Thoughts, Commentary, and other various ramblings.

Musings on Self Esteem

2012-01-17T12:44:00.000-05:00

It seems to me that it is almost impossible to avoid hearing about self esteem these days. Everywhere one turns there is the constant drumbeat of self esteem. It would seem to me that the most common excuse for people doing bad things, or behaving in an inappropriate way, or whatever the case may be is that they have low self esteem. If only their self esteem were a little higher, a little better, a little "healthier," then maybe they wouldn't do whatever it is they are doing that they shouldn't.

Now, it is not my intention to address any highly refined, intellectually sophisticated psychological definitions of self esteem or psychotherapy, but rather how it is expressed generally. That is the common understanding, so if my presentation happens not to fit with what one might read in a psychology text book (and I don't know if it does or not), well, that's ok, because it's not intended to.

The way that "Self Esteem Issues" are represented in our culture is that people don't have a good enough self image, that they don't think highly enough of themselves, that they are better than they see themselves as being.

It would be my contention that this approach is absolutely wrong. The way that I see it, people who are most considered to have low self esteem in fact do have an incorrect self image, but not that they see themselves as being less than they should, but rather, quite to the contrary, they see themselves as being considerably better than they actually are. That is to say, they esteem themselves too highly already. Where they run into problems is that other people do not see them the same way that they see themselves. Therefore they get negative feedback from other people which does not fit with their incorrect self image, and this is what causes them to feel conflicted. Not that they don't esteem themselves as highly as they should but rather that other people do not esteem them as highly as they incorrectly esteem themselves. They do not understand why it is that the image others have of them does not match up with the image that they have of themselves.

The most common remedy offered for this problem is not to correct the self image of the person with abnormally high, and undeserved, self esteem, but rather to teach them to ignore the negative (and likely quite correct) feedback that they get from those people with whom they interact. This does not breed better self esteem, or a healthy self image, or a even a healthy, well rounded person, rather, when effective, it breeds arrogance. When a person already thinks too highly of themselves, and refuses to take accurate feedback, or even weigh and consider negative feedback, arrogance seems to be the only possible outcome.

It seems to me that it would be much more helpful to correct a persons' self image, to help them to weigh, consider and evaluate the feedback that they get from others, be it negative, positive, or relatively passive, to see what they might learn from that feedback. An honest and earnest assessment of the reactions that others have to us would be beneficial in many ways. For starters, it could very well help us to correct our self image, in either direction it is incorrect, such as, if you think too highly of yourself, you could come to realize that you are not actually as good as you thought and need to be brought down a notch or two, on the other hand, maybe you think you are not good at something, but due to positive feedback come to realize that you have an area of strength that you did not know you had. It might help you to see an area of weakness that you didn't know you had, and thus allow you to ask someone for help in that area and get you on the right track, or stop doing something and allow someone better suited to it to step into a particular role.

Another related point is that this would require all of us to stop giving incorrect feedback. First and foremost, the tendency to soften the truth, or flat out lie, under the guise of sparing someones feelings simply has to go. For instance, if someone does a poor job of something, telling them that they did good, or alright, or not too bad, simply must go, rather we would be doing much more good for everyone to look them in the eye and gently point out what they did wrong, or what needed to be done better. Don't misunderstand, I do not mean to berate and belittle someone, as this will do no good either. The truth, gently spoken to someone who is willing to accept correction, and honestly evaluate feedback, will produce improvement for all involved. Secondly, if we ourselves stop esteeming ourselves more highly than we ought, we might well stop being too hard on other people who do not measure up to our ridiculous ideas of our own perfection.

Perhaps, no, certainly, the most important aspect of all is that the common teaching of this self esteem doctrine makes the Gospel of Jesus Christ quite unacceptable to the modern hearer. After all, who wants to be told that they are a sinner, justly condemned before a Holy God, with nothing to offer, nothing that they can do or bring to stave off His just and Holy Wrath which will be poured out upon them for eternity if they do not repent and turn to him, reaching out with the empty hand of faith? Does not the rebel heart, hyped up on self esteem say, "Wait, no, I'm better than that, why doesn't even God know how good I am, I deserve better than this?!" In fact, isn't this just a rehash of all of the works righteousness religions that have existed throughout all of history? People seeking to be seen by others (be it God, or gods or other people) as being as good as they see themselves is certainly nothing new, thus, self esteem, though the name is relatively recent, is itself nothing new, nor is it any more true in it's current form than it has ever been in any of it's previous forms.

Football Trick Play

2010-11-11T17:15:00.000-05:00

Check Out This Video

2010-11-09T06:16:00.000-05:00

Miracles Happen, But Some Doctors Suck

2010-09-03T05:18:00.001-05:00

Follow this link and read this great article.

Miracles Happen, But Some Doctors Suck

The Days Of Creation

2010-08-30T08:52:00.002-05:00

^{Genesis 2:2-31 [ESV]
2} The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

³ And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. ⁴ And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. ⁵ God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

⁶ And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." ⁷ And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. ⁸ And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

⁹ And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. ¹⁰God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

¹¹ And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so. ¹²The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. ¹³ And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

¹⁴ And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, ¹⁵ and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. ¹⁶ And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. ¹⁷ And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, ¹⁸to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. ¹⁹ And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

²⁰ And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens." ²¹ So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. ²² And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." ²³And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

²⁴And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. ²⁵And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

²⁶ Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
²⁷ So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

²⁸And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." ²⁹And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. ³⁰ And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. ³¹ And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."

Here we have God's account of how He made everything that exists, both on the Earth, and throughout the expanse of the entire universe. Here God is telling us again that He made everything, and He is telling us that He did so in six days.

While a simple reading of these verses from Genesis 1 will tell you in a very straightforward manner that these are six normal days, that is roughly 24 hours in length, what we would consider to be actual days, there has arisen an idea that when the word "day" is used in Genesis 1, it might mean something other than a normal day. The idea is that the Hebrew word for day, just as the English word day, doesn't always mean a normal day. That is true as far as it goes. We can even give examples of this, if I say, "I remember the day my Dad died." I would be referring to one specific normal day. On the other hand, if I say, "I remember back in the day when I was working at Burger King with my future wife and had no idea," in that instance I am referring to a non-specific time frame at some point in the past, but not a normal day. I could also say, "I have to do yard work during the day because it's too dark to do it at night," and in that case, I'm talking about the daylight portion of a day, and not any specific normal day.

To further the example, just to make it clear, day isn't the only word that this happens with, I could say, I left the picnic early and went back home because my back was hurting. Even though I used the word "back" twice in that sentence, we all know that it had two distinctly different meanings. So, as I said before, we understand the fact that the word day doesn't always mean a normal day, but the question isn't, could it mean something else, the question is, does it mean something else?

In order to know when the word day might mean something other than a normal day, we should know when it does mean a normal day. In the old Testament, and indeed in all ancient Hebrew writings as far as I am aware, every time the word day is used with a number, it means a normal day, and every time it appears with the words "morning and evening" it means a normal day. So, it would seem that by using the phrase "there was morning and there was evening, the first day (second day, third day, etc)" God is intent on driving it through our thick skulls that He created in 6 normal days.

What happened to set people off on the wrong course on this issue is very sad indeed. Often we seem led to believe that it was Charles Darwin who came up with the theory of Evolution, but this is not true. Various theories of Evolution had been around for many, many years (maybe even thousands of years) before Darwin came along. Darwin, however, got lucky, where others did not. What Darwin actually did was to popularize one particular version of evolutionary theory (which has been totally debunked by the way) and he lucked out on his timing. You see, while scientists could not really agree on the age of the Earth in that day, none of the ages that were being thrown around were anywhere near long enough to support any of the various evolutionary ideas, and so none of them had been able to gain traction generally. Enter Charles Lyell. Lyell was a geologist who came up with the idea of uniformitarianism, that is, the idea that the Earth was formed by slow geological processes that are still in action today, and by advancing this (deeply flawed) theory Lyell was able to give the Earth an age in the billions of years. If you think about it, you will see that even billions of years would not buy the time needed for Darwin's evolutionary processes to do what they are claimed to have done, but they are long enough so that people are able to accept the idea.

Sadly now, many Christians who are also scientists (and I mean PH D's and such) have bought into Lyell's notion of billions of years, and have decided that while Genesis 1 is true, that God must have meant something different by day than a normal day. So they claim that each day actually represents a long age. Of course, as I understand it, when you go to Hebrew, if the word day is used for multiple lengths of time, in the same passage, and especially if they are sequential, each of them must be speaking of the same length of time. Of course, that would not fit into any of those theories, so they say that the days are not listed in any particular sequence, and must overlap with each other, and sometimes even correspond with each other, and aren't of equal durations. This, of course, removes all meaning from the Genesis 1 creation account, and relegates it to a general statement that God created, which they affirm, while denying the how that is clearly stated.

The fact of the matter is that God did create, and that He has given us an account of how He went about this. For a very nice explanation of the science behind all of this, I would invite anyone who is interested to go to www.answersingenesis.org and read up on whatever particular questions you may have.

While those scientists who want to reinterpret Genesis are still true Christians, and you can be truly redeemed even if you are wrong on this issue, it is still of great importance. You see, if God cannot be trusted in Genesis, then He can't be trusted anywhere else in the Bible either.

To Start At The Begining

2010-08-16T09:56:00.003-05:00

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." [ESV]

As I go through this series of posts, and at present I have no idea how long the series will be, I will do something that is all too uncommon these days, I will explain whenever there is a falsification point in Christianity. The falsification principle is that for something to be true, there will be points that, if false, would prove the entire enterprise to be false. A falsification point is one of those places where, if that point were false, then all of what is being proposed based upon it is also false. Saying that Christianity has falsification points is not at all to say that it is false, but rather to say that there are key points upon which it rests, and if those key points were false, then the rest of it would naturally fall apart. I know that this makes some people uncomfortable, but I can't run from it, because it is so important to understand that these key points must be defended. They cannot simply be tossed by the wayside so that we can go on with other portions of Christianity, because if they are not true, then Christianity would also not be true. And isn't that the salient point? I mean, the really big question is this, "Is Christianity true?" That is what I hope to show, because that is was really matters.

What I am saying is that it is not really important, at least not central, how any belief system makes you feel, or what you think it might do for you, or whatever, what really matters is very simply, is it true? Or, what is true? If it turns out that Christianity is indeed true, which it is my contention that it is, then believing what it teaches is absolutely critical, but if it's not true, then there is no point in embracing any of it at all.

It is interesting that we begin the very first day looking at a falsification point in Christianity. Right off the bat, the very first verse in the entire Bible states it very explicitly, "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." That's the first thing, it goes before everything else. God created. And what did He create? The Heavens and the Earth. That doesn't mean our solar system, or even just our galaxy. At this point it is important to remember that Genesis, like most of the Old Testament (nearly all in fact) was written in Hebrew, and in ancient Hebrew the term "The Heavens and the Earth" is a phrase which means, all that exists. They didn't have a single word for "Universe" like we do today, but that is what this term refers to. This is fleshed out a little in John 1:3 "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." [ESV] So, all that exists was created by God.

This is a critical fact, if it is true, then we can go forward, but if you reject this, you have no basis to believe anything else that the Bible proclaims.

I'm not going to get into the particulars of Creation today, I just want to point out that it is absolutely critical to the Christian faith. All to often you hear people say that it really doesn't matter if you believe that God created, as long as you believe in Jesus, and while it is certainly possible that someone might never have heard of Creation, or have any understanding of it, but may have had the Gospel explained to them and repented and turned to Christ, without an understanding of Creation, it seems to me that it would be, at best, very difficult for someone to reject that God created, but still embrace Christ. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but it certainly doesn't go naturally together.

Certainly this is not the entirety of my case, but I want to build the argument as I proceed through this series, if at any point I am unclear, or anyone needs more information, or are having trouble understanding what I'm talking about, please leave a comment and I will do my best to answer where I can.

Some Thoughts

2010-08-09T06:10:00.003-05:00

Lately I have been spending some time thinking about what might be helpful and useful for me to post on my blog. While it has taken me some time to get my thoughts together, and I have not posted in some time, I do still think that there are some topics that I could cover in such as way as to be helpful to those who might read them. I hope that this is true, and I do intend to start keeping my blog updated better than I have been doing recently, but I guess time will tell.

I hope to spend some time in the near future laying out some of the basics of the Christian faith, in an understandable and unvarnished way. That is to say, I intend to share the true teaching of the Bible and not the human teachings that have crept in over the years, and especially the uniquely American perversions that are so rank in so much Bible teaching today. It is my hope that in so doing I might help some people who think that they have rejected Christianity to see that it is not Christianity that they have rejected, but the perversions that I too would soundly reject. And for those who continue to reject, at least they may more fully understand what it is that they are rejecting.

I pray that God may grant that I might be able to lay things out in a clear and pure manner, and cast off the shackles of human influence that so corrupts the understanding of Biblical truth in the minds of far too many people today.

Taps--John Wayne

2010-05-31T06:17:00.000-05:00

Suicide Vs. Martyrdom

2010-05-10T09:25:00.002-05:00

Last week we were watching one of those TV dramas, and they had captured a terrorist, and one of the Federal Agents asks the terrorist what the difference is between a suicide bomber and a martyr, and when the terrorist hesitates he tells him that it was a trick question, that there really is no difference because, basically, both are dead in the end.

This got me to thinking, is that really true? Of course the answer is no. I do understand that both are dead in the end, but far from making them the same thing, that is their only point of contact.

What is drastically different between a suicide bomber and a true martyr is the fact that the bomber has chosen to kill him/herself for the purpose of killing other people, while the true martyr is killed by others, through no direct action of their own, for the purpose of faithfulness. That is to say that a suicide bomber chooses death and destruction over life, while the true martyr chooses faithfulness over life. For the suicide bomber there is no choice but death, mayhem and murder, for the true martyr there is no choice but faithfulness, even if it ends up leading to death.

You see, the suicide bomber has chosen to kill themselves, and is trying to kill as many other people at the same time as they can. The true martyr, on the other hand, does not seek death, rather they have chosen faithfulness, and whenever there is a way to both be faithful and live, they will choose that every single time, however, when saving their own life would require that they forsake their faithfulness, they are willing to die, but they do not seek for that death.

Regardless of the propaganda from the radical Muslim circles, or the left wing media types, suicide bombers are not martyrs. Rather, they are killers. Degenerate murderers, and nothing more. There is a nobility in true martyrdom, there is nothing noble in blowing oneself up to murder innocent people.

Amazing Grace

2010-05-05T10:00:00.002-05:00

Some time ago I found the Movie "Amazing Grace" for a very good price, and so I bought it, as I had heard some very good things about it, but it ended up taking quite some time to get around to watching it. The other night I remembered that the movie was sitting unopened on the shelf, and so my wife and I put it in and watched it.

I have to say, this was a very good movie. Very moving, and well worth the watching. I don't want to spoil any part of the plot, but I will say that if you haven't seen this movie, you should certainly either rent or buy it as soon as possible. I do not believe you could possibly regret it.

Discernment Part 3 (Conclusion)

2010-05-03T10:00:00.000-05:00

The answer then is to know the truth. You must become so familiar with the Truth that you immediately know when you are being exposed to a lie. Any lie.

This is an old illustration that has been used in Sermons for many years, and as it turns out, it’s actually true. Did you know that when Government agents (in the US it’s the Secret Service) are being taught to recognize counterfeit money, they do not study counterfeit money to learn what is wrong with it. Rather, they study, and are taught, all about real money, and how to recognize that, so that when they are presented with counterfeit money, they know it immediately. Recognizing that money is fake becomes easy, not because they know everything about fake money, or how fake money is made, but because they know real money so well that they simply cannot be fooled. That is the key for us regarding truth as well. We do not need to understand everything about false teachings, we simply need to know the Truth.

I’m not saying that it’s wrong to ever know anything about a false teaching, certainly it’s somewhat helpful to know something about the most commonly taught errors. Also, God may call you to minister among a certain group of people (ie. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims etc.) and knowing what they believe could be helpful in your ministry, but in general, it is knowing the Truth that will make all the difference.

Discernment Part 2

2010-04-30T10:00:00.000-05:00

The dangers of buying into false teachings are many and diverse. I can lead to everything from simple misunderstandings, to an unfulfilling Christian life, to false “gospels” which do not lead to Salvation.

So what do we do to keep from falling into these errors? How do we stop ourselves from buying into false teachings? The answer is quite simple.

First, however, let me start with what the answer is not. The answer is not that we must know every false teaching, that would be totally impossible. There are simply too many for us to be able to know them all. You could quite literally study these false teachings morning, noon and night for an entire lifetime and never cover all of them, much less learn all of their weaknesses and why it is that they are wrong. Since the fact of the matter is that anything that is not the Truth of God is a lie, the lies abound to a nearly unimaginable extent.

Discernment Part 1

2010-04-28T10:00:00.000-05:00

As I look around me I notice huge problem in our Churches. I see a lot of very passionate people, with good hearts, wanting to do the right thing, and with absolutely no discernment whatsoever.

Discernment is defined as; “Keenness of insight and judgment.” [Discernment. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discernment]
Yes, it is critical for us to be discerning, to judge what we hear, and what we are taught, so that we may be sure that what we are holding fast to is the truth of God, and not the unholy musings of fallen men.

Certainly we know that the Pastors and Teachers in our Churches should be on the lookout for such things, but all the more committed to teaching the truth to the people of God so that they will know the truth and not be led astray by false teachers. In Ephesians 4:11-16 Paul says, “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.” [ESV]

However, the responsibility does not fall to them alone; we all share together in the responsibility to study God’s Word and to know the truth so that we are not “carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” There are a few reasons for this. One is that our teachers simply cannot teach us everything, and especially not all at once. That kind of instruction takes time, especially when getting to the real depth of truth that is revealed to us in the Bible. Another reason is that these people are human, and no matter how careful they are, there is still the possibility of error, no matter how hard they try, it is possible for them to teach something wrong. Further, there are some who really have no care for the truth, but are themselves pushing “human cunning” rather than the truth of the Word of God.

This is something that scripture does warn us about (see Jude, 2nd Timothy 2) and instructs us that we must be on guard against such things.

The ESV MacArthur Study Bible

2010-04-26T10:00:00.001-05:00

I am very excited to report that I have learned that the MacArthur Study Bible with the text of the English Standard Version [ESV] will be released on August 31st of 2010.

John MacArthur has been the Senior Pastor of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California for over 40 years. He can be heard daily on his radio program, Grace to you (www.gty.org), all over the world. Some years ago now he brought his decades of Bible study, Pastoral Ministry, and all of the books that he has written to The MacArthur Study Bible. Up until now it has been available with the text of the New King James Version or the New American Standard Bible, both of which are excellent. With around 25,000 footnotes explaining virtually every passage of Scripture, The MacArthur Study Bible has been a treasure and a big help to many people.

In 2001 Crossway books introduced the English Standard Version of the Holy Bible. You can read the translation philosophy and some explanation at www.esv.org but in short it is an essentially literal translation of the Bible, highly accurate and trustworthy, yet also readable and accessible to common people.

A couple of years ago (more or less) while listening to the Grace To You radio program I heard John MacArthur say that he was planning to put out the MacArthur Study Bible in ESV, and I was very excited to hear it. Sadly, that was the last I had heard of it until I stumbled across the news on Facebook, of all places, just the other night.

Wonderfully, the excellent text of the English Standard Version is finally meeting up with MacArthur's decades of in depth Bible Study and teaching. This is a must have for all Christians who long to understand the Bible in a deeper way.

Context, Context, Context Part 4 (conclusion)

2010-04-24T10:00:00.000-05:00

The fact is that these errors in Bible study are very commonplace, and very damaging. While understanding the Bible in its’ fullness and richness can take quite a bit of time and hard work, but the results of such study are very well worth the effort.

I will leave you with this example of a horrendous false teaching that comes out of committing all three of these errors at one time. Let’s look at Deuteronomy 6:10a&c-11a, which is a favorite (out of context) segment of Preachers of the Health, Wealth, and Prosperity movement and says, “And the Lord God…” will “…give you… great and good cities that you did not build, and houses full of all good things that you did not fill…” [ESV] They like to use this to say that God wants to give us all of this today, but they have taken it out of context in all three ways, first, they have picked and chosen snippets out of a much larger passage so that they could twist them to fit their intentions, second, they say them as if they were written to people living today, instead of the Children of Israel who they actually were written to, and they were promises under the old (Mosaic) covenant, and not the new covenant (I know that gets complicated, and I don’t want to delve into it right now). By twisting this all up they ignore the true meaning of the text and claim that if you will just send them some money, then this text (ripped out of context as it is) will become true in your life, which of course, it will not.

It is critical that we take the time to get this right.

Context, Context, Context Part 3

2010-04-23T10:00:00.000-05:00

The third context error is in reading things outside of the overall context of the entire Bible. This is most clearly seen in the telling of “Bible stories.” Any of us who grew up in Church and Sunday School, and Church Youth Group and such would be very familiar with this phenomenon. We would well remember all of the flannel graphs (and don’t think I’m attacking flannel graphs, I love them, I miss them… but I digress) and story books, and rote telling of stories. Rarely, if ever, were these “stories” actually read to us out of the Bible, and virtually never was it explained to us how these accounts fit into the overall context of the Scripture. This was especially true of lessons from the Old Testament.

