Pastor's Blog

An interview like you've never seen before

2012-01-26T09:20:00.001-08:00

Good interview with Thomas Woods, author of "Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century," with the standard leftist group-think zombie-like responses.

Utopianism and Statism

2012-01-19T08:31:00.000-08:00

I have just started reading Mark Levin's new book, Ameritopia. His thesis is that a desire to build a utopian society is the justification for totalitarian government. In his own words, "Utopianism is the ideological and doctrinal foundation for statism."

"Utopianism substitutes glorius predictions and unachievable promises for knowledge, science, and reason, while laying claim to them all. Yet there is nothing new in deception disguised as hope and nothing original in abstraction framed as progress. A heavenly society is said to be within reach if only the individual surrenders more of his liberty and being for the general good, meaning the good as prescribed by the state. If he refuses, he will be tormented and ultimately coerced into compliance, for conformity is essential. Indeed, nothing good can come of self-interest, which is condemned as morally indefensible and empty. Through persuasion, deceit, and coercion, the individual must be stripped of his identity and subordinated to the state. He must abandon his own ambitions for the ambitions of the state. He must become reliant on and fearful of the state. His first duty must be to the state--not family, community, and faith, all of which challenge the authority of the state. Once dispirited, the individual can be molded by the state with endless social experiments and lifestyle calibrations." (Mark Levin, Ameritopia, p. 4)

Is it a sin to be cremated?

2012-01-10T07:17:00.000-08:00

The Bible doesn't expressly forbid the practice of cremation, but the examples we have in Scripture of the people of God caring for the remains of the dead are decidedly in favor of burial. And of course the burial of our Lord Jesus Christ serves as an example which Christians have genrally wished to follow.

Normallyin Scripture, burning the dead was a sign of a person’s having died under God’scurse. It was a punishment inflicted upon the corpse of a particularlyegregious offender. We see this punishment commanded, for instance, in the caseof Achan. By the command of God, Achan was stoned for his offense of stealingfrom God, and his body was burned (Josh. 7:15,25; see also Lev. 20:14;21:9).

Anumber of cultures, both ancient and modern, have at different times practicedcremation for various reasons—some for practical and others for religiousreasons.

Burialseems at first to have been the usual custom among the ancient Greeks; butlater cremation became widely practiced, especially in times of plague, orafter a battle in order to prevent enemies from disgracing the corpses of theGreek warriors, or in order to more conveniently bring their remains home forburial.

TheRomans (at least members of the aristocracy) also at certain points in theirhistory practiced cremation.

It’swell-known that the Vikings practiced cremation; and Hindu’s still do.

Onething that will be noticed here is that all these cultures that have practicedcremation have been pagan cultures.

It’sinteresting that wherever the Christian faith has been introduced and takenhold, the practice of cremation has been replaced by burial. The care of thebody by means of burial has always been thought to be more consistent with theChristian’s hope of the resurrection.

Didyou know that it’s the traditional Christian practice for graves to lielengthwise from east to west, with the head of the deceased toward the west andthe feet toward the east? This is in anticipation of the resurrection at thesecond coming of Christ, so that when the faithful are raised up they will befacing the east so as to witness the coming of Christ to Jerusalem. Even in burial the faithfulChristian is giving a witness to Jesus Christ.

Non-Christianand post-Christian countries have very high cremation rates. The rate in Japan is 97%;in Great Britainits 70%; in Scandinavia it’s 65%.

About a third of those who die in the U.S. are cremated.

Some who choose cremation do so as a very self-conscious way of rejecting the Christian faith, particularly Christian teaching concerning the afterlife. They want to make a secular statement. They want to say by their cremation that they deny life after death; that they deny the resurrection. It’s interesting that the cremation rates are highest in the most secular states of the country: 67% in Hawaii and Nevada and just at or above 60% in Washington, Oregon, and Arizona. Throughout the Bible belt, however, the rates are under 10%.

"The first cremation in America took place in 1876, accompanied by readings from Charles Darwin and the Hindu scriptures." (Timothy George, Cremation Confusion).

Now of course not everyone who chooses cremation does so to make a secular statement. Increasingly people are choosing cremation for simple economic reasons. Cremation often runs between a quarter to one-half the cost of burial.

Butis it sinful to be cremated? TheBible doesn’t expressly say so, but the pattern of Scripture is certainly instructive,and I think ought to be regarded as normative. And the pattern of Scripture isclearly in favor of burial as the only honorable disposal of the remains of thedead. Certainly, the care of the body in burial accords well with the Christianhope of the resurrection and it serves as the last testimony the Christian cangive to Jesus Christ.

Itis not at all surprising that as unbelief in the church increases, so shouldthe acceptance of cremation as a viable alternative to burial.

Letme summarize by saying, although we have no express command in the Bibleforbidding cremation, the universal practice of the saints in Scripture oughtto be regarded as a normative principle. In other words, we ought to be contentto follow the example of the saints of Scripture and be laid in the ground toawait the resurrection.

Beware committees, conferences and leagues of intellectuals

2011-12-09T10:56:00.001-08:00

When I first began to poston Paul Johnson’s excellent book on secular intellectuals, I thought I would post alittle here and a little there on each of the figures he chronicles. But what Idiscovered was that to do so would be to sound like a broken record. The personalcircumstances and the extent of the influence of each person he describes vary,but the ideals to which they were committed being the same, their character andbehavior were for the most part identical. So rather than making as manyposts as a full review would require, let me simply quote Johnson’s ownsummary.

We are now at the end ofour enquiry. It is just about two hundred years since the secular intellectualsbegan to replace the old clerisy as the guides and mentors of mankind. We havelooked at a number of individual cases of those who sought to counsel humanity.We have examined their moral and judgmental qualifications for this task. Inparticular, we have examined their attitude to truth, the way in which theyseek for and evaluate evidence, their response not just to humanity in generalbut to human beings in particular, the way they treat their friends,colleagues, servants and above all their own families. We have touched on thesocial and political consequences of following their advice.

What conclusions should bedrawn? Readers will judge for themselves. But I think I detect today a certainpublic skepticism when intellectuals stand up to preach to us, a growingtendency among ordinary people to dispute the right of academics, writers andphilosophers, eminent though they may be, to tell us how to behave and conductour affairs. The belief seems to be spreading that intellectuals are no wiseras mentors, or worthier as exemplars, than the witch doctors or priests of old.I share that skepticism. A dozen people picked at random on the street are atleast as likely to offer sensible views on moral and political matters as across-section of the intelligentsia. But I would go further. One of theprincipal lessons of our tragic century, which has seen so many millions ofinnocent lives sacrificed in schemes to improve the lot of humanity, is –beware of intellectuals. Nor merely should they be kept well away from thelevers of power, they should also be objects of particular suspicion when theyseek to offer collective advice. Beware committees, conferences and leagues ofintellectuals. Distrust public statements issued from their serried ranks. Discounttheir verdicts on political leaders and important events. For intellectuals,far from being highly individualistic and non-conformist people, follow certainregular patterns of behavior. Taken as agroup, they are often ultra-conformist within the circles formed by those whoseapproval they seek and value. That is what makes them, en masse, so dangerous, for it enables them to create climates ofopinion and prevailing orthodoxies, which themselves often generate irrationaland destructive courses of action. Above all, we must at all times rememberwhat intellectuals habitually forget, that people matter more than concepts andmust come first. The worst of all despotisms is the heartless tyranny of ideas.

