Can it be said that our freedoms have blinded us and are holding us hostage, preventing us from bringing every thought captive to the word of God and keeping us from seeing the threat at our doorsteps? Some say that only time will tell, but I believe time is already telling! Let’s open our eyes and be accountable to truth. 
“M. I. C. K. E. Y, M. O. U. S. E! Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck! Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck! …” Many of us remember this sing-along song that opened the Mickey Mouse Club program when as children we were enjoying the biggest name in entertainment. That, of course, was the wonderful world of DISNEY. At one time, Walt Disney’s family-oriented programming was enjoyed by almost everyone, adults and children alike. However, times have changed and so has Disney, so much so that ole Walt is probably “turning over in his grave”. Disney now promotes the progressive anti-family and anti-Christian LGBTQ woke culture that the founders of BLM intended for the destruction of the nuclear family.
Chances are that if you want to watch a good movie, sporting event, or have your child watch an animated cartoon program, more than likely it will be connected to the vast empire that Disney has become, owning a good portion of the television and entertainment world. Just three years ago Disney, for $73.1 billion, bought the film and TV assets that were held by 21st Century Fox, marking the transaction one of the largest media mergers in history.
The above is just for starters. Add to that the list of Disney-owned companies and you begin to get a sense of just how big Disney really is. That list includes ABC, ESPN, Touchstone Pictures, Marvel, Lucasfilm, A&E, The History Channel, Lifetime, Pixar, Hollywood Records, Vice Media, and Core Publishing among many others.
Included are recognizable brands and film franchises as the following: Star Wars, The Muppets, The Marvel Cinematic Universe (but not the X-Men – yet!), Disney Princesses/Princes (such as characters from Cinderella, Mulan, Frozen, Aladdin, and The Lion King), The Chronicles of Narnia Franchise, The Pirates of the Caribbean Franchise, Pixar Films, (such as Toy Story, The Incredibles, and Cars), The Winnie the Pooh Franchise, The Indiana Jones Franchise, Grey’s Anatomy and other popular ABC shows. See here.
The LGBT culture is alive and flourishing within Disney. During a recent virtual meeting, a group of Disney filmmakers together with employees said they have been given the freedom to add “queerness” and LGBT characters to children’s programming, but they believe a lot more needs to be done. Such was expressed during an “all-hands” meeting following controversy regarding Florida’s parental rights bill that prohibits classroom teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade. Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis has signed the bill into law. See here.
In a series of videos released by journalist Christopher F. Rufo, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, Disney executive Karey Burke told attendees of the meeting that she is the “mother of two queer children – one transgender child, and one pangender child”. Wanting to see more LGBT characters in Disney programs, she states, “We have many, many, many LGBTQIA characters in our stories, and yet we don’t have enough leads and narratives in which gay characters just get to be characters and not have to be about gay stories.” Rufo, in a tweet, said that Burke added in the video that she wanted a minimum of 50 percent of characters to be LGBTQIA and racial minorities. See here and here.
Read More

I believe my ten arguments for a literal reading of Genesis 1 and my five response to objections sufficiently demonstrate the validity of the Westminster Confession (4.1) when it declares: “It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.”