A good example of this is the account of Daniel in the lions’ den, as we commonly know it. We are told this story without ever being told really who Daniel was, why he was in a foreign capital city (if we are even brought to understand that much) or what his life had consisted of. The fact of the matter is that it was quite recently that I even came to understand that this even in the life of Daniel happens toward the end of his life, when he was an old man, in his eighties! This might not seem like a really big deal, but over the course of years of instruction it adds up, and you can easily end up seeing all of the things that you’ve been taught as nothing more that disjointed stories, and you might even come to see them as mythical, and not even real, which becomes a really big problem. But even more than that, it causes a failure to understand the absolutely terrific context of the whole of Scripture.

Context, Context, Context Part 2

2010-04-21T10:00:00.001-05:00

The second way in which the context error shows up is in forgetting who a particular book or passage was written to, or what exactly it was written to address. This is very common in the teaching of the New Testament epistles. You have probably even heard it in Sunday sermons, though it is certainly not limited to that, I mention it only to show how pervasive it tends to be. How often do we sit in Church and hear a passage read from one of these letters as if it were written directly to us in the twenty-first century? Certainly it was given, at least in part, for us, but it was not written directly to us, and if we are to understand it correctly, we must first understand who it was written to, that is the cultural context.

A good example of this is to be found in Ephesians 5:18 which states, “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,” [ESV] Again, this is part of a larger portion of Scripture, so it could be used as an example of the first problem, but it also works well to show the second one, so I’m going to use it for that. Clearly this is a true statement and a good rule to follow, and you would not be wrong to say that we can take this as a command to not get drunk, but if that is all that we take away from this, we are missing a lot. Often, we don’t even see the second half of the verse, which says to be filled with the Spirit. This gives us a clue as to what the passage is talking about. While “don’t get drunk” is good instruction, the fact is that Paul is here addressing the fact that Pagan “worship” rituals of that time included getting drunk as a means of communing with the false gods of their false religions, and as many of those in the Church had been saved out of such practices and either were starting to fall back into them, or at least Paul had cause for concern that they might fall back into them, and was here giving instruction to the Christians so that they might avoid such things as they learned to walk with God. Hence he does not command them to simply not get drunk, but wants them to know that if they want to be close to God and commune with Him, they need to be filled with the Holy Spirit. By missing the cultural context of the passage, we miss out on its’ richness and simply walk away with rules that we may, or may not, understand. We may also walk away from some passages with terrible false ideas because we did not take the time to study the text in its’ original meaning. A good thing to remember to help to avoid this error is this; a text cannot mean what it has not meant. That is to say, it still means what it meant when it was written, the only thing that will be different is how it applies to us, since we live in a very different world, but the meaning of it is the same.

Context, Context, Context Part 1

2010-04-19T13:38:00.000-05:00

When reading or teaching the Bible, there is an issue that has become very significant in our time. That is the issue of taking the text out of context. Now, I know some people will see that and agree, but mostly are only thinking of one way in which this is done. I intend to show that there are three ways in which this is commonly done.

The first way, which is most familiar to us, is to take a piece of a passage, a single verse, a phrase, or, in extreme examples, even a few words out of the text and teaching them as if they are totally self contained, and unrelated to the surrounding material. It is well known to most serious students of scripture that this can lead to many misunderstandings and even full blown false teachings.

A simple example of this first problem can be seen in the very common usage of Romans 8:28, which is as follows; “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” [ESV] The common usage of this verse actually tends to commit this error twice. First of all, this verse is one very small part of a fairly long teaching passage, although it does contain some truth that is able to be understood even apart from the rest of the passage, however, it is understood in a much more complete and full sense when it is understood in context. The gross error that sometimes tends to arise from the misuse of this verse however, and is very common, is people simply saying that, it’s all good, remember in Romans 8:28, it says that all things work together for good. But the fact is that it really doesn’t simply state that. The verse itself is very clear that the working together of all things for good applies only to “those who love God… those who are called according to his purpose.” That is to say that all things work together for the ultimate good of God’s elect, that is Christians (in the true sense—the Born Again). For any and all who are not Born Again the fact is that absolutely nothing works together for good, because those who die in an unredeemed condition will be cast into eternal hell. This is hardly the definition of things working out for good.

What's Been Up

2010-01-19T07:15:00.002-05:00

It has been awhile since I have written a post for this blog. There are reasons for this. First, my drastic shift in focus from politics to matters concerning the Bible and Christianity has made me take a step back. You see, when talking about politics it's OK to just sit down and fire something off regarding the latest happenings in the political world, or hammer off an opinion piece to try to persuade others to your point of view. And if you are wrong, well that's OK, that is what opinion is all about. Not that I endeavored to be wrong, but anyone who is honest understands that the possibility is very real. That does not work when you are talking about Bible topics or issues concerning Christianity. The bar is set much higher. If sharing thoughts on the Bible it is a very big deal to steer people wrong. Therefore I must take more time, which is sometimes hard to come by, and carefully think through issues before I write a blog post about them. Of course this would only explain a slowdown in blogging, not why there has been no new posts in around six weeks. Well, that is also related to the shifted focus. I needed to take some time and examine myself to make sure that I am not being puffed up. I need to be sure that when I write blog posts the purpose is to be helpful to people, and not arrogant or saying, hey look at me, look how smart I am. So it has taken some time to decide if I could go on blogging without having such an attitude.

So, considering all of that, I do believe that I will continue to blog, but the posts may be slower in coming than they have been in the past.

Thank you for bearing with me.

On The Manhattan Declaration

2009-11-30T12:32:00.007-05:00

As I mentioned after my Thanksgiving day wishes, there has a been a lot of buzz about the Manhattan Declaration. To me, this is something which is far too important to ignore.

For those who may not know, let me start by explaining what the Manhattan Declaration is. I will not be posting the Declaration itself here on my blog, but please feel free to go to www.manhattandeclartion.org to check it out for yourself, and see if you think that my characterization is accurate. It is certainly not my intention to, in any way, or at any time, mislead anyone, or misrepresent what this is all about.

The Manhattan Declaration, according the declaration itself, is "A Call Of Christian Conscience." It was originally drafted on October 20th of 2009, and released to the public on November 20th of 2009.

The document addresses three main issues, abortion, same-sex marriage, and religious liberty. It purports to be a document which unites differing Christian groups around these very important issues. It lays out a case for the pro-life position, and against Abortion. It lays out a case in favor of preserving marriage as a sacred institution, and why we should strive against allowing same-sex marriages to be recognized. It also outlines the dangers faced by religious groups in the present age, where there is much animosity directed at anyone who dares to so much as disapprove of nearly anything.

To the extent that it does these things I would support it as a statement of position, and as a place for people of conscience to rally, and say, OK, we have differences, but we all agree that these things are important, so let's stand together on them. But that is not all that the document says. And it going farther, it leaves a lot to be desired.

Clearly, I am pro-life. If you wish to call me anti-abortion, that's fine, I'm not going to fight you on it, I am anti-abortion, because I'm pro-life. As far as it goes, I think that the declaration does a pretty good job of laying out some good arguments and points for a pro-life position, however, for something that supposes to be a Christian document, it spends far too much time expounding secular arguments instead, and virtually no time on Biblical arguments, save a couple of verses of Scripture which are never explained or defended in any way. Also, I do believe that marriage is only possible, in a very real sense, between one man and one woman, and again, the declaration does a very good job of laying out a secular case for traditional marriage, but again, is staggeringly weak when it comes to a Biblical basis, which is especially important on this issue, because, if the Bible didn't speak to this issue I personally wouldn't really care about it at all. I also understand the importance of religious liberty, but again, it is defended and explained entirely with secular arguments. So, while I can affirm the positions taken by the declaration, I think that they could have done a better job laying them out and defending them, and the fact that they didn't defend them from the Bible is a serious problem for me.

All that being said, let me get on to the main problem that I have with the Manhattan Declaration.

The document makes a big deal about Christians, and where they stand on important issues. But what is meant by "Christian"? Well, to quote from the declaration; "We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians..." This should be another problem for Bible believing Christians. The fact that this document lumps Evangelical Christians in with Catholics, as well as, so-called, Orthodox, sounds huge warning bells in my mind, as the beliefs of these groups are wildly different. This brings me back to how the Manhattan Declaration came to my attention. Initially I had heard Chuck Colson talk about some, which is not surprising since he is one of the people who wrote it, but I hadn't had time to check it out. Then a friend asked me if I had signed it yet, and I could only respond that, up to that point, I hadn't had time to check it out yet. So, when I had time, I went to the website, www.manhattandeclaration.org, and checked it out.

The first that I saw when I got to the website was the very brief summary that is there, and I decided to look and see who had signed the declaration. While there are some very well known Christian leaders on the list, you can't help but notice more than a few Roman Catholic Archbishops on the list. For any Bible believing Christian, this has to give you pause when considering something like this. So I knew I was going to have to look very closely at the declaration before I could make up my mind, so I pulled up the full declaration and read the entire thing.

If you should read the declaration you will find that only scant lip service is given to the Gospel, and even then it is not defined or explained in any way shape or form, yet we know for sure that a Roman Catholic Archbishop would mean something very different by Gospel than I do. Given that this document was written with the idea in mind that it was for the approval of Catholics and Christians, it seems clear that the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is not what's in view even the one time that it is mentioned. And no, in a pure sense, Catholics are not Christians. At it's best Catholicism is an apostate form of Christianity, but not true Biblical Christianity. That is not to say that no Catholics are truly redeemed, but given what is taught in most Catholic Churches and circles, I would venture to say that they are a rare breed.

Having established that the purposes of this document are not to further the Gospel, what then could they be? Well, it must have to do with propagating morality, but if that's all they are concerned with, why mention Christianity at all? Simply to have a grounding for the morality they are seeking? Perhaps, but if so, that does not do justice to the purpose of Christianity. The purpose of Christianity is to share the Gospel with the entire world. That's it, that's the core, it's why the Church exists. Our mission to spread the Gospel, to preach the Gospel, is the reason the Church is in the world, it's the reason God doesn't rapture (sorry, it's the best word I can think of for this) us out of the world the instant we come to faith in Him. And that is the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, that we are sinners in a fallen world, in danger of eternal judgment from a righteous and Holy and Just God, and can be redeemed out of this world and saved from that damnation only by grace and through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ, which is something that could not be affirmed by many of the signers and endorsers of the declaration.

Now, from the Catholic perspective, there is a certain logic to this declaration. Being that Catholicism, as it is practiced, and as it is taught in most local Parishes and such, is a very legalistic religion, believing in a works based righteousness (often you will hear that the works must be coupled with faith, but even that is a gross bastardization of the Gospel) and that being good at least gets you closer to Heaven, no matter why you are good, it would make sense to force people, through political action or whatever, to be better, and thus put them closer to God, even if you have to drag them, kicking and screaming, to it. But this is not something that is compatible with Biblical Christianity. If a person rejects the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that is the true Gospel, then they are damned and destined for Hell, and just how good or bad they are is of little consequence to them.

So, if I were to sum up the Manhattan Declaration, I would have to put it something like this: "We, under the guise of Christianity, demand adherence to our moral standards. We stand up, shake our fist at the culture and say, you will submit to us, we will see to it. We couldn't care less if you go to hell for all eternity, we will have our moralistic domain here and now! We don't care if you believe, only that you submit!"

But wait, there's something familiar about that sentiment, it's Islam! That's right, Islam doesn't require an affirmation of faith, only submission to it's laws and teachings. That's what's going on with the Manhattan Declaration, it's declaring that we don't care what you believe, only that people submit to the moral standards that it puts forth. This is all too common amongst people who wish to claim Christianity. It is what Dr. Michael Horton calls Moralistic, Therapeutic Deism. That is, we try to be moral, and it makes us feel better, and oh yeah, as an afterthought, there is a god, but that doesn't really affect us.

For me to affirm the Manhattan Declaration would be to say, if you are homosexual, you can go to hell, as long as you go without a marriage license. If you are woman, you can go to hell, as long as you go without having had an abortion. And I will fight for religious liberty, and disregard laws that I think conflict with that, while also refusing to submit to the consequences of such action. That is something that I absolutely cannot affirm. No matter who you are, or what your sin, I want you to learn about Jesus, repent of your sins, and be redeemed. If you are going to hell anyway, it doesn't matter what sin you committed, it will separate you from God.

So do I support the Manhattan Declaration? Will I be signing it? No. Unreservedly, and emphatically, NO!

There is more to be said, and I know that some will raise objections to what I've written, but I'll have to deal with those as they arise, because this long enough already.

Happy Thanksgiving!

2009-11-26T12:39:00.002-05:00

I know that I haven't been doing a lot of blogging lately, but I did want to take a moment and wish everyone a very happy Thanksgiving!

Also, I know that many Christian leaders have been spending a lot of time talking about, and spreading hype about the Manhattan Declaration, it is my full intention to do a post taking a hard look at this document within the next few days or so.

To Whom Are We Preaching?

2009-11-16T10:26:00.002-05:00

Acts 2:14 [ESV] "But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words."

In Acts Chapter 2 the Apostle Peter was preaching to Jews. This is very important, as we will see after we look at little bit more of his Sermon.

Acts 2:22-41 [ESV]

²²"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— ²³this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. ²⁴ God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. ²⁵ For David says concerning him,

"'I saw the Lord always before me,
for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken;
²⁶therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced;
my flesh also will dwell in hope.
²⁷For you will not abandon my soul to Hades,
or let your Holy One see corruption.
²⁸ You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will make me full of gladness with your presence.'

²⁹"Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. ³⁰ Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, ³¹ he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. ³² This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. ³³ Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. ³⁴For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,

"'The Lord said to my Lord,Sit at my right hand,
³⁵until I make your enemies your footstool.'

³⁶Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."

³⁷Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" ³⁸And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ³⁹For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." ⁴⁰ And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." ⁴¹ So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

As we read this, it can be clearly seen that Peter preached to these people, these Jews, as he called them "men of Israel" in verse 22, and "men of Judah" in verse 14. This is critically important to the style and substance of his sermon. It is crystal clear that Peter was building on a base of knowledge that these people already possessed. He had no need to define his terms, or to explain who God was, or what sin was. His audience knew and understood completely that men are sinful by nature, and required a sacrifice for that sin. He also speaks of David, whom the Jews would know well, as a major figure in the history of Israel.

Also, we will notice that those who responded to Peters preaching already understood that something was required of them, for they asked what they must do. Please note that Peter did not say, "With every head bowed and every eye closed, repeat after me..." He said, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Because of the knowledge that these Jews already possessed, it was a relatively simple task for Peter to show them the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, especially after he told them of the magnitude of their guilt before God, whom they knew a great deal about from their own history as a nation.

Contrast this now with the Apostle Paul, proclaiming the same Gospel, but to Greeks, who did not have the same background as the Jews that Peter was speaking to.

Acts 17:22-23: [ESV]

²²So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. ²³For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you."

And he goes on the explain who God is, and what that means to these people who do not have a background in Old Testament Theology. And farther along in this Chapter, after explaining some of the prerequisite knowledge Luke (the writer of Acts) tells us, "³² Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, "We will hear you again about this." ³³ So Paul went out from their midst. ³⁴But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them."

As you read through the New Testament you will notice that the Jews do not mock when told of the resurrection of the dead, because they believed in resurrection, though not all of them believed that Jesus had risen, but they certainly believed that there would be a resurrection. It was the Greeks (or any non Jews) who would mock at the thought. As Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 1:23 [NASB]" but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness..."

Now, the question is, why is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that he was Crucified, buried, and then rose again, a stumbling block to the Jews? Quite simply because that means that His claims are true, that he is the Christ (Greek for Messiah) and that they must embrace Him. This is very hard for them for a few reasons. You see, most Jews at that time, and throughout all of the time since then, even up until today, held to a very legalistic form of Judaism, failing to understand that from the very beginning Salvation was by the Grace of God and not by works. So these very religious people would have to admit that they are apostates, that is that they did not believe the true tenets of their own religion, that they had failed, and needed a Savior. Further, the Messiah that most Jews were (and mistakenly still are) looking for, was one who would conquer their enemies, and free them from oppression. Of course Jesus is the one who will do those things, but it was not in the Divine plan for Him to accomplish them at His first coming. Jesus being the Christ was a stumbling block because it forced them to turn away from so much of what they held to be true, not that the Old Testament is wrong or somehow invalid, but because they so grossly misunderstood it.

As to the Gospel being foolishness to the Gentiles, that is pretty easy to understand. They simply had no basis in their beliefs for the one true God, or their sin, or their need for repentance and Salvation. Besides, they had no expectation of resurrection, and the idea of coming back from the dead just seemed downright silly to them. That kind of thing just doesn't happen. And of course, on a natural level, they would be correct, but Jesus death, burial and resurrection, as well as the resurrection that we who are in Christ look forward to is Supernatural, and not natural. So the Jews have a hard time with the implications, but if they can overcome that, they are right there, ready to receive the salvation of Christ, while the gentiles must have it all laid out before they can even understand it, and even then, much of it just sounds silly.

This is also why in Acts 2, as a result of Peters preaching there was a huge response, with some 3,000 people being redeemed, while in Acts 17 the response seems to be quite minimal. This is not to say that Peter's approach was better, or that Paul did something wrong (some have suggested this nonsense) but rather that Peter was spreading the seed (to borrow from the parable of the soils in Mark 4) on well prepared, good soil, while most of the seed that Paul was spreading fell on the hard packed road, and what good soil there was the Lord had used Paul to plow and get ready by explaining the basics of what he was talking about.

I think that this is part of our problem today. Look at the world around us. Even for us in the United States, and even more in Europe and many other places, we are not living in an Acts 2 world! This is an Acts 17 culture! Even those who are active in Evangelism must understand that they are not Peter preaching to Jews, but rather Paul preaching to Greeks! This is the problem as I see it. Most evangelism classes try to teach a trite and quick way to deliver the Gospel message and move on. Maybe this worked back in the 50's and even to some extent in the 60's, when exposure to the Bible and the basics of it's truths were difficult to avoid. But back in the 60's or so the USA began a massive shift away from such basic ideas, and anyone born since then is progressively less and less likely to have the basic understanding for a quick message, which assumes a knowledge of sin and it's consequences, to be effective.

This is also why I have problems with simply leading people through "the sinners prayer." Most of the time, and more and more as we move forward, these are Acts 17 people who don't even know what it is they are doing. To them it's just a religious exercise that someone is telling them will save their Soul (whatever that means to them, if anything at all) or get them in the group (and they don't know why, but it seems like being in the group is a good thing). Then they are told, write down this date, now you are saved, and if you ever doubt it, just remember that on this date you chanted this incantation... ummm, I mean, prayed this prayer, so you know for sure that you "got saved." If you should in fact run across an Acts 2 person, you might find the simple and straightforward approach to be valid, but Acts 2 people are exceedingly rare these days.

This is why we must be prepared in several ways. We must be prepared to engage in much longer conversations and discourses. With most people in today's world you simply cannot effectively share the Gospel in five minutes and move on. We must be prepared to define our terms. Too often these days if you are in a room with 20 other people and say something about God, you may well have 21 different definitions, so, like Paul, we need to be ready to explain who God is, and what we are talking about. We need to be prepared to present the Gospel beginning with the fall and sin, rather than the Cross. Of course the destination is the same, but getting there will take longer. We must also understand be prepared for multiple conversations if that is possible, or be ready to direct someone to where they can get good Biblical answers if we don't have a reasonable expectation of seeing them again.

The work is still there to be done, but we're going to have to work a lot harder to accomplish it.

******************
For those of you who listen to Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis, you may find this familiar, yes, I was influenced by him, but did not simply copy him.

I Find This Funny

2009-11-08T13:59:00.002-05:00

I am one of those who has been online since the mid 90's. For any who might not have been around so long, let me assure you, all those email forwards that never seem to end, well, they've been running through email boxes ever since email first began, and along with forwarded jokes and such, hoaxes started running rampant too. This gave rise to websites such as www.snopes.com (and a few that came before it, but don't seem to be around anymore) which checks these things out and let's you know that they are in fact hoaxes. Admittedly they do lean a little to the left on Political things, but they're quite good if you're just looking to check on a basic factual issue. Quite often you'll get one of these hoax emails and just know that whatever it's claiming to offer is just too good to be true, and therefore you can just delete it and laugh at the friend who sent it to you, but sometimes one might seem like it could be legitimate and so you could head on over to snopes.com to check it out. Then some people thought it would be helpful to let people know that they had checked something out and it was, in fact, true, so you started seeing emails where people had typed notes on the bottom to let you know that Snopes had verified the information. Now, this is what I find funny, there is a trend that has started where the hoax emails have notes on the bottom saying that Snopes.com has verified the information in the email. Of course, if you go to www.snopes.com you will find that they say that the email is not true. What is really funny is that sometimes, you'll even find a link right to the correct page at snopes.com, that you can click right on and find out that it's a hoax... and yet, for all of that, people still forward them. Isn't email a hoot?

Salvation Is Not A Magic Spell

2009-11-05T16:04:00.000-05:00

I want us to stop and think about how we share the Gospel with people, and what we tell them when they question if they really have been redeemed. Primarily I'm thinking about what is often known as "the Sinners Prayer." That is, the words that we quite often try to get people to say in order to be saved. We find ourselves telling people, ok, just repeat after me... or, say something like this, but, you know, in your own words. Then we tell them, ok, you said those words, now you're in, no matter what, and we treat Salvation as if it happens as the result of simply saying some magic words, reducing the Glorious Gospel of Christ to nothing more than some sort of magic spell. Chant these words, or utter this "prayer" and you'll be good to go. I'm not saying that it's always wrong to lead someone in a prayer when they are ready to come to Christ, and maybe they just don't really know what to do. What I am saying is that we cannot just toss these things around thoughtlessly.

I think we need to make sure of some things first. For one thing, have we actually shared the Gospel with them? Do we know that they understand that they are sinners and in need of a Savior? Do they actually understand what Jesus is offering them, and why it is that they need to cry out to Him? Or have we told them, if you have struggles, if you're sick, if you're poor and needy, well, Jesus can fix that for you? Are we pitching them a utilitarian Jesus to fix all their problems, if only they'll say these simple little words? Who wouldn't? But are those people saved? If in fact they do not know at least the basics of the Gospel, and don't repent of their sins and ask for forgiveness, then the answer is no. We must be certain that we are always sharing the Gospel before we ask someone to respond to it.

Further, when someone asks how they can know that they are really saved, what answer should they be given? I think that too often they are asked if they have ever "prayed the prayer," and if they say that they have, then they are told to stop doubting and wondering because they are fine. Is this how a person knows that they are truly redeemed? Because they chanted this magic spell? As I just said, a person can say some form of "sinners prayer" and not actually be saved, so is remembering a moment of saying those words good enough for assurance of Salvation? Obviously not. The evidence of true Salvation is a transformed heart and a transformed life. Not that someone must be sinless and perfect, but when there is true Salvation, there will be a transformation of the heart, and a notable change in the life. The New Testament is chock full of passages that help us to understand how to have assurance of Salvation, and what it means, and what it looks like, to have true Salvation.

I hope over the coming months to flesh these thoughts out a lot more and get deeper into these issues, but for today I just wanted to get people thinking about these things, so that we might start to understand where we might be going wrong.

Abandoning The Language

2009-11-03T10:06:00.003-05:00

^{Acts 11:19-26 [ESV] "19} Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews. ²⁰But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists also, preaching the Lord Jesus. ²¹ And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. ²² The report of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. ²³When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose, ²⁴ for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord. ²⁵So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, ²⁶and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians."

From www.dictionary.com:

Chris⋅tian

–adjective

1.	of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.

2.	of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.

3.	of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.

4.	exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.

5.	decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.

6.	human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.

–noun

7.	a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.

8.	a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.

9.	a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.

10.	the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.

11.	a male given name.

Origin:
1250–1300; < class="ital-inline">Chrīstiānus < class="ital-inline">Chrīstiānós, equiv. to Chrīst(ós) Christ + -iānos < class="ital-inline">-iānus -ian; r. ME, OE cristen < class="luna-Img" src="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png" alt="" border="0">

*****************************
It seems to me that pretty much everywhere we look today we are likely to see Christians flat out running from that name. First they started running from specific denomination names, not wanting to be called Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist or any other, saying that it's really that we believe the Bible that matters and not what we call our Church. OK, there is some truth to that, we don't want to be divided by the name on the building, but on the other hand, denominations are supposed to be a sort of shorthand to help you see at a glance what general positions a certain fellowship holds on a multitude of issues, and as such, aren't a bad thing, as long as denominational identity is not taken too far, which I understand was often the case.

Next we saw people not wanting to be called Protestant, because we believe the Bible, and don't want to make it sound like we're against something, or that we're embracing something new instead of Historic Christianity as taught by the Apostles and Early Church Fathers and Christ Himself, and of course the Bible in general. Again, there is some truth in this, but also again, there is nothing harmful in identifying with Protestantism, which was born out of the Protestant Reformation of the 1500's. By accepting the title of Protestant you are saying that whenever Doctrine and Teaching of any Church moves away from Biblical Truth you will stand up and say, "NO!" You will take a stand for what is right and present the Bible as the Authority, no matter what human reason has to say about it. By calling oneself a Protestant, or even Reformed (although that carries a much more specific meaning) one is not saying that they affirm every word or teaching uttered by Martin Luther or John Calvin, or any of the other Reformers, but rather that one will stand up for the Bible, and uphold it as the Authority. That is the true spirit of the Reformation, a turning away from fallible human reason and a return to, and embracing of, Biblical Authority. (And I'm not addressing here the pure poppycock that Baptists are not Protestant, but rather members of some Church begun by John The Baptist and is somehow separate from the rest of Christianity. If you've been taught this, just know that it's pure nonsense with no Historical accuracy whatsoever.)

This brings me to my main point, the rampant tendency today to abandon the word "Christian" to define oneself before the world and the culture. All over the place today you will find Christians refusing to use that word. Most often they call themselves "Followers of Christ." Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with saying that you are a follower of Christ, I am one myself. Being a follower of Jesus Christ is a good thing, and all true Christians are followers of Christ, just as all true followers of Christ are Christians. So I do not object to calling oneself a "Follower of Christ" but I do object to abandoning the word "Christian." Saying that one is a Christian carries a lot more meaning with it, and I'm not talking about baggage, which is the reason why so many wish to abandon it today. To simply say that one is a Follower of Christ is a weaker statement in many regards. You could easily infer from the phrase "follower of Christ" that a person looks at Jesus and generally likes what they see, and wants to go along down that path. By this could simply mean living a good moral life, or feeding the hungry, or helping the poor and impoverished. None of these are bad things, but if you stop there then they are not enough. To use the phrase "follower of Christ" in such a manner is not deceptive. It is incomplete, but not deceptive on it's face, because in a general sense, that could be the full meaning of the phrase.

However, the word Christian is different. Now I understand that some people use it in the same way that I just described "follower of Christ" but just because it is used that way does not make it actually mean the same thing. Calling oneself a Christian fully identifies oneself with Christ. It says, "I am striving to be more like Christ, in all that it entails, and in all that He is. I am willing to not only follow Him, but to suffer with Him, and place Him at the very center of my very identity." To use the term "Christian" in the same way as I described "follower of Christ" in the last paragraph would be deceptive on it's face. If you simply follow Christ, in some indefinite or undetermined way, you could simply fall away when the going gets tough, so someone who is simply a "follower of Christ" could cease to be a "follower of Christ" without actually having to say (if they are being honest) that they never followed Him at all. On the other hand, if you are a Christian, in truth, you are taking the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ as the central piece of your very own identity, and would be willing to suffer, or even die, rather than to give that up. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, because a true and real follower of Christ will do the same, as I said before, in the truest meanings, these two things are the same, but they do not seem the same, and I guess therein lies my problem.

Some of the reasons given for abandoning the word "Christian" are that many people throughout history have called themselves Christians while doing terrible and horrible things, but if we replace "Christian" with "Christ Follower" or "Follower of Christ" do you think people will not take on that title and still do the same terrible things? The word Christian is not sullied because true Christians have done these terrible acts, but because the name Christian has too often been claimed by those who had no right or allegiance to it. So how would you defend the phrase "follower of Christ" so that the same thing doesn't happen to it? You can't. Besides, many times horrendous acts have been committed simply in the name of Christ, without ever using the term "Christian." Should we abandon the name of Christ? Certainly NOT!!! And yet, refusing to call ourselves Christians would be a step in that direction.

I would actually encourage Christians to use both, thinking carefully about when either would be most appropriate. I'll close with an excellent example of this from Matthew Henry (1662-1714) in his Concise Commentary: "Act 11:25-30 Hitherto the followers of Christ were called disciples, that is, learners, scholars; but from that time they were called Christians. The proper meaning of this name is, a follower of Christ; it denotes one who, from serious thought, embraces the religion of Christ, believes his promises, and makes it his chief care to shape his life by Christ's precepts and example. Hence it is plain that multitudes take the name of Christian to whom it does not rightly belong. But the name without the reality will only add to our guilt. While the bare profession will bestow neither profit nor delight, the possession of it will give both the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. Grant, Lord, that Christians may forget other names and distinctions, and love one another as the followers of Christ ought to do. True Christians will feel for their brethren under afflictions. Thus will fruit be brought forth to the praise and glory of God. If all mankind were true Christians, how cheerfully would they help one another! The whole earth would be like one large family, every member of which would strive to be dutiful and kind."

Does the number of people praying for something make God more likely to do it? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

2009-10-27T19:33:00.000-05:00

Does the number of people praying for something make God more likely to do it? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

Paul Washer - Total Depravity/Gospel Sermon Jam

2009-10-22T15:40:00.001-05:00

TRUTH About Speaking In Tongues

2009-10-21T13:28:00.000-05:00

Is The New Testament Text Reliable? Part 7

2009-10-20T11:35:00.000-05:00

Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

The phrase, "The Bible's been translated and recopied so many times..." introduces one of the most frequent canards tossed at Christians quoting the Bible. Can we know for certain that the New Testament has been handed down accurately? Yes, we can.

By: Gregory Koukl

The Verdict

What can we conclude from this evidence? New Testament specialist Daniel Wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the New Testament, this number is very misleading. Most of the differences are completely inconsequential--spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like. A side by side comparison between the two main text families (the Majority Text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.

Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to vigorous textual criticism. This means that our New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.

Greek scholar D.A. Carson sums up this way: "The purity of text is of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants."

This issue is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason. Simply put, if we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we'd have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D.

Has the New Testament been altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.

Is The New Testament Text Reliable? Part 6

2009-10-19T11:33:00.000-05:00

Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

By: Gregory Koukl

Ancient Versions and Patristic Quotations

Two other cross checks on the accuracy of the manuscripts remain: ancient versions and citations by the early church Fathers known as "patristic quotations."

Early in the history of the Church Greek documents, including the Scriptures, were translated into Latin. By the 3rd and 4th Centuries the New Testament was translated into Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, etc. These texts helped missionaries reach new cultures in their own language as the Gospel spread and the Church grew. Translations of the Greek manuscripts (called "versions") help modern-day textual critics answer questions about the underlying Greek manuscripts.

In addition, there are ancient extra-biblical sources--characteristically catechisms, lectionaries, and quotes from the church fathers--that record the Scriptures. Paul Barnett says that the "Scriptures...gave rise to an immense output of early Christian literature which quoted them at length and, in effect, preserved them." Metzger notes the amazing fact that "if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, [the patristic quotations] would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament."

Is The New Testament Text Reliable? Part 5

2009-10-18T11:31:00.000-05:00

Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

By: Gregory Koukl

The Biblical Manuscript Evidence

By comparison with secular texts, the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is stunning. The most recent count (1980) shows 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts represented by early fragments, uncial codices (manuscripts in capital Greek letters bound together in book form), and minuscules (small Greek letters in cursive style)!

Among the nearly 3,000 minuscule fragments are 34 complete New Testaments dating from the 9th to the 15th Centuries.

Uncial manuscripts provide virtually complete codices (multiple books of the New Testament bound together into one volume) back to the 4th Century, though some are a bit younger. Codex Sinaiticus, purchased by the British government from the Soviet government at Christmas, 1933, for £100,000, is dated c. 340. The nearly complete Codex Vaticanus is the oldest uncial, dated c. 325-350. Codex Alexandrinus contains the whole Old Testament and a nearly complete New Testament and dates from the late 4th Century to the early 5th Century.

The most fascinating evidence comes from the fragments (as opposed to the codices). The Chester Beatty Papyri contains most of the New Testament and is dated mid-3rd Century. The Bodmer Papyri II collection, whose discovery was announced in 1956, includes the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John and much of the last seven chapters. It dates from A.D. 200 or earlier.

The most amazing find of all, however, is a small portion of John 18:31-33, discovered in Egypt known as the John Rylands Papyri. Barely three inches square, it represents the earliest known copy of any part of the New Testament. The papyri is dated on paleographical grounds at around A.D. 117-138 (though it may even be earlier), showing that the Gospel of John was circulated as far away as Egypt within 30 years of its composition.

Keep in mind that most of the papyri are fragmentary. Only about 50 manuscripts contain the entire New Testament, though most of the other manuscripts contain the four Gospels. Even so, the manuscript textual evidence is exceedingly rich, especially when compared to other works of antiquity.

Is The New Testament Text Reliable? Part 4

2009-10-17T11:29:00.000-05:00

Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

By: Gregory Koukl

How Many and How Old?

The ability of any scholar to do effective textual criticism depends on two factors. First, how many existing copies are there to examine and compare? Are there two copies, ten, a hundred? The more copies there are, the easier it is to make meaningful comparisons. Second, how close in time are the oldest existing documents to the original?

If the numbers are few and the time gap is wide, the original is harder to reconstruct with confidence. However, if there are many copies and the oldest existing copies are reasonably close in time to the original, the textual critic can be more confident he's pinpointed the exact wording of the autograph.

To get an idea of the significance of the New Testament manuscript evidence, note for a moment the record for non-biblical texts. These are secular texts from antiquity that have been reconstructed with a high degree of certainty based on the available textual evidence.

The important First Century document The Jewish War, by Jewish aristocrat and historian Josephus, survives in only nine complete manuscripts dating from the 5th Century--four centuries after they were written. Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome is one of the chief historical sources for the Roman world of New Testament times, yet, surprisingly, it survives in partial form in only two manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages. Thucydides' History survives in eight copies. There are 10 copies of Caesar's Gallic Wars, eight copies of Herodotus' History, and seven copies of Plato, all dated over a millennium from the original. Homer's Iliad has the most impressive manuscript evidence for any secular work with 647 existing copies.

Bruce's comments put the discussion in perspective: "No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of any use to us are over 1300 years later than the originals."

For most documents of antiquity only a handful of manuscripts exist, some facing a time gap of 800-2000 years or more. Yet scholars are confident of reconstructing the originals with some significant degree of accuracy. In fact, virtually all of our knowledge of ancient history depends on documents like these.

Is The New Testament Text Reliable? Part 3

2009-10-16T11:27:00.001-05:00

Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

By: Gregory Koukl

Reconstructing Aunt Sally's Letter

Let me illustrate how such a test can be made. It will help you to see how scholars can confidently reconstruct the text from existing manuscript copies even though the copies themselves have differences and are much older than the autograph (i.e., the original).

Pretend your Aunt Sally has a dream in which she learns the recipe for an elixir that would continuously maintain her youth. When she wakes up, she scribbles the directions on a scrap of paper, then runs into the kitchen to make up her first glass. In a few days her appearance is transformed. Sally is a picture of radiant youth because of her daily dose of what comes to be known as "Aunt Sally's Secret Sauce."

Sally is so excited she sends hand-written instructions to her three bridge partners (Aunt Sally is still in the technological dark ages--no photocopier) giving detailed instructions on how to make the sauce. They, in turn, make copies which each sends to ten of her own friends.

All is going well until one day Aunt Sally's pet schnauzer eats the original copy of the recipe. Sally is beside herself. In a panic she contacts her three friends who have mysteriously suffered similar mishaps. Their copies are gone, too, so the alarm goes out to their friends in attempt to recover the original wording.

They finally round up all the surviving hand-written copies, twenty-six in all. When they spread them out on the kitchen table, they immediately notice some differences. Twenty-three of the copies are exactly the same. One has a misspelled word, though, one has two phrases inverted ("mix then chop" instead of "chop then mix") and one includes an ingredient that none of the others has on its list.

Here is the critical question: Do you think Aunt Sally can accurately reconstruct her original recipe? Of course she could. The misspelled words can easily be corrected, the single inverted phrase can be repaired, and the extra ingredient can be ignored.

Even with more numerous or more diverse variations, the original can still be reconstructed with a high level of confidence given the right textual evidence. The misspellings would be obvious errors, the inversions would stand out and easily be restored, and the conclusion drawn that it's more plausible that one word or sentence be accidentally added to a single copy than omitted from many.

This, in simplified form, is how the science of textual criticism works. Textual critics are academics who reconstruct a missing original from existing manuscripts that are generations removed from the autograph. According to New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce, "Its object [is] to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question."

The science of textual criticism is used to test all documents of antiquity--not just religious texts--including historical and literary writings. It's not a theological enterprise based on haphazard hopes and guesses; it's a linguistic exercise that follows a set of established rules. Textual criticism allows an alert critic to determine the extent of possible corruption of any work.

Is The New Testament Text Reliable? Part 2

2009-10-15T11:25:00.000-05:00

Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

By: Gregory Koukl

Just the Facts, Ma'am

The question of authenticity is not really a religious concern at all; it's an academic one. It can be answered in an academic way totally unrelated to spiritual convictions by a simple appeal to facts, an apologetic technique I call "Just the Facts, Ma'am."

The objection at first glance is compelling. When we try to conceptualize how to reconstruct an original after 2000 years of copying, translating, and copying some more, the task appears impossible. The skepticism, though, is based on two misconceptions about the transmission of ancient documents like the New Testament.

The first assumption is that the transmission is more or less linear, as in the telephone example--one person communicating to a second who communicates with a third, etc. In a linear paradigm people are left with one message and many generations between it and the original. Second, the telephone game example depends on oral transmission which is more easily distorted and misconstrued than something written.

Neither assumption applies to the written text of the New Testament. First, the transmission was not linear but geometric--e.g., one letter birthed five copies which became 25 which became 200 and so on. Secondly, the transmission in question was done in writing, and written manuscripts can be tested in a way that oral communications cannot be.

Is The New Testament Text Reliable? Part 1

2009-10-14T11:23:00.001-05:00

This is a fairly long article from Greg Koukl, so I have split it up into multiple parts. I hope everyone finds it helpful.

Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

By: Gregory Koukl

In the spring of 1989 syndicated talk show host Larry King interviewed Shirley MacLaine on the New Age. When a Christian caller contested her view with an appeal to the New Testament, MacLaine brushed him off with the objection that the Bible has been changed and translated so many times over the last 2000 years that it's impossible to have any confidence in its accuracy. King was quick to endorse her "facts." "Everyone knows that," he grunted.[1]

This appeal to common knowledge is enough to satisfy the ordinary, man-on-the-street critic of the New Testament. An appeal to the game "telephone" to demonstrate how reasonable this objection is. Whisper a message to one person and transfer it from person to person, ear to ear, in a circle. Then compare the message's final form with the original. The radical transformation of the original phrase in so short a period of time is always good for a few laughs. This comparison is enough to convince the casual skeptic that the New Testament documents are equally unreliable.

The argument against the reliability of the New Testament texts can be stated very simply. How can we know that the documents we have in our possession accurately reflect originals destroyed almost two millennia ago? Communication is never perfect; people make mistakes. Errors are compounded with each successive generation, just like the message in the telephone game. By the time 2000 years pass, it's anyone's guess what the original said.

It's easy to state the problem, and some may think merely raising the objection makes the argument itself compelling. Yet offering evidence on its behalf is a bit more difficult.

Usually the complaint is raised by people who have little understanding of the real issues. In cases like this, an appeal to common knowledge is more often than not an appeal to common ignorance. Like many questions about Christianity, this objection is voiced by people who haven't been given reliable information.

A Fundamentalist Nation?

2009-09-30T13:07:00.001-05:00

A Fundamentalist Nation?

Gregory Koukl

A poll of readers of the L.A. Times once showed that, in the area of abortion, prayer, in school, homosexuality and traditional family values, the majority of Americans agree with so-called “extreme fundamentalists.” 70% of Americans believe that the traditional family structure is always best; 76% favor prayer in public schools; 55% are against legalized abortion; 61% think that homosexual relations are always wrong. These are the views of the “radical right,” but these are also the views of a majority of rank and file Americans.

Let that bolster your confidence, the next time you’re being marginalized for your conservative moral values. The “radical right” isn’t so radical. It’s actually mainstream.

©1999 Gregory Koukl. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only.
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 5

Today's "Ask Pastor John"

2009-09-25T15:56:00.001-05:00

God Is Real

2009-09-24T15:25:00.003-05:00

^{Romans 1:18-23 [ESV] "18} For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. ¹⁹For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ²⁰ For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. ²¹For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Claiming to be wise, they became fools, ²³and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."

There are many logical arguments for the existence of God. Many careful thinkers have done a lot of very good work to show logical and philosophical proofs for the existence for God. I am familiar with many of these, and maybe someday I'll explore some of them, but today I want to ask, are these arguments critical? I would answer no.

One of the aspects of God's creation is that it makes it clear that God is real, and that God did create everything. As we see in the Romans passage above, God has made Himself known in Creation. In fact, He has made it so clear that people who do not believe are without excuse.

The problem is that people do not want to believe in God as He is, yet they know that He is real, and so, thinking themselves to be wise, they conjure up all kinds of bizarre ideas of what God is like, or invest what can be clearly seen of God into silly objects that they make with their own hands, or worship the moon, or the sun, or trees, and so on.

While creation is sufficient to let people know that God is real, and shows enough for us to know much about Him, it certainly doesn't tell us all we need to know. Fortunately, God did not leave us hanging when it comes to what we need to know. He has spoken through His Word, the Bible.

Of all the religious ideas and books in the world, only the Bible is compatible with what we clearly seen in His creation. The problem is not that God has been ambiguous about what He has revealed about Himself, in fact, it is perfectly clear, and can be seen all around us, but people don't want to believe because they do not want to be responsible to Him, and do not want to give up their own unrighteousness, and so they suppress the truth, and either outright deny the existence of God at all, thereby attempting to make themselves into some form of god, or choose to worship some object or person instead of the one true God.

I'm not saying anything bad about those who have spent time thinking about all of the proofs that creation does offer of the reality of God. In fact, so many people are so deceived in this day and age that they often do not see the clear reality of God, and it may well help to have someone come along side and show it to them. What I am saying is that God is real, and that a person can know this very well and truly without ever hearing one of those arguments because the reality of God is clearly seen in His creation.

Here's The Thing

2009-09-22T07:40:00.002-05:00

Acts 17:11 [ESV] ^"11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so."

2 Timothy 3:16-17 [ESV] "¹⁶ All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ¹⁷that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."

I think that too often when we search for truth, we allow our own conceits to color our conclusions. I can't tell you how many times I've talked to people who hold to one view or another, and the reason that they give for why they believe what they are putting forth is that it is what they were taught as a child, or it's what their Pastor says, or it's what thus and such a Bible teacher on the radio says. I'm not even getting into when those ideas are wrong at this point, but all of the reasons listed above are not valid reasons to accept something as Biblical truth. What we must do is study the Bible and see what it has to say, and that is the reason that we should always give for why we hold to what we believe. Even in a conversation with my wife the other night on a topic of Doctrine she said to me, "I know what you're saying is right, but it just seems strange and hard to understand because it's not what we were taught as kids growing up." So I don't dismiss the power of such things in our lives, believe me, in my own life and study of Scripture this has been a huge hurdle to overcome, which is why I thought it would be important to spend some time thinking about it today.

To begin with, let me say, my dad was a man who knew a lot about the Bible. He spent many hours reading it, and studying it, and had been to Bible school. He taught me many things, and most of them were true things, but even those things I must not simply accept because my dad taught them to me, rather I must search the Scriptures to see if these things are so. As I read and study the Word of God I have found that my dad certainly had much of his beliefs and teachings straight, but I have also found a few that do not line up with what the Scriptures actually have to say, therefore, in those areas, I must depart from what my dad taught me and go with the Bible, and I think he would wholeheartedly agree with that.

The same thing goes for Pastors. Any Pastor that I have sat under has taught the Truth of the Word of God, otherwise I would not have stayed under his preaching. Still, men are fallible, and so, as with my dad, I must study the Bible on my own to make sure I am learning Truth, and not just taking the word of the Pastor for it. If you look at the context of Acts 17:11, which I placed at the beginning of this post, you will see that these Jews were being taught by the Apostle Paul, and being an Apostle of Jesus Christ, he taught with the authority granted to him by Christ, and yet these Jews are lauded for being diligent and checking the Scriptures to see if the things that Paul taught them were indeed true.

Now, I'm certainly not saying that you shouldn't listen to your Pastor, or a Bible teacher on the radio. I listen to my Pastor, and I listen to some other Bible teachers, and I do find great value in that, but it is the Word of God that matters, and if the teaching of any of these teachers strays away from the Bible, it is the Bible we must follow, and not the teacher. Two Pastor/Teachers that I personally like are John Piper and John MacArthur, though there are many other very good ones, I can't go into a list here, so let me just say what I like best about these two, and ask that you make sure it applies to any that you listen to. Both of these men are very upfront about the fact that their opinions do not matter, but that what matters is what the Bible says. While they both work very hard and are very diligent to explain the Bible correctly, they also understand themselves to be fallible men, and strongly encourage people to study on their own to make sure that they are being fed the Truth, and are not in error.

In fact, the same goes for the writings of the Reformers, or the early Church Fathers, and Theologians down through the years, much of what they have written has great value and can aide our understanding greatly, yet still we must measure their words against the plum line of Scripture so that we only affirm what is Biblical, and reject anything that is not.

In short, we must see that what we have been taught in the past, what has been held by the Churches, even beliefs going back many years, or what current teachers and preachers say is of no consequence if it doesn't stand up to the light of Scripture.

We must read the Bible. All Christians should be engaged in structured daily Bible reading. By this I do not mean that you must be on one of those "Read the Bible through in a year" daily reading schedules, though there is absolutely nothing wrong with them, they are not required. Structured Bible reading can be as simple as picking up your Bible and starting to read in Genesis, and reading every day until you hit the end of Revelation, and then start over back in Genesis. I personally like this method, but I'm fine with schedules if that's what it takes to get you to read every single page of Scripture in a reasonable amount of time. The key is DAILY Bible reading, not hit or miss. For many years I was just hit or miss myself, so I certainly don't condemn anyone, I know it can be hard, but it's more than worth it, and besides, if we truly love God, should we not want to read every single word of His revelation to us (over and over again)?

Second, we must Study the Bible. Reading through the Bible is the basis, and can be considered studying up to a point, but we must take extra time to dig deeper. This is where we spend some time reading passages repeatedly, and cross referencing with other related passages to draw out a fuller understanding of Doctrines and other Bible teachings. This is also where reading the writings of other teachers comes in, or listening to their teaching, once you have established a teacher as trustworthy, you can see what you can gain from their teaching, while still keeping in mind that it is the Bible, and not that teacher, that has the final say.

And finally, we must pray. Now, I know that some people, and some false religions, would misunderstand this point, thinking that they need only to pray that God will implant the knowledge directly into them, with no effort on their own. This is not something that God has promised us, and it is not what I am advocating here. What I am saying is to pray for Wisdom (See James 1:5). Pray that God will help you to have discernment, and will reward your diligent, and yes sometimes strenuous, effort with actual and true understanding and knowledge. And, lest I forget, we must pray also that God will help us to live what we learn, with love, so that we won't become simply a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal (1 Cor 13).

2 Timothy 2:15 [NASB] "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth."

MacArthur on Babies Who Die

2009-09-17T15:59:00.000-05:00

Does Ecclesiastes Endorse Abortion?

2009-09-09T15:01:00.000-05:00

Medical Community Shuns Swine Flu Vaccine?

2009-09-08T18:23:00.000-05:00

A Note To Commenters

2009-09-04T06:38:00.002-05:00

While it has always been, and still continues to be, my policy to allow comments, and engage people in discussion if they wish, I do have a few rules. Of course, you must be civil, no bad language and such. While it's not a hard and fast rule, I'd appreciate it if you'd get to the point. And most importantly right now, don't try to hock some book you've written or advertise your own blog (unless you are a personal friend and know that I endorse your blog) or I will reject your comment. So to the person who left a comment about my post a few days ago, I rejected your comment because you were trying to hock your book. I will be happy to engage you if you can follow my few simple rules. And yes, these rules are mine, I make them and I run the blog, so they are subject to change without notice, and I could have forgotten to mention something, but I don't think that I did.

Thanks.

Another Clip Of Piper On The Prosperity Gospel

2009-09-03T15:29:00.001-05:00

The Paradox Of The Protestant Work Ethic--John Piper

2009-09-02T10:37:00.001-05:00

Self Esteem: The Anti-Gospel

2009-09-01T16:10:00.003-05:00

Romans 3:9-19 [ESV]
⁹What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, ¹⁰ as it is written:

"None is righteous, no, not one;
¹¹no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
¹²All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
¹³ "Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
¹⁴ "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
¹⁵ "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
¹⁶ in their paths are ruin and misery,
¹⁷ and the way of peace they have not known."
¹⁸ "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

¹⁹ Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. ²⁰For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

***********************************

This is the description of unredeemed humanity. Every one of us either falls into this category now, or if we are counted among the redeemed, we were in this category until such a time as we joined the ranks of the redeemed. However, this is not the message you would get in today's world. Even some of our Churches have become bastions of Self Esteem, telling everyone that they are good just the way they are.

Pretty much everywhere you look people are pushing the Self Esteem message. And people are buying it. How many times have we seen interviews with people where they are asked about their religious views, or if they go to Church, and the answer that they come up with is something along the lines of, well, I don't worry about all of that stuff, I'm basically a good person. The question is, are you good enough?

If you look at verse 20 above, you will see that they answer is clearly no. "For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." This means that we cannot be good enough. God's standard is absolute perfection, something that we can never attain. Since no human can be justified by the works of the law, then why did God give the law in the first place? It was to let us know what sin is, and to give us an understanding that we cannot be good enough to rescue ourselves from sin's condemnation.

Romans 3:23 [ESV] tells us, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," while Romans 6:23 tells us what that means, "For the wages of sin is death." This does not leave us without hope, as Romans 6:23 ends, "but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." [ESV] But only through Jesus Christ can we be saved from death. Of course, in this instance death refers to eternal separation from God in Hell, not immediate physical death, otherwise the human race would have ended in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve first sinned.

It was Jesus Christ, God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, that came to Earth and took on human flesh, and lived a completely perfect and sinless life, and then, on the Cross of Calvary bore the penalty for the sins of everyone who would ever believe, paying the price that we could never pay, and redeeming His sheep to himself. So, through understanding that we are sinners and deserving of eternal punishment in Hell, and having Faith in Christ alone to save us from our sins, and that He paid that price which we could never hope to pay, even in all of eternity, we can have eternal life, in Heaven, with God. This is because when we are redeemed, the perfect righteousness of Jesus is applied to us, just as our sin was applied to Him on the Cross.

The problem is that first part. You must understand that you are a sinner. If I never came to the point where I realized that I am a dirty rotten sinner, totally undeserving of Grace, and totally unable to be good enough on my own, or to redeem myself from my sin, then I would never understand that I have something to be saved from. If I have "healthy" Self Esteem, as we are constantly told that we need, I will not be able to believe this, and will be unable to trust Christ to save me, since I would think that I was "basically a good person," and that I had nothing to be saved from.

It would do us well to remember Isaiah 64:6, "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." [KJV] And even Paul, who was an apostle of Jesus Christ, and wrote several of the books of the New Testament (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) said in Romans 7:24 [ESV] " Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" Of course he knew exactly who would deliver him, but he was making clear that on his own he would be utterly without hope, even going so far as to call himself "wretched!" Building up our Self Esteem will blind us to this truth, and that will keep us from Salvation and doom us to eternal Hell.

Far from building Self Esteem in people, and especially children, Churches should be engaged in seeing that people have an accurate view of themselves, and understand their utter sinfulness and utter hopelessness apart from Jesus. We should be making sure we understand coming just the way you are does not mean that you are good enough, it just means that there is nothing that you need to do in order to turn to Jesus. You don't have to stop sinning before Jesus will take you. Turning from your sin is something that happens at the point of Salvation, not something that you must do in order to "qualify" for Salvation. And, even after one comes to Christ, the battle against sin is not over. Even though we must war against sin, we will not win the victory in this life. Even after redemption it is still not our own righteousness that will save us. We all need an accurate self image, and an understanding that we are dirty rotten sinners, and absolutely not able to please God on our own.

This is why I call Self Esteem the Anti-Gospel.

John Piper--Aging

2009-08-30T15:53:00.000-05:00

The Cult Of Self Esteem

2009-08-28T05:32:00.002-05:00

It would seem that there is nothing that we can do in this present age to escape the constant barrage of self esteem hype. We are told that the problem with our children is that they do not have enough self esteem, and that if we want them to be successful in life, we must do all we can to build their self esteem. I take the position here today that this is utter nonsense. I would say that self esteem is very natural to fallen humanity, and is something that we should endeavor to fight against, rather than foster.

Take my own children for instance, I'm not saying that they are bad kids, but I'm pretty familiar with them. It is not hard in the least to get them to tell you all about all the things that they want, at any given time. They always want something, and things are just never fair, as far as they are concerned. To them, unfair means, things didn't go how I wanted them to go. Now, lest you think I'm simply raising a couple of monsters, let me tell you, the case of my children is pretty mild by comparison to what I see when I look around me. Part of that is because I do not buy into the lies that the Cult of Self Esteem has been pushing on our culture, and instead try to give my kids a healthy and realistic self image, and understanding of their place in the world.

Don't get me wrong here, it's not just kids either. It doesn't seem to matter if you go to the store, or to work, or, very sadly, even to Church, what you hear most often from most people is "me me me me me." Again, don't misunderstand, we are in our lives, and so we can't very well act as if we aren't, and so there is no choice but to talk about ourselves and use words like "I" and "me" as we go throughout the day, but there is a way that this is done that is very self centered. Believe it or not, you can talk about yourself without making it sound like you are the center of the universe.

The fact of the matter is that our prisons are full of people with very high self esteem. Our schools are full of kids who think that they should pass on to the next grade simply because they are just as good as everyone else, no matter what their grades say. Our institutes of higher learning are full of young adults who think that they deserve a minimum of a B if they show up for class every day, no matter what their grades are like (no, you deserve a minimum of an F, you have to work to get it higher than that). Our workplaces are full of people who think that they deserve a raise just because the honor the company by being willing to work there. Our Country is full of people who think they deserve to be fed and cared for by the rest of us, just because they are there, and it doesn't matter if they simply refuse to work, doggone it, they deserve it! And our communities are full of people who think that every kid who plays a sport should get a trophy, just so their self esteem isn't damaged. As we move about in everyday life we are constantly bombarded with a never-ending stream of people who think so highly of themselves that it is absolutely staggering.

No, there is no need to work at building self esteem in people, on the contrary, we need to work to make sure that we are not full of ourselves, and not making too much of ourselves. High self esteem comes easy, and is highly destructive, an appropriate view takes work, but is well worth it. Sometimes my daughter will do something that she's not supposed to do, and I'll have to discipline her for it, and she always says, "But Daddy, I wasn't trying to disobey!" To which I always respond, "Honey, you don't have to try to disobey, that is really easy to do, it's obedience that takes work."

And this isn't just my opinion, the Apostle Paul cautions us in Romans 12:3 "For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned." (ESV) and in Philippians 2:3 he says, "Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves." (ESV)

Regardless of what we see on TV, or what so many experts want to tell us, the fact is that we don't need high self esteem, in fact, we need low self esteem, humility and a servants heart. These are the things that will allow us to live good, godly lives. High self esteem will just make us selfish jerks, which is really easy to be, in fact, you might say it comes naturally, being a humble servant takes work.

John Piper--Healed For Holiness

2009-08-25T15:42:00.000-05:00

My Guilt In The Present World

2009-08-24T10:36:00.004-05:00

Regular readers of my blog are well aware of my passion for politics and morals, and truth and good, solid reasoning and arguments. Sadly, you may be less aware of my passion for the Lord Jesus Christ and for His Kingdom. Perhaps that is because that passion has been either lacking or misdirected.

I have even argued that, since all things are connected, and all truth is God's truth, that getting into politics and social issues is fighting for God's truth and the Kingdom, but I have come to see that this approach only applies in a very marginal sense.

I can so clearly see that only true and correctly understood Conservative Politics are compatible with the Bible, and and Gospel of Christ, and so I fought for the Conservative Politics. I can so clearly see how moral and social issues are so clearly delineated in the Bible, and so I fought for those moral and social issues. I could go on, but let it suffice to say that while I was so willing to engage in all of the peripheral issues, and associated battles, I have been guilty of ignoring the most central issue.

While I'm not saying that my positions on these issues were wrong, I am saying that my focus on these issues was very wrong indeed. I have come to see that Jesus did not come into this world to bring about Political or Social change. He came to bring Salvation, and He has commissioned us to take the message of that Salvation out into the world.

I am well prepared to argue over Politics, and can well explain why correctly understood and applied Conservatism is the moral choice, while Liberalism is inherently immoral. I am able to argue and debate over issues of cloning and abortion and same-sex marriage without ever bringing up a singe verse of Scripture, or I can argue it directly from Scripture. I am well able to define and defend the proper role of Government, both from a philosophical and Biblical position. On these, and a host of other issues, I have spent much time, energy and thought, but if I have ignored the central issue, then it was all for nothing.

We could win all of the political victories imaginable. We could have Abortion outlawed. We could defend marriage and see that the special title of marriage is reserved for one man and one woman. We could see an end put to Embryonic Stem Cell Research. We could do many more things, and win many more victories, but if we do not advance the cause of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it is all for nothing.

Christians should well be concerned with feeding the hungry, housing the poor, caring for the sick, and helping all who are in need, and we should not seek the Government to do these things for us. But, while we need to be about all of these things, if we do not share the Gospel of Christ, it is all for naught. If we feed all the hungry of the World with food, and shelter them all in houses, and bring them all high quality medical care, and on down the list, only to watch them enter Eternity apart from God, and be outcast to Hell, then we have hated, rather than loved them.

In the past few weeks I have felt my passion for Politics and such wain. I have tried to reclaim it a time or two, thinking that I was losing grip on what was most important, but I have come to realize that I have lost nothing. My passion was not growing weak, it was being replaced!

While I'll still vote, and still take the time to make sure I understand the issues so that I may vote well, I will not ignore the Wonder and Majesty of Christ and His Gospel and His Kingdom in favor arguing over what I now see amount to the trivialities of this present age. May I stand for Christ, spread the Gospel message, and see the World change as the fire of a passion for Him and His Kingdom rages through the Church and around the World.

May I stand with the Prophet Isaiah, and when the Lord asks, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" (Isa 6:8a) may I say with Isaiah, "Here am I! Send me." (Isa 6:8b)

Something To Think About From John Piper

2009-08-21T06:34:00.002-05:00

Desiring God Blog

The Tornado, the Lutherans, and Homosexuality

Posted: 19 Aug 2009 10:12 PM PDT

(Author: John Piper)

I saw the fast-moving, misshapen, unusually-wide funnel over downtown Minneapolis from Seven Corners. I said to Kevin Dau, "That looks serious."

It was. Serious in more ways than one. A friend who drove down to see the damage wrote,

On a day when no severe weather was predicted or expected...a tornado forms, baffling the weather experts—most saying they've never seen anything like it. It happens right in the city. The city: Minneapolis.

The tornado happens on a Wednesday...during the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America's national convention in the Minneapolis Convention Center. The convention is using Central Lutheran across the street as its church. The church has set up tents around it's building for this purpose.

According to the ELCA's printed convention schedule, at 2 PM on Wednesday, August 19, the 5th session of the convention was to begin. The main item of the session: "Consideration: Proposed Social Statement on Human Sexuality." The issue is whether practicing homosexuality is a behavior that should disqualify a person from the pastoral ministry.

The eyewitness of the damage continues:

This curious tornado touches down just south of downtown and follows 35W straight towards the city center. It crosses I94. It is now downtown.

The time: 2PM.

The first buildings on the downtown side of I94 are the Minneapolis Convention Center and Central Lutheran. The tornado severely damages the convention center roof, shreds the tents, breaks off the steeple of Central Lutheran, splits what's left of the steeple in two...and then lifts.

Let me venture an interpretation of this Providence with some biblical warrant.

1. The unrepentant practice of homosexual behavior (like other sins) will exclude a person from the kingdom of God.

The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

2. The church has always embraced those who forsake sexual sin but who still struggle with homosexual desires, rejoicing with them that all our fallen, sinful, disordered lives (all of us, no exceptions) are forgiven if we turn to Christ in faith.

Such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:11)

3. Therefore, official church pronouncements that condone the very sins that keep people out of the kingdom of God, are evil. They dishonor God, contradict Scripture, and implicitly promote damnation where salvation is freely offered.

4. Jesus Christ controls the wind, including all tornados.

Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him? (Mark 4:41)

5. When asked about a seemingly random calamity near Jerusalem where 18 people were killed, Jesus answered in general terms—an answer that would cover calamities in Minneapolis, Taiwan, or Baghdad. God's message is repent, because none of us will otherwise escape God's judgment.

Jesus: "Those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:4-5)

6. Conclusion: The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction. Reaffirm the great Lutheran heritage of allegiance to the truth and authority of Scripture. Turn back from distorting the grace of God into sensuality. Rejoice in the pardon of the cross of Christ and its power to transform left and right wing sinners.

John Piper--What Would You Change About Calvin?

2009-08-20T16:03:00.001-05:00

Dave's View On Cash For Clunkers

2009-08-20T06:30:00.001-05:00

Dave's View On Cash For Clunkers

Shared via AddThis

John Piper -- Get A Bible With All The Words

2009-08-17T16:19:00.001-05:00

Jehovah's Witnesses At My Door

2009-08-14T14:24:00.000-05:00

Jehovah’s Witnesses at My Door

They backed off. They bailed out. They ran away. Will you?
When I mentioned the deity of Christ, the person in the shadows spoke up for the first time. I wasn't prepared for what she said. .

By: Gregory Koukl

related articles:
Links on Opposing Viewpoints

Ground Rules for Talking to Mormons

related radio broadcast:
May 17,2009

Health Care Fact Check, Mr. President

2009-08-13T15:46:00.001-05:00

Dear America,

President Obama told the American people in his weekend address he wanted to "start dispelling the outlandish rumors" about the Democrats' risky health care experiment.

I couldn't agree more with the President.

There is no place for outlandish rumor or outrageous rhetoric in the debate for the affordable and accessible health care reform we all want.

Below are some facts that will help you counter the dishonest rhetoric Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and liberal special interest groups are disseminating in their attempt to silence dissent:

Rhetoric: President Obama Promises Americans Can Keep Their Current Health Care Coverage. "You know, the interesting thing is we've actually been very clear on what we want. I've said I want to make sure if you have health care you are going to keep it..." (PBS's "The Newshour With Jim Lehrer," 7/20/09)

FACT: Analysis Shows Over 88 Million People To Lose Current Insurance Under Government Health Care Takeover. "Under current law, there will be about 158.1 million people who are covered under an employer plan as workers, dependents or early retirees in 2011. If the act were fully implemented in that year, about 88.1 million workers would shift from private employer insurance to the public plan." (John Shelis, Vice President, Lewin Group, "Analysis Of The July 15 Draft Of The American Affordable Health Choices Act Of 2009," 7/17/09)

Rhetoric: President Obama Pledges Americans Can Keep Their Doctor. "If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing. You keep your plan. You keep your doctor...We're not going to mess with it." (President Barack Obama, Remarks At White House Press Conference, The White House, 6/23/09)

FACT: Mayo Clinic Says Government-Run Health Care Will Force Doctors To Drop Patients. '[L]awmakers are on track to approve across-the-board federal payment reductions of $155 billion over 10 years for hospitals ... Mayo and similar health systems object to the sweeping cuts. 'Across-the-board cuts will be harmful to everyone and we think it is particularly bad to penalize the high-value organizations,' said Jeff Korsmo, executive director of the Mayo Clinic Health Policy Center. 'We will have to violate our values in order to stay in business and reduce our access to government patients.'" (Phil Galewitz, "'Model' Health Systems Press Case For Medicare Fix In Reform," Kaiser Health News, 7/20/09)

Rhetoric: President Obama Promises No Additional Taxes On Middle Class. "What I've said is, and I have stuck to this point, I don't want to see additional tax burdens on people making $250,000 a year or less." (NBC's "Today Show," 7/21/09)

FACT: Democrats' Plan Imposes 2.5% Tax On Uninsured Individuals. "The penalty assessed on people who would be subject to the mandate but did not obtain insurance would equal 2.5 percent of the difference between their adjusted gross income (modified to include tax-exempt interest and certain other sources of income) and the tax filing threshold ..." (Douglas W. Elmendorf, "Preliminary Analysis Of The Insurance Coverage Specifications Provided By The House Tri-Committee Group," Letter To Chairman Rangel, 7/17/09)

The Republicans want an honest and open debate about how to reform health care, but it is the Democrats who do not want to have a legitimate discussion on the issues. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their liberal special interest cronies are resorting to calling concerned citizens who have questions about their health care schemes "astroturf," "un-American," and even "political terrorists."

One White House aide went so far to say "if you get hit, we will punch back
twice as hard" when coaching Senate Democrats on the ways of "Chicago land politics."

It's time for the President to practice what he preached on the campaign trail and respect all voices in the health care debate.

Help the RNC spread the facts about the Obama Democrats' dishonest rhetoric and stop their efforts to silence dissent by forwarding this email to your friends, and if you can, make a contribution of whatever you can afford to the RNC today.

And for more information about Obama's government-run health care experiment, go to www.BarackObamaExperiment.com. Matthew, there's too much at stake for Democrats and their left-wing allies to dominate the debate on health care reform with misinformation, name calling and scare tactics. Please help Republicans fight back today!

Sincerely,

Michael Steele
Chairman, Republican National Committee

Desiring God Blogf: Conference and Documentary Preview

2009-08-12T15:12:00.002-05:00

Desiring God Blog

Watch the Movie Collision at the Desiring God Conference

Posted: 12 Aug 2009 07:38 AM PDT

(Author: David Mathis)

Desiring God will provide a special screening of the forthcoming film Collision, featuring Doug Wilson and Christopher Hitchens, on Friday evening, September 25, at our national conference in Minneapolis.

Christopher Hitchens is one of the most popular new atheists. He wrote God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Collision is an 80-minute, documentary that follows him and Wilson on a 4-stop tour as they debate whether Christianity is good for the world.

Doug Wilson is a winsome defender of the faith and has proven immensely helpful to many in his engagements with Hitchens. Since Wilson is a speaker at our conference, we thought many attendees would be eager to view the film with us.

The screening will happen in the main auditorium at 9pm, following the opening session of the conference. Immediately following, John Piper will ask Wilson several follow-up questions about the film and his collision with Hitchens.

The aim of our conference is to look at the majesty of Jesus and his purposes for the world through the lens of Scripture, with John Calvin's life and theology adjusting the focus. We think John Calvin would like the way God is exalted in this film, and we trust it will strengthen your faith.

Here's the trailer to whet your appetite. We look forward to seeing you in Minneapolis this September!

New Curriculum for Jr. High

Posted: 11 Aug 2009 11:10 PM PDT

(Author: Karen Hieb)

The new 28-lesson curriculum from Children Desiring God called "Abiding in Jesus" challenges junior high students to know Jesus as the savior and satisfier of their souls. Inspired by John 15, these lessons teach youth that abiding in Jesus leads to trusting him in all of life's situations and bearing spiritual fruit in him.

The study features interactive teaching with small group discussion, application, and prayer. There is also a special emphasis on students experiencing Christian fellowship.

The inclusion of journaling along with the teaching enables students to note important biblical truth. This will help to guide the class fellowship time and provide helpful direction for at-home Bible study and life application.

Samples from "Abiding in Jesus" and other curricula from CDG are available free online.

Debt For Clunkers

2009-08-07T15:49:00.003-05:00

You have probably heard a lot about the so-called "Cash For Clunkers" program on the news, how it's so helpful and so popular, and going to do so much good for so many people, and for the economy, and so on and so forth. I have a different take. I think that this program is so idiotic that it's hard to know where to begin.

First, pitching the idea as "free money" toward the purchase of a new car, if you are turning in a qualifying car, with sufficiently poor gas mileage, which quite a few Americans do own, and then setting aside only a Billion Dollars for the program. I know, you're thinking, only a Billion? A billion is a ton of money, and you're right, it is, it's a ridiculous amount of money in fact, but bear with me. One billion dollars, at $4,500 a pop only goes as far as 222,222.2 cars. When people think they are getting "free money" you will have a lot more takers than that. So, thinking that they may have run out of money, although they don't know because they can't even process the claims that have been made so far, Congress has thrown in another Two Billion dollars, just to be on the safe side I guess, bringing the total amount of Cars that could be turned in to 666,666.6, but with no idea if even that will be enough.

Besides this, as I mentioned previously, the claims aren't being processed. The way the program works is that a person takes their "clunker" to a dealership, and the dealer determines, according to Government guidelines, if the "clunker" qualifies for the program, and if so, goes ahead and makes the deal, taking the $4,500 off of the price of the new car, and then submitting the paperwork for the deal to the Government, which, in turn, is supposed to cut the dealer a check for the $4,500. The problem is that while dealers are making deals and turning them in to the Government, the claims aren't being processed and the checks aren't being cut, so the dealers, already operating on the edge, are being forced to absorb a $4,500 hit on each car they sell on this program, at least in the short term.

Another problem is the simple fact that the Federal Government (quickly becoming a National Government, but I'll have to address that separately) is out of money. Even with no increase in spending, but just continuing the programs in place now, and leaving tax rates as they are today, we would continue going deeper in the hole. Of course, they are looking to increase spending by trillions of dollars over the coming years, and by comparison, three Billion dollars doesn't seem like much, but we are at the point were every single penny the Government spends is just more debt. So this program is yet another three billion dollars in debt, and that doesn't include the cost of processing all the claims, which will be significant because the Government never does anything efficiently.

Now we come to the claim that this program will have some positive impact on the environment. This is simply not true in the least. For starters a study has shown that supposed savings in gas, if in fact they were to be as claimed, would only amount to shutting down energy production in this Country for one hour per year. But that doesn't take a lot of other things into account. For starters, if paying less for gas, or getting better gas mileage, people will drive more, this is a studied and proven fact. Besides that, all of the cars that are turned in under this program will be destroyed, and therefore will need to be disposed of, which will have a negative environmental impact. Then there is a production cost (both monetarily and environmentally) of all the cars that will initially be produced to make up for the false bubble of demand for new cars over the short run, and transporting them to the dealerships. On top of that is the fact that some of these cars that are being destroyed would otherwise have been traded in and auctioned off to some junkyard or something, where people would have been able to pull spare parts off to use for their own vehicles that they are still driving, now those spare parts will not be available, causing new parts to be produced, having a higher environmental impact, as well costing the operators of the vehicles who need the parts considerably more than they would have paid otherwise.

Next we need to ask if this program is a good deal for people who participate in it. For the most part, people who participate will be purchasing new cars, the cost of which $4,500 will scarcely put a dent in, meaning that they will be taking out huge car loans to make up the difference. So, the great deal that they are getting means that they are trading in a car that they can afford in order to take $4,500 off of the price of a car that they can't even come close to affording, even with the discount, in order to save a couple of bucks a month in gas (remember they will also drive it more) giving them a huge pile of car debt, meaning that this "great deal" will be a net loss to their monthly disposable income. I suspect (and this is just me, I don't have a study on this) that a large share of these people will default on these loans (wow, what a blessing that will be to them). And besides, just a simple look at the math tells you how stupid this is. You take a car that qualifies as a Clunker under the program, which we will assume for the sake of this discussion is paid off (if it's not, things are even worse) and turn it in for the $4,500 discount on a new car. People are being encouraged to get Hybrid cars, because they get the best gas mileage. A new Toyota Prius starts at $22,000, but let's face it, most people won't go for the most basic model, so let's assume that they are somewhat reasonable and choose a model that is around $25,000, so they will be forced to finance around $20,500. They probably don't have triple A credit, and so, won't get the best interest rate, so, over the life of the loan, they are going to be paying back, on the conservative side, around $25,000. Even if we assume that gas goes up to $5.00 a gallon, roughly twice today's price, that $25,000 would have put 5,000 gallons of gas in their old clunker. Even at 15 miles per gallon, that would have taken them 75,000 miles. Now in their new Prius they will get roughly 50 miles per gallon (according to toyota.com/prius) an improvement of 35 miles per gallon, so that same 5,000 gallons of gas will take them 250,000 miles, but they still bought that 5,000 gallons, plus they spent $25,000 paying off the new car. To go the same 75,000 miles that the 5,000 gallons would have taken them in the old clunker would cost $7,500, so, apples to apples, to go the same distance, they will have paid $7,500 more with the new car. Adding that amount means that the old car would have taken them 97,500 miles for the same amount of money. So, they will have to drive this new car for 97,500 miles just to break even on the deal. Most people don't even keep a car that long, but assuming they do, let's remember that to this point they have not saved one single penny, that's just the break even point, assuming they haven't had to put any new parts on the car, which they would have and which would be considerably more expensive than on their old car, and service costs more also, so they'd have to drive a few thousand more miles to make up for that, but after they they should be to the good, right? Well, sure, but if they want to make back all of the money that the spent on this "great deal" they will have to drive that Prius for an additional 1,625,000 miles, and that doesn't include the increased cost given that they will drive more because they are getting better gas mileage. Some deal huh?

Worse still is what this will do to the new car market in the US. First, it will create a bubble in auto sales while the program runs it's course, followed by a collapse when people who would have bought a car later on now don't need one, and people who would have bought used cars can't because they have all been destroyed by Uncle Sam. Far from stimulating the economy, this program will be devastating.

So, what we get is a net negative environmental impact, significantly more debt, both for the nation, and for the suckers... I mean people... who participate in the program, and a significant net negative economic impact over the long term, especially as these people start to default on the car loans that they can't afford on cars that they could never afford and should not have purchased.

But that's not the worst part. As bad as all that is, it is nothing compared to this. The same morons who came up with this dud of a deal want to run your health care.

Desiring God Blog: Marriage Checklist

2009-08-06T15:40:00.002-05:00

This list is pretty extensive, I guess some might feel it's excessive (that person is probably not married) but I have to tell you, I really wish I had had this in my hands before I got married. I think that just being really clear about all of this stuff would save a lot of couples a lot of heartache.

Matt

Desiring God Blog

Questions to Ask When Preparing for Marriage

Posted: 05 Aug 2009 11:36 PM PDT

(Author: John Piper)

In each of these sections one item could be added that I have not listed, namely, How do you handle and live with differences? How do you decide what can remain differences without jeopardizing the relationship? So as you deal with each subheading, include that in the discussion.

Theology

What do you believe about...everything?
Perhaps read through the Desiring God Affirmation of Faith to see where each other is on various biblical doctrines.
Discover how you form your views. What is the reasoning-believing process? How do you handle the Bible?

Worship and Devotion

How important is corporate worship? Other participation in church life?
How important is it to be part of a small accountability/support group?
What is the importance of music in life and worship?
What are your daily personal devotional practices? Prayer, reading, meditation, memorization.
What would our family devotions look like? Who leads out in this?
Are we doing this now in an appropriate way: praying together about our lives and future, reading the Bible together?

Husband and Wife

What is the meaning of headship and submission in the Bible and in our marriage?
What are expectations about situations where one of you might be alone with someone of the opposite sex?
How are tasks shared in the home: cleaning, cooking, washing dishes, yard work, car upkeep, repairs, shopping for food, and household stuff?
What are the expectations for togetherness?
What is an ideal non-special evening?
How do you understand who and how often sex is initiated?
Who does the checkbook—or are there two?

Children

If and when, should we have children? Why?
How many?
How far apart?
Would we consider adoption?
What are the standards of behavior?
What are the appropriate ways to discipline them? How many strikes before they're...whatever?
What are the expectations of time spent with them and when they go to bed?
What signs of affection will you show them?
What about school? Home school? Christian school? Public school?

Lifestyle

Own a home or not? Why?
What kind of neighborhood? Why?
How many cars? New? Used?
View of money in general. How much to the church?
How do you make money decisions?
Where will you buy clothes: Department store? Thrift store? In between? Why?

Entertainment

How much money should we spend on entertainment?
How often should we eat out? Where?
What kind of vacations are appropriate and helpful for us?
How many toys? Snowmobile, boat, cabin?
Should we have a television? Where? What is fitting to watch? How much?
What are the criteria for movies and theater? What will our guidelines be for the kids?

Conflict

What makes you angry?
How do you handle your frustration or anger?
Who should bring up an issue that is bothersome?
What if we disagree both about what should be done, and whether it is serious?
Will we go to bed angry at each other?
What is our view of getting help from friends or counselors?

Work

Who is the main breadwinner?
Should the wife work outside the home? Before kids? With kids at home? After kids?
What are your views of daycare for children?
What determines where you will locate? Job? Whose job? Church? Family?

Friends

Is it good to do things with friends but without spouse?
What will you do if one of you really likes to hang out with so and so and the other doesn't?

Health and Sickness

Do you have, or have you had any, sicknesses or physical problems that could affect our relationship? (Allergies, cancer, eating disorders, venereal disease, etc.)
Do you believe in divine healing and how would prayer relate to medical attention?
How do you think about exercise and healthy eating?
Do you have any habits that adversely affect health?

Previously posted as "Topics for Conversation When a Man and a Woman Are Considering Marriage."

Is The MPAA Asleep At The Switch

2009-08-04T07:55:00.002-05:00

I am someone who really likes movies. That is to say, I really enjoy a good movie. I like good, well thought out stories. I'm not one of those people who will say, well, I did like it because of the special effects. In this day and age, I kind of expect good special effects, so to say that a good job was done in that area should be a given these days in my mind, and honestly, I wouldn't care if a movie had substandard visuals, as long as there was a solid story as a base. I really like movies that make me think, where there is something under the surface, for the most part I don't really want to just sit there and be entertained, I would much rather be engaged.

Perhaps that is why one of my favorite movies is "12 Angry Men" with Henry Fonda, which was made in 1957, is in black and white, and nearly the entire movie takes place in a simple Jury Room. There is no question that this movie is 100% story driven, as there are virtually no (possibly none at all) special effects.

That being said, we all, especially if we have kids, look at movie ratings. You know, those letters that accompany all movies, and are set by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). For anyone who doesn't know, the ratings go like this, G For General Audiences, PG Parental Guidance Suggested as some material might not be suitable for Children, PG13 Parents Strongly Cautioned as some material might not be appropriate for children under 13, R Restricted no one under 17 admitted without a parent or guardian, and finally NC17 which means that no children 17 or under will be permitted under any circumstances. These are general guidelines, and of course, it is understood that different people will have different personal standards, and should take some care for themselves to make sure that they don't take their kids into a movie that is not suitable for them, but still, the guidelines should be reliable, in my opinion.

Lately I have noticed a trend toward rating movies lower than they really should be. For example, the other night my wife and I watched "The Dark Knight" which is the second of the new Batman movies, and a great movie in many respects, but violent and with a lot of adult themes and content. After the movie ended I asked my wife, "what would you think that was rated?" She said, "R, no question about it." So I picked up the case and there it was, "PG13." We were pretty stunned. Another great movie that came out in the past year was "Taken" with Liam Neason, a movie I highly recommend for adults, but again, another movie that deserved and R rating and once again was rated PG13.

On a more extreme note, the last of the Rambo movies, which came out at the beginning of 2008, was rated R by the MPAA, and certainly should have been at least that, but even the producers were surprised when they got back an "R" on their first cut. They had decided to make the movie that they wanted to make, and sent it in to the review board. They expected to receive a rating of NC17, and then follow MPAA guidance to get it down to an R. While they were happy that the initial cut came back with an R, and they didn't have to change anything, they were shocked, because they felt that they had made a movie that went beyond the "R" rating.

Even worse was the movie "Watchmen" which, aside from being one of the most horrible movies I've ever seen, and I'm very sorry I ever saw it, and if anyone ever whips out a DVD of it for you to watch, I have just one word of advice... RUN!!!! But aside from the fact that it is horrible, it was rated R, and there is no question whatsoever that it should have been NC17. On this one there really is no excuse for it having been rated R, being that no one should ever see it, but certainly no child should ever be exposed to a movie such as this.

Now, as I said, the MPAA is supposed to give guidelines, to help you to know how rough a movie is going to be, not to censor it, or to disallow certain aspects of a movie or story, with the exception of what is called hard core porn, or what most people know as X-rated material, which is simply not shown in normal theatres (although parts of Watchmen were certainly pornographic in nature, they did not cross over the line to actual, so-called, hard core porn).

My issue in this post is not with the type of movies that are being made, in a culture such as ours people are free to watch whatever kind of filth they wish to, and like I said, ultimately we are responsible for what movies we see (and believe me, if I had done some research into Watchmen ahead of time when my wife said she wanted to see it, I would have said no, and once I explained what I found she wouldn't have wanted to see it either) I still think that we should be able to trust the guidelines. Since the MPAA purports to evaluate movies and issue guidelines to help us to know which ones are family friendly, and which are not, and to what extent and so on, they should be consistent. I do have a problem with the lowering of standards in movie ratings, because this makes it harder to know what will be appropriate and what will not.

While at this present time the G and PG ratings are still pretty much on the nose, if the current trends continue, which there is no reason to think that they will not, it is only a matter of time before they cannot be trusted either.

I'm not asking the MPAA to adopt all of my standards and restrict what movies are shown, but just be consistent, and give us a fair shot at knowing what movies to see, and what movies to avoid.

Thought For A Monday

2009-08-03T11:27:00.001-05:00

Repentance isn't being sorry that you've done something bad, it is being sorry that you are the kind of person who would even do such a thing. (Adapted from "Today in the Word" from Moody Bible Institute)

Thought For Today

2009-08-01T21:39:00.002-05:00

We do not obey God because we are good. We are good because, and only to the extent that, we obey God.

Response from Representative Bill Posey

2009-07-30T15:26:00.002-05:00

July 30, 2009

Mr. Matthew Wiser
834 Bianca Drive Northeast
Palm Bay, FL 32905-5802

Dear Mr. Wiser,

The House of Representatives is planning a vote on comprehensive health care reform legislation (H.R. 3200) in September, and I want to share with you my concerns about this bill.

Washington has passed an unprecedented level of spending since January: $350 billion for the TARP bailout, a $410 billion omnibus appropriation bill, a $1 trillion stimulus bill, a record $3.5 trillion federal budget, and an $864 billion national energy tax. This spending level is unmatched in our nation's history. I voted against all of these bills. We will have a $1.8 trillion deficit this year and $1.5 trillion in 2010. This will increase our total national debt by 30% over two years – accumulating more debt in two years than between 1776 and 1991.

Unfortunately, I believe H.R. 3200 would only make this situation worse by adding trillions of dollars in spending and unfunded long-term costs and creating a new federal bureaucracy to run the nation's health care system. The President said that one of his top priorities was passing health care reform legislation that would control costs, yet the Director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office testified on July 17, that the proposed health care legislation "significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs."

Rather than curbing health care costs, Director Elmendorf said the costs would increase significantly. He added that "the federal budget is on an unsustainable path…will produce growing budget deficits… which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States." H.R. 3200 will further indebt future generations and cause serious harm to our overall economy. H.R. 3200 also greatly expands Washington's role in health care, but perhaps you might expect this given that the seven coauthors of this bill have spent a combined 205 years in the U.S. Congress. Washington has proven time and again that it is incapable of running effective, sustainable programs and Americans should expect more of the same from this bill.

This bill would move more than 100 million Americans from private health plans into the new government plan, where health care decisions will be decided by government bureaucrats whose chief aim is to control cost. This violates my primary principle: letting Americans keep their current health care plan if they so desire. 80% of Americans want to keep their current plan.

H.R. 3200 would put us on the path toward eliminating private health insurance choices. Here is how, as set forth on page 16. The bill sets up a new government-run program. Then after this program is established, insurance companies are prohibited from issuing any indiviudal policies outside of the new government programs. Americans without insurance would have no choice but to sign up for a plan under the government program that meets the govenment mandated benefits. Within the government program, the government plan (called the public option/government-run option) will pay providers 30% less than the non-government option. This lower price will entice millions of individuals and employers to drop current coverage and move to the government-run plan.

For those who remain outside of the government program, any change in jobs will end their existing coverage and force them into the government program. As fewer and fewer Americans are insured outside of the government program, the cost of medical coverage for those who remain in private plans will rise dramatically, and these plans will be unable to offer affordable coverage. At a health care rally earlier this year, Rep. Jan Schakowski, a leading national single payer advocate argued that this is a step toward a single payers system, stating: "This is a strategy about getting there and I believe we will."

In addition to the unsustainable costs and centralizing control of your health care in Washington, this bill harms the lifeblood of our economy: America's small businesses. Millions of small businesses are struggling to keep their doors open, yet H.R. 3200 imposes additional costly mandates and higher taxes. The U.S. unemployment rate is at a 26 year high of 9.4% and climbing. This is the worst time to impose costly mandates. According to a model developed by President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors Chair, Christina Romer, such a proposal could cost as many as 4.7 million jobs. This would be in addition to the 2.5 million jobs that may be lost due enactment of the National Energy Tax recently passed by the House.

Small businesses face several significant tax increases from the Congress and Administration: health care mandated pay-or-play or payroll taxes; new income taxes for successful small businesses; the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and resulting higher taxes; and cap-and-trade national energy taxes. All of these tax hikes and costly mandates would cripple our economy, hamper economic recovery, and lead to persistently higher unemployment. We need to free the engines of economic growth not saddle them the excesses of government.

My website, www.posey.house.gov/issues, has additional information regarding this bill and my ideas for solutions to the problem of the high cost of medical care. I will continue to advocate for reforms that focus on lowering costs, expanding Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), and enabling small businesses to pool resources to lower costs for their employees. Please visit my website to learn more about the bill, my solutions, and to take my constituent survey.

Sincerely,

Bill Posey
Member of Congress

Confirmation# 1705718

DISCLAIMER
If this e-mail was not sent to you directly from my Congressional E-mail Account, I cannot guarantee the integrity of the text of this letter. If you have any questions about the validity of this message, please call my office: Representative Bill Posey, Washington, DC, 202-225-3671.

If you would like to reply to this e-mail or conduct further correspondences via e-mail, you can do so by selecting "Contact Bill".

What You Need To Know About Health Care

2009-07-29T10:16:00.003-05:00

With all of the lies and hype in the media, there are some things that we need to make sure that people understand about what we will end up with if we allow a Government takeover of health care, and that they are lying in order to try to ram it through.

First of all, the number of uninsured that we hear about every day on various news outlets. Probably the number most often thrown around is 47 million, although you do also hear 50 million, 46 million, 46.5 million, and so on. You must understand somethings about this number to see that it is a complete lie. First of all, they use the 47 million figure to try to make you think that there are 47 million American Citizens that are chronically uninsured and simply have no hope of ever being covered. The truth is that some of this number, around 9 to 12 million, is illegal aliens, and not citizens at all. Another large chunk of this number comes from people who were without health insurance for less than four months while they were out of work, but had no serious long term lapse. Another large chunk is young people who can easily afford health insurance, but choose not to buy it, because they simply feel that they don't need it. So when the numbers are analyzed and understood, the fact is that there are somewhere from 10 to 15 million chronically uninsured American Citizens. Still an issue, but clearly something that doesn't require a Government takeover of health care to solve.

Another point is that in the United States being uninsured is not the same thing as not having access to health care. Because of laws in this nation, anyone who shows up at an Emergency Room must be evaluated and treated until they are stable, without regard to their ability to pay. By saying this I'm not trying to make a claim that the issue is solved, simply that we do not have millions of people dying in the streets because they don't have health care. Are there still some horror stories? Sure, but they do not arise from the fact that people are uninsured, and therefore, overhauling the insurance industry will not affect them in the slightest.

Furthermore, it must be understood that the claims made by the proponents of a Government takeover of health care are simply not possible. They claim that they will cover more people (47 million by their own claims) and expand services, while at the same time reducing costs. That is just utterly ridiculous on it's face. The only way that they can reduce costs is by rationing the care. That is to say that for each year there are X number of dollars available for each area of care, and once those dollars are gone, they are gone, and we don't do any more of that until next year. That means that they have to assign priority to different people to see who they will spend some of those precious few dollars on, and if you are old, or have some condition that renders you unable to hold down a job, and thereby pay taxes, you will not be the priority, you will simply be left to die, so that you won't burden the system for the "productive members of society." I'm not kidding, one of the main advisers on health care to the Obama Administration has stated in the past the Health Care dollars should not be spent on people with dementia or some other debilitating disease, and that he doesn't think that age discrimination is wrong because, now listen to this reasoning, everyone who is 65 was once 25.

If this plan gets pushed through, it will not be doctors and patients making choices about health care, it will be faceless, nameless, bureaucrats in cubicles, thousands of miles away, to whom you are nothing more than a number and a formula. These people who are pushing this plan accuse the Republicans of being the "party of No," claiming that we simply say no, and don't offer alternative plans. Of course this is another big lie, we have some plans that would actually work to make Health Care better, but even if we didn't, there would be nothing wrong with standing up and saying "NO" to making it worse.

Doing Vs. Waiting On The LORD

2009-07-25T15:56:00.001-05:00

How Much is $1 Trillion

2009-07-21T16:48:00.001-05:00

John Piper On The ESV Study Bible

2009-07-20T14:54:00.001-05:00

What If I Can't Believe In Jesus?

2009-07-16T15:51:00.000-05:00

"Oh, You Believe in Absolutes? What are They?"

2009-07-15T15:00:00.000-05:00

"Oh, You Believe in Absolutes? What are They?"

Gregory Koukl

A favorite ploy of professors whose teaching on relativism is challenged in class is to ask, “If you believe in moral absolutes, what are they?” A person might offer that it’s immoral to dock the professor’s pay just because he’s Jewish, or African-American, or a woman, or approves of homosexuals (or whatever your professor’s hot-button happens to be).

Chances are, though, if you suggest a moral absolute, he’ll cite those who disagree. He may think he’s made his case, but his reasoning is circular. He’s only repeating the error you’re challenging: It doesn’t follow that if different people—or different cultures, for that matter—have moral differences that none is correct and morals are relative.

The professor’s ploy is to change the subject. He challenges you to defend your view, but you haven’t expressed a view. He, however, is making a specific claim about morality and is sidestepping the challenge. The burden of proof is on him.

Students should not be afraid to challenge their professors if they do it with grace and respect. Respond this way:

Professor, it doesn’t really matter what I believe. I’m not making the claim. You are. I may even be on your side, for all you know. I’m just asking you to prove your point.

But when I ask a fair question, you change the subject and throw it back on me. You’re the one teaching morality is relative because you think cultures have different values. I’m simply asking if that works. So, please tell me how your conclusion follows.

Suggested resource: Tactics in Defending the Faith DVD

©1999 Gregory Koukl. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only.
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-733

A Remnant Of Beauty

2009-07-13T09:19:00.004-05:00

So often we, as Christians, will look at the world around us and talk about the beauty that we see there. In fact, sometimes you will hear Christians, or preachers, go on and on about the beauty and wonder of God's Creation, but is this really warranted? Well, it depends on how you're looking at it. It is true that there are ceaseless wonders in God's Creation, and it is true that there is beauty, but it's not as good as it could be.

You see, because of sin in this world, instead of the Paradise that God initially created, since the fall, we are surrounded on all sides by death, destruction and despair. In Genesis 1:31 we read, "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day." (ESV) God is calling His Creation "very good." That's not good by our standards, that's good by God's standards, that is beauty and wonder beyond what we can even imagine, but that's not the world that we live in today. Romans 8:20-22 says, "²⁰For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope ²¹that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. ²²For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now." (ESV) So it can be seen that it was not only humans that were affected by the fall, but all of Creation is in "bondage to corruption" because of the curse of sin, and will be until God sets all things right at the end of the age.

So, God created all things in total perfection, and that total perfection was despotically ravaged by man's fall into sin. At the end of time, when the Lord Jesus Christ returns to this earth, and all of humanity is resurrected, either to eternal Glory, or to eternal destruction, God will restore His creation to it's ultimate perfection, and it's glorious beauty, which will never be desecrated again.

For the time being though, we live with a fallen world, and all the beauty that we see around us is but a remnant of the former beauty that God's Creation once was. So, if the remnants of beauty that can be seen in mountains and flowers and creatures, and many other things, are moving and stirring to us now, just wait, because we haven't seen anything yet!

Punishments

2009-07-10T15:45:00.000-05:00

Would Hitler and Mother Teresa Suffer the Same Fate if They Weren't Christians?

Gregory Koukl

Yes and no. No, because they'd answer for different crimes and, as such, their judgment would be different. Just as there are degrees of sin (see John 19:11), there are degrees of punishment. Jesus said Sodom would fare better than Capernaum in the day of judgment (Matthew 11:24), though each would be condemned.

Yes, because each person must ultimately answer for his own sins--Hitler for his, Mother Teresa for hers, you and I for ours. Unless, of course, Jesus is allowed to answer for them.

That is the good news: Jesus, though rich, for our sake became poor, that we through His poverty might become rich (2 Cor. 8:9).

©1999 Gregory Koukl. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only.
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org

How About A Prayer For Billy Mays?

2009-07-09T15:26:00.003-05:00

All we have heard about for nearly two weeks now is Michael Jackson. They have been treating him like some kind of conquering hero. I was going to say they've been treating him like Jesus, but let's face it, he's been getting much better press than Jesus. My purpose here is not to denigrate Jackson, I've acknowledged before that he was a big celebrity and that his death and things surrounding it are news, but the nonstop coverage and singing of his praises has been way out of hand. The fact is that he was a deeply troubled man, and really, not someone you would want as a role model for your children. And that's based on the hard and fast facts, not even taking into account the allegations. I know I'll have to talk about that a little, so let me just say this, we don't know for sure if Jackson did in fact molest those boys. It is true that he was never convicted, and it is also true that he paid off some families, neither of which proves for sure if he did or didn't. There are some people who I respect that claim that there is no way he did that, and there are people I respect who say that it is certain that he did. Either way, he's no role model.

Lost in this virtual sea of Jackson coverage has been Billy Mays. Unlike Jackson, Mays' death was not connected to drug use. There's not some huge mystery surrounding it. He hit his head when is plane came down hard on the runway, and he thought he was fine. The next morning he was dead. This actually gave the news outlets a great opportunity in one way, that is that they could have spent quite a bit of time talking with medical experts about head injuries and when you need to take them very seriously. I'm sure that there was some of that, but not nearly enough, because they just couldn't wait to get back to stories about Jackson (like tracking down his former pet monkey!). So, while Jackson's death, tragic as it may be, is linked to drugs, Billy Mays died going about his job and life.

Also, Billy Mays was a good man. A father, a son, a husband. He didn't start out as the worlds premier pitchman, he had to work at it. He learned to ply his trade on the Boardwalk in Atlantic City, pitching products to the people there, no small task I'm sure. He found something he liked to do, and he worked very hard at it, and became, quite frankly, the very best in the world at what he did.

If you watched the show he co-stared in on the Discovery Channel, "Pitchmen," you would see that Billy could be a little cocky at times, and was a little quirky, but we all have flaws, and I can see where it could be tough not to be a little bit cocky if you were the very best in the entire world at what you do, so I'm not even hammering him on that. Still, I have to say again, he was a good man. He was the type of guy you could see yourself hanging out with and talking to. Yes he was quite wealthy, but as I said before, he worked long and hard to get there.

I so enjoyed watching "Pitchmen" that I was utterly floored when I first learned of his death. Believe me when I say, I have nothing but sympathy for his family. I do pray for them often, and hope that they turn to God for the strength to get through this tough time.

I understand that Billy Mays might not be as big of a news story as Michael Jackson, but would it be ok, maybe, to take a break from the building up of a man who doesn't deserve all the praise, and remember a man who does?

What Is God's Glory?

2009-07-08T15:13:00.000-05:00

A Very Old Argument

2009-07-07T16:19:00.004-05:00

When he was on the campaign trail, then candidate, Obama talked a lot about change, and said that it was time for new, fresh ideas. However, as soon as he became President, he bought into the same old arguments for Government intrusion into the Economy and American life. Something always seemed really off to me about the whole "too big to fail" argument. And as for Obama himself, he likes to say that he really doesn't want to take over companies and such, but he just has to, because of the economy. Basically saying that, while having the Government take over everything would be bad, the economy would just collapse if he doesn't do it.

Aside from the fact that all of the things that he has done will not do anything to fix the economy (Yes, I know Bush started some of this stuff, but Obama has started quite a bit more, and has ramped up all the stuff that Bush started), there was something else that I couldn't quite nail down. Then it finally hit me. This is an argument so old that no one alive today actually heard it first hand. However, if you've studied American History in depth at all, you have heard this argument before, it went something like this, "Well, personally I don't think we should have Slavery in the United States, but if we get rid of it, the economy will collapse, so we just have to accept Slavery." In that case the truth was that the people making that argument were either cowards, unwilling to stand up for what was right and take some risks, or, more likely, they were really pro Slavery and looking for an excuse to continue the practice. In the current case we are looking at people, from Obama on down, who really do want to install a Marxist Government, and are using the excuse of the economy to do it.

While personal Slavery is certainly a worse form of Slavery than Marxist enslavement, under the Marxist system it is the entire populace that is enslaved.

It really is remarkable to me that the very same argument that was used by the pro Slavery crowd 150 years go, is now being used by another group whose interest lies in enslaving us all.

Trying To Understand Palin

2009-07-06T00:59:00.003-05:00

Friday afternoon when I turned on the news to see what was going on in the world, I found out that there really was some big news breaking. There was Governor Sarah Palin announcing that she would not seek re-election as Governor of Alaska. My very first reaction to this news was just a little bit of excitement. I figured that this meant that for sure she was going to be running for President in 2012. I thought, hey, that's great, she's not going to be one of those that spends two years on the campaign trail while they're supposed to be doing another job, that's great! But she wasn't done. She went on to say that later this month she will be resigning as Governor of Alaska. Now, what to make of this? Honestly, at that moment, I just didn't know. I thought a lot about it. I wondered a lot of things. Certainly she has no duty to run for a second term, but, I wondered, doesn't she have a duty to complete the term that she was elected to? I had some serious thinking to do, and I needed to review what Governor Palin herself had said in her announcement. I did that, and I thought about it. I discussed it some over at the TalkWisdom blog, and Saturday morning I listened to "The Mark Levin Show" from Friday night. After all of this, I think I have some understanding of what is going on. At least based on the facts that are now before us.

It seems that we must understand that Governor Palin had some very specific things that she wished to accomplish as Governor of Alaska, many of which have been accomplished, and some of which she has been able to lay the groundwork for. Further, ever since John McCain asked her to be his running mate in last years Presidential election, she has been plagued with ethics charges, all of which have been totally false, but have still greatly impeded her ability to be a Governor. She said herself that there have been 15 ethics complaints against her since the announcement of her candidacy for Vice President, all of which have been dropped because they lacked any merit. Yet she and her staff have had to spend vast quantities of time addressing these false charges, not to mention a great deal of money that she had to spend on them. So, resigning now really is the best thing for the State of Alaska, because, even though she has been an excellent and effective Governor, all of these partisan attacks from the Democrats have mired the Governors office, and by stepping aside she can allow the business of the State to get underway once again. And besides, she is handing the job off to her Lt. Governor, who has worked side by side with her so far, and is totally on board with what she has been doing and trying to get done.

Furthermore, we have to consider the fact that Alaska is a long way from the rest of the Country. Now don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful State, I've been there once, and I've studied the State some, and I love Alaska, and would dearly love to go back there someday. Alaska is also a very important State for many reasons, and I don't wish to downplay or degrade the wonderful State in any way, or in any measure, but the fact remains that it is physically far away from the lower 48 (as we are all called up there). Besides being physically far way, Alaska and Alaska politics are far away from the minds of many of the American people. If Sarah Palin wants to have any chance of being elected President in 2012, she has to be on the minds of the people in the lower 48 States, and she can't do this effectively from the office of the Governor of the State of Alaska, and if she tried to, it wouldn't be right or fair to the people of the great State of Alaska, because they deserve more than a part time Governor, and Governor Palin understands this.

Sarah Palin stated that she intends to campaign for and support likeminded politicians anywhere that she finds them, and that that, to me anyway, implies that she intends to be making the rounds in our Nation, speaking at rallies, and being on the campaign trail for others. This would also be an important step if she does indeed intend to run for President. Not only would doing this keep her forefront in the minds of the American people, it would also build her a big network, and a lot of support, and a very solid base from which to launch a Presidential bid, if that is in fact her intention.

So, while I struggled with this announcement when it first came out, and while it really gave me pause, upon reflection, I have to say, it looks like it may be a very good thing. It would appear that far from declaring her Political career to be over, Sarah Palin may have just kicked it into high gear. What's certain is that this announcement doesn't put her out of the running in any measure, it's what she does over the next year or so that will tell the tale, and I for one am looking on with great anticipation.

Sarah Palin's Speech

2009-07-05T08:06:00.001-05:00

Gov. Sarah Palin:

Hi Alaska, I appreciate speaking directly TO you, the people I serve, as your Governor.

People who know me know that besides faith and family, nothing's more important to me than our beloved Alaska. Serving her people is the greatest honor I could imagine.

I want Alaskans to grasp what can be in store for our state. We were purchased as a territory because a member of President Abe Lincoln's cabinet, William Seward, providentially saw in this great land, vast riches, beauty, strategic placement on the globe, and opportunity. He boldly looked "North to the Future". But he endured such ridicule and mocking for his vision for Alaska, remember the adversaries scoffed, calling this "Seward's Folly". Seward withstood such disdain as he chose the uncomfortable, unconventional, but RIGHT path to secure Alaska, so Alaska could help secure the United States.

Alaska’s mission – to contribute to America. We’re strategic IN the world as the air crossroads OF the world, as a gatekeeper of the continent. Bold visionaries knew this - Alaska would be part of America's great destiny.

Our destiny to be reached by responsibly developing our natural resources. This land, blessed with clean air, water, wildlife, minerals, AND oil and gas. It's energy! God gave us energy.

So to serve the state is a humbling responsibility, because I know in my soul that Alaska is of such import, for America’s security, in our very volatile world. And you know me by now, I promised even four years ago to show MY independence… no more conventional “politics as usual”.

And we are doing well! My administration's accomplishments speak for themselves. We work tirelessly for Alaskans.

We aggressively and responsibly develop our resources because they were created to be used to better our world... to HELP people... and we protect the environment and Alaskans (the resource owners) foremost with our policies.

Here’s some of the things we’ve done:

We created a petroleum integrity office to oversee safe development. We held the line FOR Alaskans on Point Thomson – and finally for the first time in decades – they’re drilling for oil and gas.

We have AGIA, the gasline project – a massive bi-partisan victory (the vote was 58 to 1!) – also succeeding as intended - protecting Alaskans as our clean natural gas will flow to energize us, and America, through a competitive, pro-private sector project. This is the largest private sector energy project, ever. THIS is energy independence.

And ACES – another bipartisan effort – is working as intended and industry is publicly acknowledging its success. Our new oil and gas “clear and equitable formula” is so Alaskans will no longer be taken advantage of. ACES incentivizes NEW exploration and development and JOBS that were previously not going to happen with a monopolized North Slope oil basin.

We cleaned up previously accepted unethical actions; we ushered in bi-partisan Ethics Reform.

We also slowed the rate of government growth, we worked with the Legislature to save billions of dollars for the future, and I made no lobbyist friends with my hundreds of millions of dollars in budget vetoes... but living beyond our means today is irresponsible for tomorrow.

We took government out of the dairy business and put it back into private-sector hands – where it should be.

We provided unprecedented support for education initiatives, and with the right leadership, finally filled long-vacant public safety positions. We built a sub-Cabinet on Climate Change and took heat from Outside special interests for our biologically-sound wildlife management for abundance.

We broke ground on the new prison.

And we made common sense conservative choices to eliminate personal luxuries like the jet, the chef, the junkets... the entourage.

And the Lt. Governor and I said "no" to our pay raises. So much success in this first term – and with this success I am proud to take credit... for hiring the right people! Our goal was to achieve a gasline project, more fair oil and gas valuation, and ethics reform in four years. We did it in two. It’s because of the people… good public servants surrounding the Governor's office, with servants' hearts and astounding work ethic... THEY are Alaska's success!

We are doing well! I wish you'd hear MORE from the media of your state's progress and how we tackle Outside interests - daily - SPECIAL interests that would stymie our state. Even those debt-ridden stimulus dollars that would force the heavy hand of federal government into our communities with an “all-knowing attitude” – I have taken the slings and arrows with that unpopular move to veto because I know being right is better than being popular. Some of those dollars would harm Alaska and harm America – I resisted those dollars because of the obscene national debt we’re forcing our children to pay, because of today’s Big Government spending; it’s immoral and doesn’t even make economic sense!

Another accomplishment – our Law Department protected states’ rights – TWO huge U.S. Supreme Court reversals came down against that liberal Ninth Circuit, deciding in OUR state’s favor over the last two weeks. We’re protectors of our Constitution – federalists protect states’ rights as mandated in 10th amendment.

But you don’t hear much of the good stuff in the press anymore, do you?

Some say things changed for me on August 29th last year – the day John McCain tapped me to be his running-mate – I say others changed.

Let me speak to that for a minute.

Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice. Over the past nine months I've been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations – such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters’ questions.

Every one – all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We’ve won! But it hasn't been cheap - the State has wasted THOUSANDS of hours of YOUR time and shelled out some two million of YOUR dollars to respond to “opposition research” – that’s money NOT going to fund teachers or troopers – or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the “politics of personal destruction” … Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn’t cost them a dime so they’re not going to stop draining public resources – spending other peoples’ money in their game.

It’s pretty insane – my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with THIS instead of progressing our state now. I know I promised no more “politics as usual,” but THIS isn’t what anyone had in mind for ALASKA.

If I have learned one thing: LIFE is about choices!

And one chooses how to react to circumstances. You can choose to engage in things that tear down, or build up. I choose to work very hard on a path for fruitfulness and productivity. I choose NOT to tear down and waste precious time; but to build UP this state and our country, and her industrious, generous, patriotic, free people!

Life is too short to compromise time and resources... it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: "Sit down and shut up", but that's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out. And a problem in our country today is apathy. It would be apathetic to just hunker down and “go with the flow”.

Nah, only dead fish "go with the flow".

No. Productive, fulfilled people determine where to put their efforts, choosing to wisely utilize precious time... to BUILD UP.

And there is such a need to BUILD up and FIGHT for our state and our country. I choose to FIGHT for it! And I'll work hard for others who still believe in free enterprise and smaller government; strong national security for our country and support for our troops; energy independence; and for those who will protect freedom and equality and LIFE... I'll work for and campaign for those PROUD to be American, and those who are INSPIRED by our ideals and won't deride them.

I WILL support others who seek to serve, in or out of office, for the RIGHT reasons, and I don't care what party they're in or no party at all. Inside Alaska – or Outside Alaska.

But I won’t do it from the Governor’s desk.

I've never believed that I, nor anyone else, needs a title to do this - to make a difference... to HELP people. So I choose, for my State and my family, more "freedom" to progress, all the way around... so that Alaska may progress... I will not seek re-election as Governor.

And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn’t run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks… travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade – as so many politicians do. And then I thought – that’s what’s wrong – many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and “milk it”. I’m not putting Alaska through that – I promised efficiencies and effectiveness! ? That’s not how I am wired. I am not wired to operate under the same old “politics as usual.” I promised that four years ago – and I meant it.

It’s not what is best for Alaska.

I am determined to take the right path for Alaska even though it is unconventional and not so comfortable.

With this announcement that I am not seeking re-election… I’ve determined it’s best to transfer the authority of governor to Lieutenant Governor Parnell; and I am willing to do so, so that this administration – with its positive agenda, its accomplishments, and its successful road to an incredible future – can continue without interruption and with great administrative and legislative success.

My choice is to take a stand and effect change – not hit our heads against the wall and watch valuable state time and money, millions of your dollars, go down the drain in this new environment. Rather, we know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time, on another scale, and actually make a difference for our priorities – and so we will, for Alaskans and for Americans.

Let me go back to a comfortable analogy for me – sports… basketball. I use it because you’re naïve if you don’t see the national full-court press picking away right now: A good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket… and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can WIN. And I’m doing that – keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities – smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom! And I know when it’s time to pass the ball – for victory.

I have given my reasons candidly and truthfully… and my last day won’t be for another few weeks so the transition will be very smooth. In fact, we will look to swear Sean in – in Fairbanks at the conclusion of our Governor’s picnics.

I do not want to disappoint anyone with my decision; all I can ask is that you TRUST me with this decision – but it’s no more “politics as usual”.

Some Alaskans don’t mind wasting public dollars and state time. I do. I cannot stand here as your Governor and allow millions upon millions of our dollars go to waste just so I can hold the title of Governor. And my children won’t allow it either. ? Some will question the timing. ? Let’s just say, this decision has been in the works for awhile…

In fact, this decision comes after much consideration, and finally polling the most important people in my life - my children (where the count was unanimous... well, in response to asking: "Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children's future from OUTSIDE the Governor's office?" It was four "yes's" and one "hell yeah!" The "hell yeah" sealed it - and someday I'll talk about the details of that... I think much of it had to do with the kids seeing their baby brother Trig mocked by some pretty mean-spirited adults recently.) Um, by the way, sure wish folks could ever, ever understand that we ALL could learn so much from someone like Trig - I know he needs me, but I need him even more... what a child can offer to set priorities RIGHT – that time is precious... the world needs more "Trigs", not fewer.

My decision was also fortified during this most recent trip to Kosovo and Landstuhl, to visit our wounded soldiers overseas, those who sacrifice themselves in war for OUR freedom and security… we can ALL learn from our selfless Troops… they’re bold, they don’t give up, they take a stand and know that LIFE is short so they choose to NOT waste time. They choose to be productive and to serve something greater than SELF... and to build up their families, their states, our country. These Troops and their important missions – those are truly the worthy causes in this world and should be the public priority with time and resources and NOT this local / superficial wasteful political bloodsport.

May we ALL learn from them!

*((Gotta put First Things First))*

First things first: as Governor, I love my job and I love Alaska. It hurts to make this choice but I am doing what’s best for Alaska. I’ve explained why… though I think of the saying on my parents’ refrigerator that says “Don’t explain: your friends don’t need it and your enemies won’t believe you anyway.”

But I have given my reasons… no more “politics as usual” and I am taking my fight for what’s right – for Alaska – in a new direction.

Now, despite this, I don’t want any Alaskan dissuaded from entering politics after seeing this REAL “climate change” that began in August… no, we NEED hardworking, average Americans fighting for what’s right! And I will support you because we need YOU and YOU can effect change, and I can too on the outside.

We need those who will respect our Constitution where government’s supposed to serve from the BOTTOM UP, not move toward this TOP DOWN big government take-over… but rather, will be protectors of individual rights - who also have enough common sense to acknowledge when conditions have drastically changed and are willing to call an audible and pass the ball when it’s time so the team can win! And that is what I’m doing!

Remember Alaska… America is now, more than ever, looking North to the Future. It'll be good. So God bless you, and from me and my family - to ALL Alaska - you have my heart.

And we will be in the capable hands of our Lieutenant Governor, Sean Parnell. And Lieutenant General Craig Campbell will assume the role of Lieutenant Governor. And it is my promise to you that I will always be standing by, ready to assist. We have a good, positive agenda for Alaska.

In the words of General MacArthur said, “We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.”

Independence Day Post

2009-07-04T13:08:00.002-05:00

Last year on Independence Day I posted the Declaration of Independence, and I thought about doing it again, because too many people haven't read it, but for this year, if you want to see it, you can go back and look under July 4 of last year. For this year though, I thought it might be important to discuss something that is going on in our world today.

You may have seen on the news that the military of Honduras has removed the President from power, and you may have seen that President Obama has condemned this action, and called it illegal, but it is highly doubtful that you have seen all the facts.

Under the Constitution of Honduras, much like our own in this respect, a President is allowed to serve only two terms. The President of Honduras tried to illegally alter the Constitution through the backdoor, to allow him to run for a third term. It was the Supreme Court of Honduras that decided that the President was engaged in illegal activity and ordered his removal, which the military carried out, and the Congress of Honduras who appointed a temporary replacement. Hardly a "Military Coup" as it has been called by the liberal press in the US.

Why is it that President Obama, who looks at the horrors being perpetrated on the citizens of Iran by the Islamo-Nazi regime there, and can only muster such inane nonsense as, gee, that's terrible, but we can't interfere, doesn't have any issue coming out with a full throated condemnation of the legal and legitimate actions of the Government of Honduras? When tens of thousands of people took to the streets in Iran, because the election there had been stolen from them, Obama and most of the people in the media all but ignored it, yet now, when a President is ousted for violating the laws of his nation, and attempting to set himself up as a dictator, Obama comes out strongly in his defense, and the mainstream media in the US searches out the 1,000 protesters who support the would-be dictator, who are being allowed to protest and state their opinions, as long as they stay peaceful.

Why is it that in both cases our President decided that he had to take the side of the Tyrant?

Is it too extreme to think that he has plans to hold on to power in the US at all costs? That he has no intention of stepping down after 4 years if defeated, or 8 years if re-elected? I don't know, in some ways that seems a little nuts, but at the same time, in two cases, this year alone, he has come down on the side of two people who were doing exactly the same thing.

Unfortunately, our system was set up in such a way that allowed people to just not care what was going on, and it has allowed Statists in our Government to do pretty much anything they wanted, but the time for that is over, unless you want to watch soft Tyranny that has been developing over the last 80 years, and ramping up big time here recently, turn into a real hard tyranny, it is time to become active and defeat the statists before it's too late.

Why Mark Sanford Should Resign

2009-07-03T07:39:00.001-05:00

Some Democrats are claiming that Mark Sanford should resign because he is a Republican who has always talked about family values, and then failed to live up to them. Some Republicans are making the rather bizarre argument that he should stay in his job because having an affair isn't related to his ability to Govern his State. Both of these groups are off the mark.

First of all, just because he claimed to hold to certain values, and then it turns out he's a lying, cheating piece of crap, doesn't reflect on the values he claimed to hold. If a father teaches his children not to steal, and then it turns out that he has stolen millions of dollars from his company, does that mean that he was wrong when he told his children that stealing was bad? Are we required to say that stealing is OK because he didn't live up to the standard that he preached to his children? Hardly. By the same token, what Sanford claimed to think about cheating and the sanctity of marriage has nothing to do with this, even if he had never said a single word about family values, but still cheated on his wife, he would be a lying, cheating piece of crap, just as he is now.

On the other hand, the office of Governor is a position of trust. Being a husband is also a position of trust. When a man is married he takes a sacred oath before God and man, that he will love, honor, and cherish his wife for the rest of his life. The marriage vow, deeply personal, and yet highly public, is not to be taken lightly. The oath that a man swears to be faithful to his wife should be fundamental to him, shaping all aspects of his life. He must be willing to deny his own selfish desires any time they may violate the vow that he has made. In many regards, the office of Governor is no different. A man (or woman, but I'm talking about a specific man here) takes an oath to do what is right and good for the people of his State, laying aside his own selfish desires, and vows to always stand up and fight for the people of his State. How can the people of South Carolina possibly trust Mark Sanford to uphold his oath to them if he couldn't be bothered upholding his oath to his own wife? Quite frankly, they can't.

It is also time for Sanford to put his own career aside for another reason. He should step aside for the good of the GOP. Unless it is his intention to hand victory to the Democrats in the next Gubernatorial election, he needs to allow the South Carolina GOP to some breathing room to try to pick up the pieces and actually have a shot at staying in power, which will be almost impossible if he remains in office.

Let's remember that being a Governor is not like being an actor. Actors can do good work even if they are total schmucks who can't be trusted for anything at all, ever. Being an actor is not a position of trust. I'm not saying that I encourage actors to be unfaithful, just that they don't need to quit being an actor because of it. But anyone who is in a position of trust, be they a Governor, a Senator, a President, or anyone else in a position of trust, who can't even honor a sacred vow to be faithful to their spouse, should not remain in office.

The Stolen Election

2009-07-02T05:54:00.002-05:00

Well, the Democrats have finally done it. They have finally managed to flat out steal and election. No, I'm not talking about Obama, as much as it pains me to say it, he actually won his, though 52.8% of the vote is hardly a landslide. Don't get me wrong, there was plenty of fraud involved in Obama's election, but it seems that it was not sufficient to account for his victory.

Anyway, I'm talking today about the Spiteful Troll, Al Franken, now officially Senator Franken from the once great State of Minnesota. Here we saw every kind of fraud and abuse imaginable. Of course we had voter registration fraud at the hands of ACORN and others, registering dead people and imaginary people, and whoever else they could think of. We saw voter fraud, with some of those fraudulent registrants showing up to vote. And when those two types of fraud proved not to be enough to put the failed comedian over the top, we got to see some straight up, in your face, election fraud, with several democrat districts reporting more votes than there are registered voters in those districts, and shockingly, all the extra votes were for the spiteful troll.

It is truly stunning how blatant the fraud was in particular election. Without even trying to hide it, some of the election officials would reject ballots cast for Senator Norm Coleman due to some claimed flaw, and then turn around and count ballots for the spiteful troll that possessed the exact same supposed flaw. This really does amount to an in your face, no holds barred, stolen election, right here in the United States Of America. It is truly stunning.

What's perhaps even more shocking about all of this is the fact that they have gotten away with it! Nobody has stepped up to stop it so far in the process, and now that Franken has been declared the winner, you can be certain that no one will. It has even been through the courts, and they have allowed this abuse to go on.

The bright side of all of this comes from the fact that they needed to resort to fraud in order to fix the election. We can at least have some faith that Elections in the US are not completely rigged, and your vote can still count, as long as it's not a close vote. Our only hope for the future is that we are able to educate and inform enough people, and get enough people out to vote the right way, that in the future when good Republicans win an election, they do so with a victory margin that is too large to be overcome by democrat fraud.

A Bedtime Story For The Kids

2009-06-30T13:03:00.002-05:00

I'm a loner this week. That is to say, my wife and kids are in Pennsylvania visiting family and I'm still here in Florida by myself. The kids, both mine and my Niece, like for me to tell them bedtime stories that I make up, so, I thought that it might be fun to write one and sent it up to them. So I did. I'm told it was quite a hit, and I thought I'd share it here. I know it's kind of cheesy, but come on, the target audience is between 5 and 9.
***************************************************

Once upon a time in a faraway land there lived a small family on the outskirts of a grand and mighty Kingdom.

The family consisted of a father and mother and a little boy.

Life could be hard for the family, since they didn't own much, and the little boy's feet didn't work quite right.

Shortly after Jacob had been born, one of his feet had been hurt in a terrible accident, leaving him to shuffle, dragging his bad foot behind him, for his entire life.

All three of them worked hard, day in and day out, to earn enough money and grow enough food just so that they could survive.

From the time that Jacob was very young his father would wake him just as the first grey light of morning was beginning to paint the sky.

From his earliest memories, every morning when his father woke him up he would find his mother preparing breakfast.

Breakfast didn't always amount to much, sometimes just a bit of rice, or some fruit they had managed to pick, or, on very special occasions, an egg for them all to share.

Once breakfast was finished, the three of them would spend the day going about their work, pausing briefly for lunch, if there was any to be had.

Work was long and hard, and the pay was meager.

At the end of each day, just after the sun had gone down, they would all return to their home.

Not much more than a hut really, but the four walls were strong, and the roof was solid and well built, it was safe, and it was home.

So meager was their living, that even Sundays could not be complete days of rest, there was still much to be done.

Sunday was very special for a number of reasons, though.

You see, Sunday was the one day when work was not from sun up to sun down.

On Sundays the work was early in the morning, with a long break when they could go to a neighbors house and hear someone read and teach from the Bible.

Then they would go home, finish the chores that needed to be done, and then spend the rest of the day together.

For all the hardship that this life offered, Jacob and his parents were very happy.

They loved each other, and they were always willing to help anyone in need.

They would even share their meager food with someone who was hungry, and none of them ever complained about it.

This is the story of just such an occasion.

It was a Thursday evening, and Jacob was shuffling home with some fruit that was his pay for working in the orchard of a nobleman.

It was late, and the sun was already nearly down, when Jacob heard someone crying.

As he drew near he saw a young lady sitting by the side of the road, looking like she had taken quite a tumble.

Her dress was torn and dirty, but he could tell that it had been a very nice one before whatever had happened to it, and to her.

Jacob carefully bowed his head low toward the ground, showing great respect, as someone of his status in the Kingdom must do.

"My lady," he said softly, "forgive me for approaching you, but it is late and this road may not be safe after dark."

The crying stopped and she looked up at him, after a moment she asked, "who are you."

He raised his head slightly so that he could see her and said, "My name is Jacob, is there some way that I can help you?"

"I have nowhere to go tonight," was her simple reply.

"Well, I don't have much to offer, but I know my parents would never wish for you to sleep out in the woods, if it pleases you, my lady, come with me."

She rose to her feet, and followed him down the dark dirt road to the little hut that his family called home.

Just as Jacob had promised, his parents were warm and inviting, careful always to be respectful, for she seemed that she might be a nobleman's daughter.

They shared what food they had with her at dinner time, and Jacob's mother cleaned her cuts and mended her dress.

She had not told them who she was, or what had happened to her, nor even her name up to this point.

She was surprised by the interest they showed in her, and they love they showed to her, even though they didn't know her.

When it was time for bed, such as that was, Jacob's father asked the young lady, "if I may be so bold, what is your name? So that we may know what to call you."

She smiled, just now realizing that she hadn't been properly introduced, since she wasn't used to having to do that kind of thing herself.

"I am called Abby," was all she said.

This was enough for Jacob and his parents, and living so far from the castle as they did, the connection to Princess Abigail never crossed their minds.

Early the next morning, Abby awoke with the family, shared in the meager breakfast, and then, something she had never dreamed of, she shared in their chores.

For the next few weeks Abby lived and worked with Jacob and his parents, always working hard and doing her fair share.

Finally, one night after dinner, she started speaking.

"As I'm sure you've been able to tell, I come from a life that is much different than yours.

"In my... um... house, there is always plenty of food to eat, and I've never had to work for any of it, or for anything at all.

"All I've ever done is to sit around and look pretty."

Jacob's mother smiled at her and said, "You do that quite well dear, wouldn't you agree Jacob?"

Jacob turned red and started to stammer, not knowing what would be an appropriate reply, although he did agree, wholeheartedly.

Abby went on, "But for all the things that I had, all the food, and all the servants, I never had what I wanted most, I never felt loved.

"I never wanted to be ungrateful for all the things that I had, but I was never happy.

"So I took a horse from the stable went for a ride, something spooked the horse and he threw me, that was when Jacob found me by the side of the road.

"I never knew that there were people living right here in this Kingdom who got by with so little, not knowing from day to day if there will be enough food to eat.

"And I've never worked like this before in my life, or even close to it. But for all that, I want to thank you, I have never been so happy in all my life as I have been since I've been here with you."

Jacob's father smiled and said, "And it's been a joy having you here, Abby, and you are welcome to stay as long as you like, but do you think you're parents might be worried about you?"

"I guess they might be," she replied, "and I guess I need to be getting on home, but I would like to return your hospitality, in the morning, would you be willing to come to my home with me?"

So, in the morning, instead of working the day away, Jacob and his parents followed Abby along the dusty road back toward the center of the Kingdom.

As they walked, on and on and on it seemed, and the Castle kept growing larger in the distance, Jacob's father's curiosity got the better of him.

"Abby, do you live very near the Castle?" He asked.

"Oh yes, very near," was all she said.

The three commoners followed in stunned silence as Abby led them right through the gates and across the castle draw bridge.

When the guard at the inner gate saw her he fell to his knees and to the astonishment of Jacob and his parents he said, "your Highness, we have been worried sick and looking everywhere for you, are you alright?"

Abby smiled and said, "Yes, I'm quite alright, you may rise."