Right decision for the wrong reason

2011-12-05T05:31:00.001-08:00

A quick follow up to my last post. A small church in eastern Kentucky found itself at the center of controversy last week when it was reported that the church had voted to ban interracial couples from membership. Thankfully, they have since reversed course. When I saw the headline I was hopeful that the church had recognized its sinful error. I was dismayed, however, to read the real reason behind the reversal.

Stacy Stepp, pastor of the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church in Pike County, told The Associated Press that the vote by nine people last week was declared null and void after it was determined that new bylaws can't run contrary to local, state or national laws. He said the proposal was discriminatory, therefore it couldn't be adopted.

It was the right decision to reverse an unbiblical standard for church membership. The problem is that the right decision was made for the wrong reason. The mere fact that the church's position was "contrary to local, state or national laws" was not sufficient to overturn it. What if local, state, or national laws should require what God forbids or forbid what God requires? What if...oh, I don't know...say an evil tyrant should be intent on exterminating the Jews and should pass a law prohibiting the church from coming to the aid of their Jewish neighbors? Should we sit on our hands and do nothing, so as not to act contrary to local, state or national laws? Scripture is pretty clear on this point: "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29, see also Acts 4:19-20).

The pastor recognizes that a ban on interracial marriage is discriminatory, and that such discrimination is contrary to the laws of the land. But does he not recognize that it is also contrary to the word of God? This should be the real reason for reversing course.

Sadly, the story gets even worse. In an effort to undo the damage,

Stepp said about 30 people who attended church services voted on a new resolution that welcomes "believers into our fellowship regardless of race, creed or color." (You can find the story here.)

Regardless of race or color? Yes and amen! Regardless of creed? Not so much. Apparently they are unaware of the contradiction. They welcome believers regardless of their creed, which is the same as saying, they welcome believers regardless of whether or not they believe. Believers are identified by their creed (what they believe). Churches are defined by their creed. Will they welcome into membership someone who denies the deity of Christ? The inspiration and authority of Scripture as the word of God? Substitionary atonement? The necessity of conversion? If they welcome people regardless of creed, they must. But to do so is to destroy the church.

Interracial marriage, take two

2011-12-01T06:31:00.001-08:00

I happened across this headline: Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Couples From Joining Congregation, and decided to post a link to a previous Ask the Pastor question: What About Interracial Marriage?

Rousseau: The State as Messiah

2011-11-05T08:36:00.000-07:00

One of the most important things that distinguishes conservatives from liberals is that the latter tend to believe more government is the answer to everything. Rousseau was one of the first (at least in modern times) to champion this delusional notion.

Hewrote ‘those who control a people’s opinions control its actions.’ Such controlis established by treating citizens, from infancy, as children of the State, trainedto ‘consider themselves only in their relationship to the Body of theState’. ‘For being nothing except by it,they will be nothing except for it. It will have all they have and will be allthey are.’ Again, this anticipatesMussolini’s central Fascist doctrine: ‘Everything within the State, nothingoutside the State, nothing against the State.’ The educational process was thusthe key to the success of the cultural engineering needed to make the Stateacceptable and successful; the axis of Rousseau’s ideals was the citizen as childand the State as parent, and he insisted the government should have completecharge of the upbringing of all children. Hence – and this is the true revolution Rousseau’s ideas brought about –he moved the political process to the very centre of human existence by makingthe legislator, who is also a pedagogue, into the new Messiah, capable ofsolving all human problems by creating New Men. ‘Everything,’ he wrote ‘is atroot dependent on politics.’ Virtue is the product of good government. Vicesbelong less to man, than to man badly governed.’ The political process, and thenew kind of state it brings into being, are the universal remedies for the illsof mankind. Politics will do all.Rousseau thus prepared the blueprint for the principal delusions and follies ofthe twentieth century. (Paul Johnson, Intellectuals, pp. 23-24).

Creation in six days?

2011-11-04T06:22:00.000-07:00

Is it best to understandcreation as six literal days?

Yesit is, and I think it’s apparent to anyone reading the text without anypreconceived notions to defend, that the author intends his account to be takenas a literal historical narrative, and not merely in a figurative sense.

Manytry to combine the biblical account of creation with the theory of evolutionand of course to do that you need to greatly extend the length of time thatappears in the Bible. Taking the chronology of the Bible at face value onlygives us about 6,000 years, not nearly enough time for evolution to take place.So where do we find the necessary time? We insert it into the account ofcreation, by taking the days of the creation week not as literal 24 hour days,but as symbolic of very long periods of time.

ButDr. Ken Gentry, who has written extensively on this subject, gives severalreasons to take each of the days of the creation week as a literal 24-hourperiod.

First,he mentions what he calls the “Argument from primary meaning.” In the vastmajority of instances in which the word “day” appears in Scripture it refers toa normal 24-hour day; and this usual meaning ought to be retained unless thereis some compelling reason from the context that requires us to take it in a differentsense. And there is no such reason in the Genesis 1.

Gentry mentions, secondly, the “argumentfrom explicit qualification.” He says, “Moses carefully qualifies each of thesix creative days with the phraseology: ‘evening and morning.’ The qualification is a deliberate defining of theconcept of day. Outside of Genesis 1 the words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ occurtogether in thirty-seven verses. In each instance it speaks of a normal day.”(He cites Exodus 18:13 and 27:21 as examples.)

Thirdly, Gentry mentions the “argumentfrom ordinal prefix.” He means the enumeration of the days of the creationweek. The text refers to the firstday, the second day, the third day, and so on. There is not asingle instance where such an enumeration of days refers to anything other thanliteral days.

He also mentions what he calls the“argument from divine exemplar,” by which he means that God patterned man’swork week after his own: “Six days youshall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lordyour God… For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all thatis in them, and rested on the seventh day” (Ex. 20:9, 11).

Gentry also mentions the “argument fromalternative idiom.” The idea here is that there were other more natural ways ofexpressing the notion that creation took place over vast eras of time.

There are still other problems withtaking a non-literal view of the six days of creation. Most importantly, itturns the whole New Testament teaching concerning sin and redemption on itshead. Paul teaches that sin entered into the world through one man, and as aconsequence, death entered as well (Rom. 5:12-21). And it was not just man thatit affected. He says that the creation itself was “subjected to futility” and“bondage to decay” (Rom. 8:20-21). But the theory of evolution, even theisticevolution, requires millions of years of death and decay before the appearanceof man, and so before the appearance of sin. Death, then, is not a result ofsin; it’s inherent in the world as God made it.

In addition, the idea of theisticevolution, presents God as bumbling old fool. It took him years of trial anderror before he finally got things right, if indeed he has gotten them right.We have who knows how many millions of species he developed through the processof evolution, only to become extinct because they were not fit enough tosurvive. And finally through all the eons of time, when he eventually found aform for man that pleased him, he endowed him with a soul.

Is this really the picture of God that weget in Scripture, a God who creates by trial and error? No! God created theworld good. It was perfect in form from the beginning. It was the handiwork ofan infinitely wise and powerful creator. But he created man with the ability toserve him freely or not, with great rewards if he chose wisely, and terribleconsequences—not only for himself but for all creation—if he chose poorly.

Weknow that he chose poorly. He disobeyed his God; and as a consequence of sin,death and decay entered the world. Man grows old. He gets sick. He dies.Species go extinct—not as the result of a haphazard process of creation throughevolution—but because the entire creation was subjected to the curse.

Iwill not deny that there are otherwise good Christian people who take adifferent view of the matter; but they are making a sinful and needlesscompromise by departing from the plain meaning of Scripture.

Class warfare new and old

2011-11-02T09:25:00.000-07:00

I have been posting excerpts from Paul Johnson's book Intellectuals. Here's another about Rousseau, the great icon of the French Revolution, the source of all our modern ills. See if it doesn't sound like certain occupiers and ne'er -do-wells (and their elected accomplices fomenting class warfare) you've heard about lately .

[Rousseau's]writings also a bound with radical bitterness. ‘I hate the great, I hate their rank, their harshness, their prejudices,their pettiness, all their vice.’ He wrote to one grand lady: ‘It is thewealthy class, your class, that steals from mine the bread of my children,’* andhe admitted to a certain resentment against the rich and successful, as iftheir wealth and happiness had been gained at my expense’. The rich were‘hungry wolves who, once having tasted human flesh, refuse any othernourishment.’ His many powerful aphorisms, which make his books so sharplyattractive especially to the young, are radical in tone. ‘The fruits of theearth belong to us all, the earth itself to none.’ ‘Man is born free and iseverywhere in chains.’ His entry in the Encyclopedieon ‘Political Economy’ sums up the attitude of the ruling class; ‘You needme for I am rich and you are poor. Letus make an agreement: I will allow you to have the honour of serving me,provided you give me whatever you have left for the trouble I shall take tocommand you.’

* You know...the five children he abandoned.

What about women holding public office?

2011-10-28T06:23:00.000-07:00

Christian women are admonished to be subject totheir husbands. How would this affect a Christian woman holding politicaloffice?

This is abit problematic, isn’t it? Scripture and experience both teach us that God hascreated our very nature and relations as human beings with the need for ahierarchical order.

This needis evident in the three basic institutions by which God has been pleased to organizesociety: the family, the church, and theState. There must be leaders who are held responsible by God for theaccomplishment of his purpose in each of these institutions and who areconsequently entrusted by God with authority to govern them.

TheScriptures are equally clear that God has ordained men to be the head of eachof these institutions. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians with respect to the home,“The head of a wife is her husband” (1 Cor. 11:3; cf. Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Pet. 3:1-6).

Andwith respect to the church, he instructs Timothy and Titus to appoint men as elders and deacons and to lead inprayer and preaching (1 Tim. 2:12;3:1f.; Tit. 1:5f.).

Withrespect to civil government, we read in the book of Deuteronomy that Mosesinstructed Israel, “Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experiencedmen, and I will appoint them as your heads” (Deut. 1:13).

Onthe other hand, God has ordained that a woman’s primary calling is to be ahelper to her husband (Gen. 2:18). Paul refers to this when he says that thewoman was made for the man, and notthe man for the woman (1 Cor. 11:9). Her helping role consists largely in hertending to the needs of the family by “bearing children and managing the household”(1 Tim. 5:14). This doesnot mean, however, that she cannot be active in economic pursuits. Proverbs 31speaks of the virtuous wife who makes garments and sells them and buys a fieldfrom the fruit of her earnings (Prov. 31:16, 24). Nor does it mean that shecannot engage in some forms ofministry, such as ministries of mercy (Acts 9:36-39) and teaching other women in the church (Tit.2:3-4).

Now,I should add that because God has ordained the roles of the sexes, he hascreated men and women to be different. He has created them with natures suitedto their respective callings. This is something we all know, but are reluctantto say because we are afraid of being politically incorrect. Men and women aredifferent—not just physically, but mentally and emotionally, too. Thesedifferences do not mean that men are better than women in general, or thatwomen are better than men in general. But it does mean that men are better atsome things than women, and women are better at other things than men. This ishow God created us.

It’simportant that we keep these things in mind because all kinds of problems arisewhen we ignore the order that God has created.

Allthings being equal, we should prefer male candidates for public office overfemale ones. This is the biblical norm. But not all things are equal, because not all candidatesare equal. What I have described is the ideal. But we live in a fallen world,and things are highly disordered. Circumstances are such now that we may wellfind ourselves in a position that the views of a female candidate for publicoffice are far better than the views of a male candidate. If you’re faced witha choice between a female candidate, who holds a biblical view of the issues,pitted against a male candidate who doesn’t…it’s a no brainer. You vote for thefemale candidate.

Ifshe should be elected, it will present some unique challenges for her and herhusband, and how they relate to one another, because in the home he is herhead, but in the civil sphere she is his head. Presumably she sought publicoffice with his approval and blessing and he is willing to live with thedemands on her time and energy that her office will necessarily impose upon her.By permitting her to run for office he has already tacitly agreed to thesethings. But in the home she must still honor him as her head.

In the meantime,however, we ought to labor for a reformation of our homes, our churches, andour civil government that we might return to a more biblical view of the sexesand recover the order which God originally intended.

Rousseau: The citizen of Plato's Republic

2011-10-25T14:22:00.000-07:00

In a previous post I quoted Paul Johnson's analysis of Rousseau as a father. I continue...

It is right to dwell on his desertion of his children not only because it is the most striking single example of his inhumanity but because it is organically part of the process which produced his theory of politics and the role of the state... Since Rousseau felt as a child, it followed he could not bring up children of his own. Something had to take his place, and that something was the State, in the form of the orphanage.

Hence, he argued, what he did was 'a good and sensible arrangement'. It was exactly what Plato had advocated... 'I thought I was performing the act of a citizen and a father and I looked on myself as a member of Plato's Republic...

What began as a process of personal self-justification in a particular case--a series of hasty, ill thought-out excuses for behaviour he must have known, initially, was unnatural--gradually evolved as repetition and growing self esteem hardened them into genuine convictions, into the proposition that education was the key to social and moral improvement and, this being so, it was the concern of the State. The State must form the minds of all, not only as children (as it had done to Rousseau's in the orphanage) but as adult citizens. By a curious chain of infamous moral logic, Rousseau's iniquity as a parent was linked to his ideological offspring, the future totalitarian state. (pp. 22-23)

Democracy revisited

2011-10-24T14:57:00.000-07:00

A while back I wrote a piece on the danger of idolizing of democracy. Further evidence that democracy is not an inherent good can be found here and here.

2011-10-21T14:49:00.000-07:00

Doug Wilson has some good observations about the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

Ten guys go to eat at a restaurant every week for lunch. Five of them eat free. One of them picks up the tab for forty percent, and four of them pay the other sixty. Then one day the five guys decide to beat up the one rich guy, because they have heard that he was not willing to pay his "fair share." Wallis calls these five worthies "citizen economists." I call them citizen moochers, citizen deadbeats, citizen layabouts, citizen lotus eaters, citizen slackers, citizen spongers . . . or, as I guess we would say nowadays, citizen economists. But after the thrashing they gave him after that lunch, he didn't show up the next week. Quite baffling and mysterious, the whole thing. (Read more here)

Rousseau's Inhumane Humanity

2011-10-21T14:17:00.000-07:00

Paul Johnson shows how Rousseau presented himself as a great lover of humanity. But as so often happens with those who love man in general, he had a complete disregard for men in particular. He seemed to be wholly incapable of loving anyone but himself.

He was a man, he said, born to love, and he taught the doctrine of love more persistently than most ecclesiastics. How well, then, did he express his love by those nature had placed closest to him? The death of his mother deprived him, from birth, of a normal family life. He could have no feelings for her, one way or another, since he never knew her. But he showed no affection, or indeed interest in, other members of his family. His father meant nothing to him, and his death was merely an opportunity to inherit. At this point Rousseau's concern for his long-lost brother revived to the extent of certifying him dead, so the family money could be his. He saw his family in terms of cash. (p. 18)

Was Rousseau capable of loving a woman without strong selfish reservations? ... Of Therese Levasseur, the twenty-three-year-old laundress whom he made his mistress in 1745 and who remained with him thirty-three years until his death, he said he 'never felt the least glimmering of love for her...the sensual needs I satisfied with her were purely sexual and were nothing to do with her as an individual.' 'I told her,' he wrote, 'I would never leave her and I would never marry her.' (p. 19)

Since a large part of Rousseau's reputation rests on his theories about the upbringing of children--more education is the main, underlying theme of his Discours, Emile, the Social Contract and even La Nouvelle Heloise--it is curious that, in real life as opposed to writing, he took so little interest in children... It comes as sickening shock to discover what Rousseau did to his own children.

The first was born to Therese in the winter of 1746-47. We do not know its sex. It was never named. With (he says) 'the greatest difficulty in the world', he persuaded Therese that the baby must be abandoned 'to save her honour'. She 'obeyed with a sigh'. He place a cypher-card in the infant's clothing and told the midwife to drop off the bundle at the Hopital des Enfants-trouves. Four other babies he had by Therese were disposed of in exactly the same manner, except that he did not trouble to insert a cypher-card after the first. None had names. It is unlikely that any of them survived long. A history of this institution which appeared in 1746 in the Mercure de France makes it clear that it was overwhelmed by abandoned infants, over 3000 a year. In 1758 Rousseau himself noted that the total had risen to 5082. By 1772 it averaged nearly 8000. Two-thirds of the babies died in their first year. An average of fourteen out of every hundred survived to the age of seven, and of these five grew to maturity, most of them becoming beggars and vagabonds. Rousseau did not even note the dates of the births of his five children and never took any interest in what happened to them, except once in 1761, when he believed Therese was dying and made a perfunctory attempt, soon discontinued, to use the cypher to discover the whereabouts of the first child... (p. 21)

To have children was 'an inconvenience'. He could not afford it. 'How could I achieve the tranquillity of mind necessary for my work, my garret filled with domestic cares and the noise of children?' He would have been forced to stoop to degrading work, 'to all those infamous acts which fill me with such justified horror'. 'I know full well no father is more tender than I would have been'... As for cruelty, how could anyone of his outstanding moral character be guilty of such a thing? '...my ardent love of the great, the true, the beautiful and the just; my horror of evil of every kind, my utter inability to hate or injure or even to think of it; the sweet and lively emotion which I feel at the sight of all that is virtuous, generous and amiable; is it possible, I ask, that all these can ever agree in the same heart with the depravity which, without the least scruple, tramples underfoot the sweetest of obligations? No! I feel, and loudly assert--it is impossible! Never, for a single moment in his life, could Jean-Jacques Rousseau have been a man without feeling, without compassion, or an unnatural father.' (p. 22)

Whatever became of the Ten Lost Tribes?

2011-10-20T13:32:00.000-07:00

Iwould say that it is a bit misleading to refer to the ten tribes as “lost.”

For those who may be not aware of what is meant by “the Ten Lost Tribes,”let me briefly explain.

Afterthe death of Solomon, the kingdom of Israel was divided. The two southern-mosttribes of Judah and Benjamin were loyal to Solomon’s son, Rehoboam. The tentribes to the north chose a man from the tribe of Ephraim, named Jeroboam, tobe their king. The northern kingdom was known as Israel and the southernkingdom was called Judah.

Thetwo kingdoms sometimes lived in peace with one another and sometimes were atwar. But after about 200 years, the Assyrians came in 722 b.c. and defeated the northern kingdomand took many of its citizens into exile.

Somethingvery similar took place about 150 years later to the southern kingdom of Judah.It was overrun by the Babylonians, Jerusalem was destroyed and thousands ofJews were led away into captivity in foreign lands.

Aftermany years, the Babylonians themselves were conquered, and their conquerors,the Persians, permitted the Jews to return to their homeland.

Theidea of the Ten “Lost” Tribes originates with the assumption that permissionfor the Jews to return only applied to those who were taken from the southernkingdom by the Babylonians. But it would have applied to all Jews, even to those from the northern kingdom. The Jews of thenorthern kingdom were exiled by the Assyrians. The Assyrians were conquered bythe Babylonians—who then took control of the Jews living in the Assyrian Empire.And the Babylonians were in turn conquered by the Medes and Persians, whopermitted the Jews to return to their homeland.

Soall the Jews were allowed to return, not just those from the two tribescomprising the southern kingdom. That those from the other tribes returned aswell can be seen from the fact that when the returned exiles rebuilt the templeit was formally dedicated with sacrifices “for all Israel.” These sacrificesincluded “12 male goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel” (Ezra6:17).

Inaddition to this we should consider the prophecy uttered by Ezekiel, who washimself in Exile. He spoke of the reunification of Israel.

The wordof the Lord came to me: “Son of man, take a stick andwrite on it, ‘For Judah, and the people of Israel associated with him’; thentake another stick and write on it, ‘For Joseph (the stick of Ephraim) and allthe house of Israel associated with him.’ And jointhem one to another into one stick, that they may become one in your hand. Andwhen your people say to you, ‘Will you not tell us what you mean by these?’ sayto them, Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am about to take the stick of Joseph(that is in the hand of Ephraim) and the tribes of Israel associated with him.And I will join with it the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, that theymay be one in my hand. When the sticks on which youwrite are in your hand before their eyes, then say tothem, Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will take the people of Israel from thenations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, andbring them to their own land. And I will make themone nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. And one king shall be kingover them all, and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer dividedinto two kingdoms (Ezek. 37:15-22).

Inthe New Testament James addresses his letter to the Jews of the Diaspora (thoseliving outside the Promised Land), “To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion”(Jas. 1:1). In the Gospel of Luke we find a prophetess named Anna from thetribe of Asher, one of the supposedly “lost” tribes.

Theonly sense in which the ten tribes could really be said to be “lost” is in thesense that they never regained the independent political status they once had.But this was according to God’s purpose, as Ezekiel told us. The Lord reunitedthem with the other two tribes into one nation at the time of the return of theJews from captivity.

Weshould be wary, therefore, of those who seek to locate the so-called “LostTribes” in the British Isles (as per the teaching of the late Herbert W.Armstrong) or identify the Lost Tribes with the American Indians (as per theteaching of the Mormons). Neither teaching has a single shred of Biblical orhistorical support.

Thefact of the matter is that the “Ten Lost” tribes are not really lost.

Rousseau: The Boor

2011-10-19T12:20:00.000-07:00

"From an early age he wished to shine in society. In particular he wanted the smiles of society women. 'Seamstresses,' he wrote, 'chambermaids, shopgirls did not tempt me. I needed young ladies.' But he was an obvious and ineradicable provincial, in many ways boorish, ill-bred. His initial attempts to break into society, in the 1740s, by playing society's own game, were complete failures; his first play for the favours of a married society woman was a humiliating disaster.

"However, after the success of his essay revealed to him the rich rewards for playing the card of Nature, he reversed his tactics. Instead of trying to conceal his boorishness, he emphasized it. He made a virtue of it... He deliberately stressed sentiment as opposed to convention, the impulse of the heart rather than manners. 'My sentiments,' he said, 'are such that they must not be disguised. They dispense me from being polite.' He admitted he was 'uncouth, unpleasant and rude on principle. I do not care twopence for your courtiers. I am a barbarian.' Or again: 'I have things in my heart which absolve me from being good-mannered.' " (Paul Johnson, Intellectuals, pp. 11-12)

Life is bigger than politics

2011-10-18T14:26:00.000-07:00

Lawrence O'Donnell's interview of Herman Cain last week illustrates one of the major differences between liberals and conservatives (of the paleo variety). The Left sees all of life as being essentially political. There is not a problem in the world that can not and should not be addressed politically. O'Donnell found fault with Cain for abiding by the advice of his father to "keep his nose clean" by avoiding the civil rights marches and sit-ins in the 1960s. Instead, Cain diligently applied himself to his studies to earn a B. A. in mathematics in 1968 from Morehouse College and then a master's degree in computer science from Purdue in 1971 while working full time in ballistics for the U.S. Department of the Navy. And of course he went on to have a very successful career in business. In doing so, he "saved" and created far more j0bs (for people of all colors) than the current administration could ever hope to do.

"Tsk, tsk," says Mr. O'Donnell. "You should have been joining the civil rights demonstrators."

“Mr. Cain, in fact you were in college from 1963 to 1967, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, exactly when the most important demonstrations and protests were going on. You could easily, as a student at Morehouse have actively participated in the kinds of protests that got African-Americans the rights they enjoy today. You watched from that perspective at Morehouse when you were not participating in those processes…black college students from around the country and white college students from around the country come to the South and be murdered fighting for the right of African-Americans. Do you regret sitting on those sidelines at that time?”

Sitting on the sidelines? The assumption is blatantly obvious. For Mr. O'Donnell, as for Leftists generally, the only solutions to the ills of society are political solutions--often in response to the agitations of street protesters.

Herman Cain chose a different path. Although he encountered plenty of discrimination growing up, he didn't complain that life was unfair and that Jim Crow kept him down. He didn't appeal to the government to help him succeed. He understood that life is bigger than politics and there are other ways to go about improving one's lot in life. He went about his work with such diligence and such a degree of excellence that he made himself indispensable to those who were looking for the skills he possessed...and he was richly rewarded for it. He is a self-made man. This is one of reasons--perhaps the biggest reason--for his dramatic rise in the polls. He embodies the old virtues of diligence, thrift, hard work, and self-reliance, leading to prosperity, versus the whining entitlement mentality of the Left.

Cain's success should come as no surprise. Similar success will come to anyone willing to put forth the same kind of effort. This is the way of a free market economy. In a competitive environment racial discrimination makes no sense. It's self-defeating. Cain's uber competence made him a man in demand. It's what enabled him to scale the corporate ladder. In so doing, he paved the way for other black businessmen, since he undoubtedly busted the racial stereo-types of any racists he may have encountered along the way. Thus, he was waging his own battle against racial discrimination. Perhaps it wasn't as flashy as Mr. O'Donnell would have liked. Perhaps it didn't garner as many headlines as the sit-ins and marches. But one does have to wonder if, in the long run, his way will not be shown to have been far more effective.

Self-pity meets vanity

2011-10-15T17:13:00.000-07:00

Paul Johnson highlights two of Rousseau's most obnoxious character traits.

Although indulged in some ways, he emerged from childhood with a strong sense of deprivation and - perhaps his most marked personal characteristic - self-pity. (p. 5)

To the unprejudiced modern eye he does not seem to have had much to grumble about. Yet Rousseau was one of the greatest grumblers in the history of literature. He insisted that his life had been one of misery and persecution. (p. 9)

Behind the self-pity lay an overpowering egoism, a feeling that he was quite unlike other men, both in his sufferings and his qualities. He wrote: 'What could your miseries have in common with mine? My situation is unique, unheard of since the beginning of time...' Equally, 'The person who can love me as I can love is still to be born.' 'No one ever had more talent for loving.' 'I was born to be the best friend that ever existed.' 'I would leave this life with apprehension if I knew a better man than me.' 'Show me a better man than me, a heart more loving, more tender, more sensitive...' 'Posterity will honour me...because it is my due.' 'I rejoice in myself.' '...my consolation lies in my self-esteem.' '...if there were a single enlightened government in Europe, it would have erected statues to me.' (p. 10)

As a matter of fact, self-pity and vanity go hand in hand. The more extravagant one's self-conceit the greater the sense of injustice when one suffers hardships and disappointments.

Rousseau: "An Encyclopeadia of Modern Thought"

2011-10-14T06:56:00.000-07:00

The title of Paul Johnson's book is, Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky, but he actually begins with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who embodied all the ideals of the French Revolution, the source of all our modern ills. It would be hard to overestimate Rousseau's influence on the modern world, even on people who have never read him.

Rousseau was the first to combine all the salient characteristics of the modern Promethean: the assertion of his right to reject the existing order in its entirety; confidence in his capacity to refashion it from the bottom accordance with principles of his own devising; belief that this could be achieved by the political process; and, not least, recognition of the huge part instinct, intuition and impulse play in human conduct. He believed he had a unique love for humanity and had been endowed with unprecedented gifts and insights to increase its felicity. An astonishing number of people, in his own day and since, have taken him at his own valuation...

Rousseau altered some of the basic assumptions of civilized man and shifted around the furniture of the human mind. The span of his influence is dramatically wide but it can be grouped under five main headings. First...he popularized and to some extent invented the cult of nature... He introduced the critique of urban sophistication. He identified and branded the artificialities of civilization...

Second...Rousseau taught distrust of...progressive, gradual improvements...and looked for a far more radical solution. He insisted that reason itself had severe limitations as the means to cure society. That did not mean, however, that the human mind was inadequate to bring about the necessary changes, because it has hidden, untapped resources of poetic insight and intuition which must be used to overrule the sterilizing dictates of reason...

Third...[his writings were] the beginning of both the Romantic movement and of modern introspective literature.

The fourth concept Rousseau popularized was in some ways the most pervasive of all. When society evolves from its primitive state of nature to urban sophistication, he argued, man is corrupted: his natural selfishness...is transformed into a far more pernicious instinct...which combines vanity and self-esteem, each man rating himself by what others think of him and thus seeking to impress them by his money, strength, brains and moral superiority. His natural selfishness becomes competitive and acquisitive.

The evil of competition, as he saw it, which destroys man's inborn communal sense and encourages all his most evil traits, including his desire to exploit others, led Rousseau to distrust private property as the source of social crime. His fifth innovation, then, on the very eve of the Industrial Revolution, was to develop the elements of a critique of capitalism...

All culture brings problems since it is man's association with others which brings out his evil propensities... The culture in which man lived, itself an evolving, artificial construct, dictated man's behaviour, and you could improve, indeed totally transform, his behaviour by changing the culture and competitive forces which produced it - that is by social engineering.

These ideas are so wide-ranging as to constitute, almost by themselves, an encyclopeadia of modern thought. (pp. 2-4)

Secular Intellectuals

2011-10-12T20:16:00.000-07:00

I have just picked up Paul Johnson's Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky, and am delighted with the introductory paragraphs:

Over the past two hundred years theinfluence of intellectuals has grown steadily. Indeed, the rise of the secularintellectual has been a key factor in shaping the modern world. Seen againstthe long perspective of history it is in many ways a new phenomenon. It is true that in the earlier incarnationsas priests, scribes and soothsayers, intellectuals have laid claim to guidesociety from the very beginning. But as guardians of hieratic cultures, whetherprimitive or sophisticated, their moral and ideological innovations werelimited by the canons of external authority and by the inheritance oftradition. They were not, and could not be, free spirits, adventurers of themind.

With the decline of clerical powerin the eighteenth century, a new kind of mentor emerged to fill the vacuum andcapture the ear of society. The secular intellectual might be deist, sceptic oratheist. But he was just as ready as any pontiff or presbyter to tell mankindhow to conduct its affairs. He proclaimed, from the start, a special devotionto the interests of humanity and an evangelical duty to advance them by histeaching. He brought to this self-appointed task a far more radical approach thanhis clerical predecessors. He felt himself bound by no corpus of revealed religion.The collective wisdom of the past, the legacy of tradition, the prescriptivecode of ancestral experience existed to be selectively followed or whollyrejected entirely as his own good sense might decide. For the first time inhuman history, and with growing confidence and audacity, men arose to assertthat they could diagnose the ills of society and cure them with their ownunaided intellect: more, that they could devise formulae whereby not merely thestructure of society but the fundamental habits of human beings could betransformed for the better. Unlike their sacerdotal predecessors, they were notservants and interpreters of the gods but substitutes. Their hero wasPrometheus, who stole the celestial fire and brought it to earth.

One of the most markedcharacteristics of the new secular intellectuals was the relish with which theysubjected religion and its protagonists to critical scrutiny. How far had theybenefited or harmed humanity, these great systems of faith? To what extent hadthese popes and pastors lived up to their precepts, of purity and truthfulness,of charity and benevolence? The verdicts pronounced on both churches and clergywere harsh. Now, after two centuries during which the influence of religion hascontinued to decline, and secular intellectuals have played an ever-growing rolein shaping our attitudes and institutions, it is time to examine their record, both public and personal.In particular, I want to focus on the moral and judgmental credential s ofintellectuals to tell mankind how to conduct itself. How did they run their ownlives? With what degree of rectitude did they behave to family, friends andassociates? Were they just in their sexual and financial dealings? Did theytell, and write, the truth? And how have their own systems stood up to the testof time and praxis?

Hypocrisy writ large

2011-10-08T07:40:00.000-07:00

God gave them up to dishonorable passions

2011-09-20T07:32:00.000-07:00

As you have probably heard, the repeal of the U.S. military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy forbidding homosexuals from openly acknowledging their perversion takes effect today. Have you ever wondered how our Founders would have dealt with the issue? Wonder no more.

As noted in Bowers vs. Hardwick (1986), "Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights." In some states the penalty for homosexual acts was death.

In his Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments for the state of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson proposed the punishment of castration.

And what of George Washington, the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental army?

At a General Court Marshall, on March 10, 1778, a Lieutenant Enslin was "tried for attempting to commit sodomy with John Monhort." He was also tried for "Perjury in swearing to false Accounts." Enslin was "found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War." He was dismissed from the service "with infmay. His Excellency the Commander in Chief [George Washington] approve[d] the sentence and with Abhorrence and Destestation of such infamous Crimes order[ed] Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of the Camp...by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return." (See Gary DeMar, America's Christian History: The Untold Story, p. 170)

Woe to us when perversion is not only practiced, but when society also gives its official approval. See Romans 1:32.

2011-09-15T13:45:00.000-07:00

Thomas Sowell gives a good explanation (and historical example) of why "tax hikes on the rich" do not increase federal revenue--and in fact do just the opposite--and why such taxes on the "rich" harm the overall economy.

Ninety years ago — in 1921 — federal income tax policies reached an absurdity that many people today seem to want to repeat. Those who believe in high taxes on "the rich" got their way. The tax rate on people in the top income bracket was 73 percent in 1921 (more)

The Fallacy of Moral Equivalence

2011-09-15T13:35:00.000-07:00

Andrew Sandlin has a good post on "The Fallacy of Moral Equivalence."

The trick is to deflect attention from great evils by focusing attention on opponents’ lesser evils — or no evils at all... (more)

Down another slippery slope

2011-09-06T07:45:00.000-07:00

We said it was coming, but they didn't believe us. They said we were over-reacting, exaggerating, just trying to scare people.

They were wrong. We were simply pointing out the logical implications of their position.

The magnificent R. L. Dabney (1820-1898) understood better than any in his day the consequences of ideas. He lived in a day of rapid social change that seems almost tame by comparison with what's going on today. In his essay, Women's Rights Women, he wrote,

In our day, innovations march with so rapid a stride that they quite take away one's breath. The fantastical project of yesterday, which was mentioned only to be ridiculed, is to-day the audacious reform, and will be to-morrow the accomplished fact.

Speaking of the usual conservative reaction to "fantastical" social projects, he says,

This is the party [conservatives] which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is to-day one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will to-morrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom.

We have seen this very scenario play itself out with respect to the "fantastical project" of normalizing sexual deviancy. Sodomites argued that whatever two consenting adults did behind closed doors should be legal. At first conservatives balked. Eventually they acquiesced. "Well, as long as you keep it to yourself." And one by one states repealed laws against sodomy. Those that didn't had them overturned by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

Then the homos wanted to "come out." They didn't want to keep their deviancy secret. They wanted social acceptance. If their lifestyle wasn't illegal, they argued, no one should be able to discriminate against them. And so morally conscientious landlords and business owners now face prosecution if they refuse to rent to or hire a homosexual. The "right" of one man to be perverse trumps the right of another to be a faithful Christian.