In Part One of this piece, I offered 10 reasons for reading the six days of creation as six chronologically successive periods of 24-hours each. Today, I will answer five common objections.
Objections to Literal, Chronological Days
1. Objection: Genesis 2:4 speaks of the entire creation week as a ‘day,’ showing that ‘day’ may not be literal.
Response: The phrase here is actually beyom, an idiomatic expression meaning “when” (NIV, NRSV, NAB).[1] Besides, even had Genesis 2 used “day” in a different sense, Genesis 1 carefully qualifies its creative days (see points 2–5 in the previous article).
2. Objection: Genesis 2:2–3 establishes the seventh day of God’s rest, which is ongoing and not a literal day. This shows the preceding six days could be long periods of time.
Response: (1) Contextually, this is an argument from silence—one which contradicts Exodus 20:11. (2) If true, it would imply no fall and curse (Genesis 3), for then God would be continually hallowing and blessing that “ongoing day.” In fact, God does not bless his eternal rest, but a particular day. (3) Days 1–6 (the actual creation period) are expressly delimited; Day 7 is not. (This is, however, because the creation week has ceased. To mention another “morning” would imply another day followed in that unique period.) Since this is the seventh in a series of six preceding literal days, how can we interpret it other than literally?
3. Objection: On Day 4 God creates the sun to provide light; but light was created on Day 1. This shows that the days are not chronologically ordered, but thematically cross-linked.
Response: This “problem” is answered in the context. On Day 1 God declares “good” the newly created light, but not his separating it from darkness to form “evening and morning.” This is because the final, providential mechanism for separating (the sun) is not created until Day 4. Thus, when Day 4 ends we finally read: “it was good” (Gen. 1:18). This is similar to the separation of the waters above and below on Day 2, which is not declared “good” until the final separation from the land on Day 3 (Gen. 1:9). Or like Adam’s creation not being “good” (Gen. 2:18) until Eve is separated out of him. Also, Scripture elsewhere suggests light was created separately from the sun (2 Cor. 4:6; Job 38:19–20) and can exist apart from it (Rev. 22:5).
Besides, most of the material in Genesis 1 demands chronological order—even for Framework advocates. This suggests that the surprising order of light-then-sun is also chronological. Not only is Genesis 1 structured by fifty-five waw-consecutives (often translated “and”) that indicate narrative sequence, but note: Separating the waters on Day 2 requires their prior creation on Day 1 (Gen. 1:2d). Creating the sea on Day 3 must predate the sea creatures of Day 5. Day 3 logically has dry land appearing before land vegetation later that day. Day 3 must predate Day 6, in that land must precede land animals and man. Day 6 must appear as the last stage of creation, in that man forms the obvious climax to God’s creation. Day 6 logically has man being created after animal life (Days 5 and 6) in that he is commanded to rule over it. Day 7 must conclude the series in that it announces the cessation of creation (Gen. 2:2). And so on.
Read More
Related Posts:

The question for those engaged in ministry is whether we ourselves have learned Christ as Paul describes, and can then teach others the grace of God in such a way that leads to sanctification in those who have faith in Christ Jesus. Paul tells Timothy, “Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim. 4:16).

The matter of sanctification can be simply stated. It has been defined as “the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin and live unto righteousness” (WSC 35). The manner in which this work progresses in a person’s life, however, is more difficult to fathom. This is evident in Paul’s description of his own experience: “For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate” (Rom. 7:15). With consternation he continues, “For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing” (v. 19). He questions with deep conviction, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (v. 24), yet concludes with confidence, “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (v. 25).
While the doctrine of sanctification may be simply stated, understanding our personal experience as we continue to struggle with sin is another matter. And personal confusion in our experience may cloud our comprehension of the doctrine itself.
Perplexity concerning sanctification is not surprising in part because it is not new. Historically, the word mystery has been commonly used. The seventeenth-century pastor Walter Marshall wrote a treatise, stemming in part from his own personal struggle, entitled The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification, taken from Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 3:16, “Great is the mystery of godliness.” Another well-known pastor-theologian from the seventeenth century, John Owen, repeatedly uses the word mystery in speaking of sanctification in his treatise on the Holy Spirit, claiming, “The work itself, as hath been before declared at large, is secret and mysterious.” Later, he confesses: “The sense of what the Scripture proposeth, what I believe, and what I desire an experience of, that I shall endeavor to declare. But as we are not in this life perfect in the duties of holiness, no more are we in the knowledge of its nature.”
Despite these difficulties, Marshall and Owen, along with many other Reformed pastors and theologians, have labored to explain the pattern of sanctification and its application as taught in Scripture. In my experience, however, those entering ministry speak with greater clarity about the doctrine of justification than they do sanctification. While confident concerning the necessity of Christ’s death and resurrection for pardon of sin, there may be unease in describing the efficacy of the same for our being conformed to the image of Christ through the work of the Spirit. The question is whether Scripture teaches a clearer pattern of sanctification than we seem able to articulate.
Read More
Related Posts: