to their system: The non-elect are faced with the horrible reality that God has chosen not to regenerate them and that, therefore, they cannot believe even if they want to.

One young man was a dedicated evangelist whose heart beat for the lost to the extent that it led him to being a zealous street preacher. But then a friend led him into Calvinism. He said that after a while, he was beginning to change; his zeal for the lost began to dry up; his evangelism lessened. He made the following statement: "Calvinism damaged me psychologically. If I did any evangelism all, it was a have-to, not want-to and that was also damaging to me.The joy was gone." He admitted that Calvinism led both him and his wife into a serious case of depression.

He finally renounced his Calvinism after coming across II Peter 2:1 which destroyed the vaunted third point of Calvinism. When he would take his questions to his pastor and other friends, he finally tired of hearing their stock answer about troubling texts: it's a mystery.  

In contrast to all of this, what was it Joshua said? "If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve." Choose? Yes, choose.