As usual, after initial resistance, conservatives caved. Actually, they did more than just cave. As Dabney said, "the resisted novelty of yesterday is to-day one of the accepted principles of conservatism." Conservatives have embraced the notion that all discrimination is wrong, regardless of the basis for the discrimination. "Well, of course, people shouldn't discriminate!" As if moral discrimination is the same thing as racial discrimination; as if skin color and behavior belong to the same category. Sheesh!

After achieving the "right" to come out and not be discriminated against in employment or housing on the basis of sexual orientation (instead, Christian landlords and employers are now discriminated against because it's never a question of discrimination versus no discrimination, but always a question of who does the discriminating and on what basis), they demanded even more. They must be given the right to marry. Conservatives raised a protest. But many were willing to compromise with civil unions or domestic partnerships, which essentially have all the legal implications of marriage without the name. Homos were still not satisfied. If there is any difference at all, even if only the name, it is unfair, unequal, unjust!

Most conservatives are still opposed to homosexual marriage. But just wait, once it is a fait accompli, as is rapidly happening (same sex unions are now legal in six states: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont.), it will become one of their cherished notions. "How can we deny two people who love each other the right to marry? It's one thing to be personally opposed to it, but that doesn't mean we should legally prevent it."

But...and here's the point of this post...this reasoning necessarily leads to the normalizing of other forms of sexual deviancy, forms that would cause the average person to gasp with horror. Critics have been pointing this out for years, but those on the other side have said we were exaggerating, that we were trying to scare people so they wouldn't be favorable to legalizing and normalizing same sex relationships.

For a number of years we have pointed out that nothing prevents the same reasoning from being used to justify pedophilia. The advocates of homosexuality objected. Strenuously. Even our friends thought our objections were overblown. But they weren't. Here's is the evidence.

A group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals say it's time to change the way society views individuals who have physical attractions to children.

The organization, which calls itself B4U-Act, is lobbying for changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, the guideline of standards on mental health that's put together by the American Psychiatric Association...

B4U-Act said that 38 individuals attended a symposium in Baltimore last week, including researchers from Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University and the universities of Illinois and Louisville... [T]he speakers in attendance concluded that "minor-attracted" individuals are largely misunderstood and should not be criminalized even as their actions should be discouraged. (Read more here)

This is the first step: decriminalization. But, you say, they concluded the actions of "minor-attracted" individuals should be discouraged. Yes they did. But once pedophilia passes from the category of "illegal" to the category of "legal but discouraged," the argument will be, "If it's legal, why should it be discouraged, especially if the adult and minor truly love each other and if both give their consent?" The progression is inevitable. The conclusion is contained in the premises.

This is what happens when a culture abandons God. "And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done" (Rom. 1:28). G. K. Chesteron once said, "When a man does not believe in God, the danger is not that he will believe in nothing, but that he will believe in anything." We are witnessing the dire consequences of our banishment of God from government working themselves out before our eyes.

Rich Man, Poor Man

2011-08-06T08:22:00.000-07:00

I have long been suspicious of the government's definition of poverty, largely because there was a time in my life when I and my family fell into that category, though we never thought of ourselves as poor. True, we had to watch every penny we spent. We rarely went out to eat. We didn't have cable TV. We often bought second hand clothes. We worried when it was time for new tires or when the washer broke down. But we had everything we really needed, to wit, food and shelter. Would we have liked to have more? Certainly. Who doesn't? But we had everything we really needed.

Since then - all thanks be to God - things have improved for us. At the time, however, I had to wonder about the definition of poverty. It seemed to me to be a politicized definition. The greater number of people who are classified as poor mean a greater number of people likely to vote for a candidate who promises to go to bat for them.

Bill Whittle over at PJTV has produced an excellent video showing just how "bad off" the poor in the U.S. really are. In my opinion, it is a must see. The statistics are enlightening and the description of envy is spot on.

Barbarism at last

2011-08-02T05:51:00.000-07:00

Ran across this quote today from Lord Byron's Childe Harold's Pilgrimage. Pretty much sums up the course of U.S. history thus far.

There is the moral of all human tales;
'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.

He was against it before he was for it

2011-07-30T15:16:00.000-07:00

Gary North comments (Obama vs. Obama) on a speech that then Senator Obama gave on the floor of the Senate in the 2006 in which he expressed his opposition to raising the debt ceiling.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is "trillion" with a "T." That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

Obama then was better than Obama now.

Economic Facts and Fallacies

2011-07-30T14:09:00.000-07:00

I have just finished Thomas Sowell's Economic Facts and Fallacies. Like everything he writes it is well worth reading. In it he dispels the most common assumptions of the Left about how an economy works. He excels at showing how government policies affect economic activity by creating incentives or disincentives for particular behaviors, frequently making the point that policies must be evaluated in terms of their actual results, not their intentions. He provides many examples of laws passed with the intention of helping minorities, the poor, and women, that in their actual results do far more harm than good.

The chapters include:

(1) The Power of Fallacies
(2) Urban Facts and Fallacies
(3) Male-Female Facts and Fallacies
(4) Academic Facts and Fallacies
(5) Income Facts and Fallacies
(6) Racial Facts and Fallacies
(7) Third World Facts and Fallacies
(8) Parting Thoughts

Someone has said that Sowell is a national treasure. I agree. I only wish more people in Washington would read him. In fact, no one should open his mouth to speak on the subjects of race, politics, or economics without first reading him.

What atom told you so?