The guard stood up and shouted across the courtyard, "Thomas, tell the captain and inform the King, Princess Abigail has returned, safe and sound!"

Turning to the now very pale and trembling trio she said, "come now, it's quite alright, you are my guests."

That night, the three lowly commoners ate dinner at the King's table, a feast such as they had never imagined possible.

After a few days of being back at the Castle, Princess Abigail requested and audience with her father, the King, which was promptly granted.

She had someone provide Jacob with a new suit of clothes, and made sure he was cleaned up nicely, then took him by the hand and led him into the throne room, before the King.

Before she had a chance to speak the King looked down at Jacob and said, "Young man, I want to thank you and your family, not only for helping my daughter to survive, but also because I have never seen her so happy in all my days."

Jacob bowed low, but was too scared to speak.

Still holding tightly to Jacob's hand Abigail made her startling request... well, it was startling to King's servants and guards, but not to the King.

"Father," She said, "as I am the youngest of your children, I ask that I could be released from the requirement that I must marry a prince."

Jacob, dumbfounded by all of this, had no idea what was going on, so when the King asked him, "Jacob, is that what you want as well?" He didn't know how to respond.

After a moment the King realized that Jacob hadn't put it all together yet and decided to help him out, "Son," he said kindly, "she's asking me to give her permission to marry you."

It took a moment, but as understanding dawned on Jacob he looked at Abby, not quite sure that this was what she had in mind, but she looked into his eyes and nodded her head.

Jacob's heart raced in his chest and suddenly he was barely able to contain his joy, "Yes, your majesty, I would like that very much!"

The King laughed with overflowing joy and said, "Then it is done, we will have a grand wedding, and a grand feast, and you and my daughter, and you're parents will live on the Castle grounds, and enjoy the benefits that come with being royalty."

So it was that a lowly boy from the outskirts of the Kingdom married Princess Abigail.

And Jacob, and his lovely wife Abigail, and Jacob's parents lived happily ever after, not because they now enjoyed a life of riches, but because they understood where true joy and true happiness are to be found.

THE END

A Truly Sad Day

2009-06-26T16:11:00.003-05:00

Michael Jackson died yesterday, but that's not why I'm saying that it's a truly sad day. I understand that it is sad news for a lot of people who are his fans, and especially for his family and close friends, and I do feel for those people. But what is truly sad about all of this is the media coverage.

The passing of a celebrity of Jackson's stature is certainly newsworthy, and is going to be a big story, no question about it, and when there is something new to report, or something important to add to a previous report, that is a legitimate thing for the media to engage in. If that was the nature of the reporting of this story, I would have no problem with it at all. Unfortunately, that is not what I have seen. I have seen very little real news regarding the singers death, and virtually nonstop coverage of his life and all the times that he's been in the news in the past, and the seemingly endless line of Celebrities who think that they must put out a statement regarding his death.

I would have sighed and shrugged all of this off if it had been a slow news day, but therein lies the problem, it wasn't.

As I sit here, the Islamo-Nazi regime that runs Iran is brutally murdering their own people in the streets, shooting them, chasing them down and beating them with fists and with clubs, and kicking them to death, and, even more horrifyingly, in some cases, slaughtering them with axes! All because they had the courage to stand up and demand that the elections be honest! And the strongest response from our President so far is to tell them that they aren't welcome for hotdogs on July 4th after all. What he should be telling them is to stop it now, that we will not stand for it, and that if it continues they face a serious risk of the United States Marines knocking on their door and kicking their sorry butts all over the country! Maybe he could leave off the threat, but certainly he needs to be saying the other part.

Also today, the US House Of Representatives is debating the so-called "Cap and Trade" energy bill, which is much better defined, as Mark Levin calls it, "Tax and Kill." What it amounts to is a new tax scheme, so massive that it will kill jobs and brutalize an already strained economy, with absolutely zero impact on pollution and so called "climate change." The fact is that it will probably make pollution worse on a global scale, because companies won't be able to afford to continue doing business in the US and will go to places that will allow them to operate. Places like China, where they don't have anywhere near the pollution controls and standards that we have in the US.

And furthermore, the debate of the Healthcare still rages on, and other than a few hosts on Fox News, there has yet to be a serious story in the media explaining the facts of what the Democrat proposals on that front would really mean to our nation.

There are only three things, all of which are far more weighty and pressing matters than the death of Michael Jackson. As I said, I feel for his family, I really do, and am sad for them, and agree that this is a big story, but it is by no means the biggest or the most important story of the day.

If this is what we have come to, it is a truly sad day indeed.

John Piper-A Problem With Churches

2009-06-25T15:51:00.000-05:00

Self-Image: Vice or Virtue?

2009-06-23T17:10:00.001-05:00

Self-Image: Vice or Virtue?

Should we teach our children to feel good about themselves for the sake of a good self-image even if it is not an accurate one? Greg shares his thoughts on the balance needed to parent in a world that embraces the cult of self-esteem.

By: Gregory Koukl

While at a doctor’s appointment, I pulled out my iPhone with pictures of my children. Many of you know that I have a four year old that has very, very striking red hair. She gets a lot of compliments on it, which is nice. The female technician who was running some tests on me made the same comment about her hair. I explained that because she gets a lot of comments about her hair, we have to be careful because vanity is a little bit of a concern in a situation like that. We’re trying to keep her attitude balanced. It’s good for her to feel good about her hair, but we don’t want it to be the thing that makes her feel good about herself or become conceited about it.

The lady then said to me that at least it’s better than having a bad self-image. That was quite a provocative comment. The testing was done and I was preparing to leave. A lot of times I am looking for an opening to begin a conversation, but once in a while an opening catches me by surprise, and I don’t know what to do with it. So I just let it slide.

Sometimes the best way to find the clever thing to say, the productive thing to say, or the “one-liner”, is not when you’re under pressure to say it, because most of us are not quick enough on our feet to come up with something on the spot. The best way to prepare for the next time is to think about the situation afterward and ask yourself how it would be best to respond if this comes up in the future. We can become better if we practice like comedians. When they get fed the soft ball they are right there with the funny line because they’ve practiced it. They didn’t just think of it then. You can do the same thing if you think of answers and responses when the pressure is off. When is the pressure off? Two times: before an encounter, and after an encounter.

That’s what I did after this conversation at the doctor’s office. I think what I might have done, was ask for clarification of what she meant, and then said, Let me see if I understand. Are you suggesting that it would be better for my daughter to have a vice of vanity than it would be for her to have a bad self-image? I suspect if I had put it like that, the person might have paused for a moment and said, Well, I’m not really saying that. But I imagine there are a lot of people who do think that way.

Her comment, when you think about it, ought to be pretty controversial. But it isn’t surprising in light of the cult of self-esteem that has seized this country, especially with regard to children. I think it’s an excessively damaging point of view, of almost religious dimensions. It’s the thing that seems to be most important to parents, and it’s really changed the face of children’s sports and even education. Everyone gets a trophy no matter what they did so everybody is the same.
It’s also made its way up into colleges where some institutions don’t give grades anymore because they don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. It’s very, very egalitarian in that regard. It bothers me to see that kind of egalitarianism where everyone is treated the same. It bothers me to see this cult of self-esteem because I do not think this is an accurate description of the way the world is.

What the technician essentially said is that it is better to be a vain person, which strikes me as a vice, than it is to be a person who has a bad self-image, which doesn’t strike me as a vice. There is a disadvantage to a bad self-image, but it is not a moral harm, not a moral shortcoming to think ill of yourself. It might be unpleasant; it might make it hard for you to advance and fulfill your potential. (But I don’t know that that’s true at all, quite frankly. There are lots of people who do marvelous things who have a terrible self-image as far as I can tell. And there are people who have a wonderful self-image that have done nothing, and have even done very bad things. So I don’t necessarily see a correlation between a good self-image and a good contribution to society. The only correlation that I can tell with a good self-image is feeling good about yourself, and that’s kind of a tautology. A good self-image is just feeling good about you and that’s the end of it.) I’m troubled by this suggestion that it’s preferable to cultivate a moral vice in children.

I don’t want my children to feel good about being bad. I don’t know your kids, but I know this about them: They are bad. How do I know that about them? Because, they’re all bad. We’re all bad. We’re all sinful. “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Of course, if we call them bad all the time that’s not good either. How then do we balance this?

The Bible does not say anything about having a good self-image. It says that we should have an accurate view of ourselves. Paul mentions this. What is the accurate view?

Human beings are made in the image of God. Do you know what that makes you? It makes you something wonderful regardless of what you do or don’t do. There is a nobility about you. It is a fantastic part of the Christian worldview. It’s something that we all know, even if you’re not a Christian. There is something about human beings that makes them uniquely valuable. There is something good and wonderful about every single one of us, which grounds the moral obligations we have towards each other. This is why we ought not take lives without proper justification. We ought to treat each other with kindness, gentleness, goodness, and respect.

But there’s another reality and that is that we’re fallen. We’re broken. There’s something wrong with us. Even though we are noble beings, we are broken and twisted, and the thing that is broken and twisted is a moral problem. We are bad. Each one of us is bad. We don’t want to protect ourselves from feeling bad because it’s the feeling bad about our badness that pushes us to seek the only solution that exists for the badness in us. The answer to guilt, which is our awareness of our badness, is not denial, but forgiveness. Once we get forgiveness, we are redeemed and rescued.
So we are created valuable, yet we are morally broken and bad. So we are good in one way and bad in another. And the badness can be forgiven, and we are rescued and then belong in God’s family again, where we belong.

Our self-assessment ought to entail these things. Do you want your child to feel good about themselves for the right reason and bad about themselves for the right reasons? In other words, they are valuable for nothing, but they shouldn’t be rewarded for nothing. This is the point where the distortion of the cult of self-esteem takes us astray because it teaches us to reward kids for nothing.

As an antidote to this, I saw an interesting line in a fishing magazine. It was an advertisement for a multi-tooled gadget. It had a bunch of guys who were cruising the self-help section of a bookstore. The message of the ad was to “just cut the garbage.” Don’t go poking around in a bookstore reading self-help books to feel better about yourself. Instead, just go find something broken and fix it. And, of course, you can fix it with their tool. Find something broken and fix it.

This is the key to having an appropriate, good feeling about yourself that goes beyond being made in the image of God, and beyond being forgiven for your blame. You do something worthwhile and you will feel good about yourself. You will have a better self-image, but it will be done properly. So if you want your kids to have a good self-image you don’t reward them for nothing. You acknowledge and treat them as if they are someone of value for no reason than they are. You are candid with yourself and them about their brokenness, which is why we tell our children they have to seek forgiveness from us and from God. Then we try to give them something meaningful to do. We help them to do that and then we reward them for it. The reward may be just in what we say. We encourage them for accomplishing something worthwhile.

Dear Miss Senator Ma'am

2009-06-21T12:16:00.000-05:00

Does the Dwarf Senator from California really think that she worked "so hard" to "earn" the title of Senator? Personally, I don't think lying to people to get elected constitutes hard work, but maybe that's just me.

Further, did she show this General any respect at all? Did she call him General? No, in fact, if you notice, she doesn't actually address him in any way other than "you." How, exactly, does she think he became a Brigadier General? Does she think he was working the drive through at McDonald's (not that there's anything wrong with that) and somebody pulled up in a car and said, "hey, how'd you like to be a General today?" I would say it seems likely that he worked much harder and much longer in his Military career than she ever even thought of in working to be a Senator.

And one other thing. I'd like to point out that this General was not being disrespectful to the despicable Barbara Boxer in the least. Quite the contrary, he addressed her as "Ma'am" which is a term of respect. Had he been talking to a male Senator and addressed him as "Sir" there would not have been a word said about it. For anyone who doesn't get this, "Ma'am" is the feminine equivalent of "Sir."

Narcissism in a sitting US Senator is a disturbing thing to see displayed, but if people keep voting for slime like this, what else can we expect?

On Iran

2009-06-20T16:40:00.003-05:00

It's tough to tell just exactly what is going on in Iran, but this much is certain, it is serious. It is at least possible that we are looking at a full scale revolution, though that may not like the most likely scenario, it is possible. Either way, there are a lot of young people standing up for freedom and liberty, and we need to show them our support.

I understand that this is a difficult and sticky situation for the US, but we need to make it clear that we support those who stand up and fight for their own liberty, and that if they succeed, we will do whatever we can to help them. I also understand that we can't send in troops and win this for them, but we do need to make it clear, both to the protesters and to the Iranian thugs in charge, that we support pro-liberty movements, and do stand with them.

I know that some people will say that we can't show our support because, if they protesters fail to make any gains, we still need to be able to work with the leaders of Iran. Hog Wash! The Islamo-Nazi regime that runs Iran today will never work with us, ever. Period. They despise the United States and everything we have ever stood for. They despise freedom and liberty, and will never be willing to give an inch to anyone. They are committed to the utter and complete destruction of Israel, and ultimately the US also. They will never work with us.

The only way that we can ever hope to have a good relationship with the wonderful, oppressed, people of Iran is to support them in their fight against tyranny.

This is what we need to do. This is what we should do. Indeed, this is what we must do.

Consider This

2009-06-19T15:28:00.001-05:00

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every principle of our socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without ever knowing how it happened." - by: Norman Thomas (6-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America)

The Missing Details

2009-06-17T14:51:00.002-05:00

When President Obama talks, at length, about how the Economy got to be in the tough spot that it's in, why is it that he always leaves out the part that he played in bringing it all about. And I'm not talking about some votes he cast in his legislative roles. No, his involvement is much more direct than that.

It all goes back many years to the Community Redevelopment Act (I've also heard it called "Reinvestment") which forced Mortgage lenders to give loans to low income people who could not afford them, and would be very unlikely to be able to pay them back. Of course, lenders were very cautious and tried to push back and make as few of these bad loans as possible, and the Marxist Groups, such as the now infamous ACORN, resorted to strong arm tactics to try to force the banks to make loans that they knew would be bad. During this time, Barack Obama, then a lawyer and street activist (or Community Organizer as they like to say) was one of the lawyers that sued the lenders to force them to make these highly risky loans.

Why is it that every other person in the world can be blamed for this mess, regardless of whether or not they had anything to do with it, or did anything wrong, or were forced by legislation and lawsuits (some brought by lawyer Obama) to do what they did, yet Obama, who bears direct responsibility, never gets mentioned with regards to blame at all?

Lot's Of Stuff Happening

2009-06-16T13:50:00.002-05:00

I know that I haven't been blogging all that much, but I have been paying attention, or the most part anyway. There is an awful lot of stuff happening, and most if is, well, awful.

We have a President who believes that Judges should be activists and pushing an agenda instead of applying the law, which is the primary role of Judges. Contrary to popular belief, they role of the Supreme Court is not the interpret the Constitution, but rather to read it's plain meaning and apply it. If a law violates the Constitution, or some higher law (Not higher than the Constitution, but higher than the law being considered), then they have the power to strike it down, other than that they are to be making sure that the laws are being applied fairly. Far too often, however, they force their will on society, ruling by judicial oligarchy, which is well outside of their purview. This is exactly what Politicians like Barack Obama like in a Justice or lower court judge, and that is why we have the current nominee that we have.

We have a President who has no backbone when it comes to foreign affairs, saying that it's fine if Iran uses Nuclear power for electricity, and basically says that we'll just trust the bunch of thugs not to use it to create Nuclear weapons. The position that we should be taking on that is, if you want to have Nuclear Energy, ok, but you're going to allow us to inspect the program to make sure you're not using it to make Nuclear Weapons, and if you won't do that, we will take whatever steps we must to shut down your Nuclear Energy Program. Period.

We have a President who has made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that under his Administration, our longstanding alliance with Israel is pretty much meaningless, and if they dare to act to protect themselves from total annihilation at the hands of the maniacs who run Iran, then we will turn our backs on them (as a nation, not most of us personally). He is also sending signals that he doesn't feel that Israel has given up enough to the murderous thugs who want to steal their land, and seems to think that if they just keep on giving things to them, they will stop killing Israeli children one of these days. I guess he doesn't understand that these thugs will not be happy until every Jew on the planet has been wiped out... or maybe he does understand that? Now there's a scary thought.

There's a lot more to be said, but this should give us all plenty to think about for today.

John Piper--Where are the Faithful Young People?

2009-06-15T07:43:00.000-05:00

Is Atheism a Crutch?

2009-06-10T15:10:00.001-05:00

Is Atheism a Crutch?

Gregory Koukl

Some say Christianity is just a crutch. But let's turn the question on its edge for a moment. Is atheism an emotional crutch, wishful thinking? The ax cuts both ways.

Perhaps atheists are rejecting God because they've had a bad relationship with their father. Instead of inventing God, have atheists invented non-God? Have they invented atheism to escape some of the frightening implications of God's existence? Think about it.

Seeker Sensitive Ignores The True Seeker

2009-06-08T17:33:00.003-05:00

There is a movement in Evangelical Churches today that most have seen in play for some time now. It is a movement to become what is known as "Seeker Sensitive." You may here it defined in many different ways, but basically, it comes down to an idea that unsaved people will respond better if Church feels a little less like Church. The idea is that this Church is here to serve you, and while we will talk about Jesus, and you will here words like Salvation and Gospel, we're not going to talk about the fact that you are a sinner, or other things like that. Obviously there are many degrees of commitment to the Seeker Sensitive model. While some churches don't even preach the Gospel at all, some simply try to phrase it in softer terms, which is still not good, in my opinion, but certainly not nearly as bad as ignoring it. More commonly though, I would say, is the idea that hard Doctrines shouldn't be preached and all Sermons should be soft, and practical for daily living.

My biggest problem with the Seeker Sensitive movement is that, more often than not, the true seeker is ignored in this system. Of course, the true seeker is Jesus Christ Himself. Consider the following Scriptures;

Luke 19:10 "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost."

Luke 15:3-6 "³So he told them this parable: ⁴ "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it? ⁵And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. ⁶And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.' "(ESV)

Luke 15:8-10 "⁸"Or what woman, having ten silver coins, if she loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and seek diligently until she finds it? ⁹And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.' ¹⁰Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents." " (ESV)

In the Parables above, Christ is pictured as the Shepherd and the Woman respectively, as the one who searches diligently for that which is lost. That is to say, Christ is the seeker, not the thing (or person) which is lost. Romans 3:10-11 says, "¹⁰As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one. ¹¹There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." Or as the ESV says, " no one seeks for God." You can see clearly from the Bible that it is not sinners that seek Christ, but rather Christ that seeks for sinners. If we water down the Gospel, or worse refuse to preach it all together, we reject what God has ordained as His way of seeking for His lost sheep. How sad truly sad is that?

"Forced" to Be Parents?

2009-06-05T15:52:00.000-05:00

"Forced" to Be Parents?

Gregory Koukl

A new challenge to the pro-life view is the claim that restrictions on abortion actually force women to become parents against their will. This, of course, sounds like an unconscionable intrusion of government into our private lives.

I agree, no one should be forced to become a parent against his or her will, but this is not the situation we face in abortion. If the unborn is a human being, then pregnant women already are parents. It seems morally self-evident that no parent should escape her responsibilities by killing her unwanted children. The only legitimate way to escape from already being a parent is through adoption.

Clearly, the issue isn’t unwanted parenthood. If the unborn is a human being, the woman already is the child's mother. She should not be permitted to kill him just because she doesn’t want him.

Suggested STR resources:

Making Abortion Unthinkable

Precious Unborn Human Persons

© Gregory Koukl. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only.
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (56

"God, Where Are You?"

2009-06-02T06:25:00.000-05:00

John Piper on the Prosperity Gospel

2009-05-29T08:06:00.001-05:00

Not Right Thinking

2009-05-27T15:49:00.002-05:00

Today, I picked up my daughter early from school for a Dentist appointment. While we were sitting in the lobby waiting to be taken back, they had Fox News on. One of the stories that they covered was about the new (ok, not that new, but still) fad known as "Sexting," a play on Texting, but instead of just sending messages back and forth, apparently some kids thing it's cool to take nude or nearly nude pictures of themselves and picture message them to boyfriends or girlfriends or whatever, I guess thinking at the time that this is a private thing to do, but of course, more often than not, it gets sent on to lots and lots of people. Some idiots... errr... experts are trying to say that it's just an innocent thing that the kids are doing, like spin the bottle or "doctor" (neither of which are as innocent as people like to remember them). Obviously though, this goes far beyond even those things.

Anyway, back to the news story, they had a young man on there whose 16 year old Girlfriend had sent him a nude photo of herself when he was 17, then after he turned 18 he sent it to a bunch of people (don't know if they broke up, or what happened) and was arrested for proliferating child porn, and has been labeled a sex offender. Now he is trying to get that label removed because it really messes him up for getting a job and things like that. I'm thinking that, yeah, maybe making him a sex offender doesn't quite fit, but clearly something has to be done. The problem that I have with the story is that they were putting it forth as if he was an innocent victim. Fact of the matter is that, he was in no way innocent at all, and he should have been punished.

This sexting thing is a serious matter, it's not just some funny thing that the kids are doing, it's not harmless, and it's not innocent.