2011-07-12T06:57:00.000-07:00

          Professor A. T. Heist peered over the top of his glasses and across the desk with a disconcerting look at Christian, whom until very recently he regarded as his star pupil…despite his name.
          “Look,” he said, barely controlling his anger, “I called you into my office to try to reason with you. You’re a bright kid. You’ve got a promising future. Your interaction in the class has made the semester interesting, not only for the other students but for me as well. But this is simply unacceptable.”
          “I still don’t understand why.”
          The professor slumped back in his chair, the exasperation obvious.
          “All right, one more time,” he said at last. “And I’ll try to make it just as plain and clear as I can.”
          He leaned forward and glared at Christian through narrowed eyes, pausing for dramatic effect. And then in the most authoritative tone he could muster, he said, “You can’t do this!”
          He emphasized the “can’t” by pounding the desk with his fist. Receiving the brunt of the blow was Christian’s term paper, which looked as if it had a lost a fight with a red pen.
          “Yes, you have already said so, Dr. Heist. But again I have to ask, why? It’s one thing to tell me I can’t; it’s another thing to explain why.”
          “Because it’s wrong, that’s why. You can’t copy someone else’s work and claim it as your own. That’s plagiarism.”
          “I’m aware of what it’s called, Doctor. But why is it wrong?”
          The professor slumped back into his chair again and looked at Christian doubtfully. “Do you really expect me to believe you don’t understand why it’s wrong?”
          “Look, Doctor, I have enjoyed your class and I’ve learned a great deal. I have to admit that when I was first told I had to take a philosophy course I was a bit uneasy. Philosophy had always seemed so abstract, but you really made the subject come alive for me, and so far it’s been my favorite class. It’s revolutionized my thinking.”
          The professor did his best to suppress a satisfied smile. He enjoyed the role he played as the enlightener of the young. He saw himself as a sort of secular savior, leading his students out of the darkness of the unexamined life. He had always felt a special pity for students from religious homes, whose poor benighted parents had passed on to their children the superstitions of the premodern world.
          He found Christian to be a particularly interesting student. He had had many other religious students before, but none quite like Christian. Christian participated in class discussions far more often, and far more thoughtfully. He was surprisingly confident in his convictions. The professor could tell from the beginning he was going to be a tough nut to crack. But Christian was too bright not to be convinced by a cogent argument, and the professor was sure that with a little patience he would eventually come around.
          Nor was he disappointed. Throughout the semester Christian showed he clearly understood the materialist philosophy. Much better than the other students, even those who had embraced it. Indeed, he wondered at times if Christian understood it better than he did himself. On several occasions, in class discussions and writing assignments, Christian fleshed out the implications of the philosophy more fully than he had done himself.
          Yet for all this Christian stubbornly persisted in his religious beliefs. That’s why the professor was so pleased when he read Christian’s term paper. The nut appeared to have finally cracked. Christian seemed to write as one who had embraced the materialist philosophy.
          It wasn’t until a day or so after he read the paper that the professor began to feel uneasy. There was something vaguely familiar about it. He hadn’t noticed it at first. But it came to him over the weekend. A line he had read somewhere before. A familiar phrase here. An expression there. He re-read the paper. His suspicions were heightened. He did an internet search to make sure. There it was. Christian had copied word for word the substance of a fairly well-known essay from a philosophical journal, added his own introduction and conclusion, and turned it in as his own work.
          The professor was disappointed and angry…
          “Have you not taught us, Doctor, that matter is all there is—no god, no soul, no spirit—just matter and energy?”
          “Yes, of course, that’s the essence of materialism. But let’s not stray from our point.”
          “I see it as very much related to our point.”
          “We’re talking about your conduct, Christian—your plagiarism—not a fine point of metaphysics.”
          “But conduct and metaphysics are related, aren’t they. You made the point several times in class. That’s why I’m having trouble understanding why you are so upset with me.”
          “What do you mean?”
          “You spent a good deal of time showing us that matter is all there is. It’s the ultimate reality. Nothing above or beyond it.”
          “Yes, yes, this is all very elementary.”
          “And matter does not prescribe any norms for human behavior, nor can it. Right? It has no will. Matter just is. And you can’t move from is to ought. Isn’t this what you’ve taught us, or have I missed something along the way?”
          “No you’re correct. Matter itself gives us no moral imperative, no standards for behavior. And I think I see where you’re going with this.”
          “Right. All semester you’ve taught us that there are no fixed moral standards—that everything is relative and depends upon the situation. Well, I just applied what you taught us about situational ethics to the term paper situation. That’s why it’s so puzzling that you’re so angry with me and tell me that plagiarism is wrong.”
          “Don’t play games with me Christian. It’s wrong and you know it’s wrong.”
          “What atom told you so, sir?”
          “Look, don’t be smart with me, Christian. If you were the one who had done the original research and had written the essay, you wouldn’t want someone to plagiarize your work—to steal your intellectual property.”
          “Are you applying the Golden Rule? That’s an odd thing for someone like you to do.”
          “The Golden Rule is not unique to the teaching of Jesus, Christian. Other religious leaders have taught the same thing, even non-religious thinkers, like Kant, who said, ‘Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law.’ So the Golden Rule, as you call it, is not a bad ethic to live by, even for a materialist.”
          “But are you saying it’s a norm which everyone ought to live by, or that it’s just a personal preference of yours that people would live by it?”
          “I’m saying the world would be a lot better place if everyone lived by it.”
          “And is making the world a better place something we ought to do?” asked Christian.
          “Of course it is!”
          “What atom told you so, sir?”
          “It’s just a given.”
          “Given by what? Or by Whom?”
          The professor stroked his beard and looked Christian over carefully, musing. He was doing it again. Christian was pushing the implications of the philosophy further than the professor had ever thought to do before. And by the twinkle in his eye, he concluded Christian had cleverly planned the whole thing.
          The professor was right about one thing. Christian was not like any student he ever had before.

We need more men like this

2011-07-08T15:15:00.000-07:00

Senator Marco Rubio's first speech on the floor of the Senate.

A really bright guy gets it wrong

2011-07-05T13:06:00.000-07:00

Stephen Hawking, regarded as one of the world's leading physicists, has become more and more vocal about his atheism the closer he gets to the time when he will have to stand before his Maker to give an account of himself.

In The Grand Design, a book published last year, he stated that it was "not necessary to invoke God...to get the universe going." Right...because we all know that something can come from nothing. Happens all the time.

Recently, in an interview published in The Guardian, he said, "There is no heaven or afterlife...; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."

And how, exactly, does he know there is no heaven or afterlife? Is he speaking as a scientist? Then tell me, what experiments has this man of science performed in order to substantiate his claim? And have these experiments been repeated by others in order to verify the results?

What's that you say? No experiments have been performed? And why is that, exactly? Oh, I see, it's because by the very nature of the case the claim is unverifiable by means of the scientific method. The soul is not a material object. Neither is heaven. They are not subject to empirical investigation.

On what basis then does he make so bold a claim? On the basis of his faith. He simply believes the natural world is all there is. And if you grant the premise you must necessarily grant the conclusion.

The physical world is all there is.
The soul is not a part of the physical world.
Therefore, the soul does not exist.

The logic is tight. If the premises are true, the conclusion is true. He and I agree on the second premise. It's the first premise where we differ. He says that the physical world [the cosmos] is a self-contained unit. It explains itself. I say it can't possibly explain itself.

Politics versus reality

2011-07-05T12:59:00.000-07:00

A must read article by Thomas Sowell...

It is hard to understand politics if you are hung up on reality. Politicians leave reality to others. What matters in politics is what you can get the voters to believe, whether it bears any resemblance to reality or not.

Not only among politicians, but also among much of the media, and even among some of the public, the quest is not for truth about reality but for talking points that fit a vision or advance an agenda. Some seem to see it as a personal contest about who is best at fencing with words.

Quote de jour

2011-07-05T12:36:00.000-07:00

"The way Social Security was set up was so financially shaky that anyone who set up a similar retirement scheme in the private sector could be sent to federal prison for fraud.

But you can't send a whole Congress to prison, however much they may deserve it." (Thomas Sowell)

You can read the whole column here.

Happy Fourth of July

2011-07-04T09:30:00.000-07:00

Here are 10 Things You Might Not Know About America's Independence.

The end of the law?

2011-07-02T05:46:00.000-07:00

What does Paul mean when he says in Romans 10:4 that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes”?

Let me first tell you what it does not mean. It does not mean that we do not have to keep the commandments. There is this silly notion about that the grace of God frees us from the obligation to obey him. Not so. If anything, grace increases our obligation to obey.

Paul says in his letter to Titus that the grace of God teaches us “to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in this present age” (Tit. 2:11-12).

In First Corinthians he says, “For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God” (1 Cor. 7:19).

In Hebrews we read that Christ has become the “source of eternal salvation to all who obey him” (Heb. 5:9).

So when Paul says that Christ is “the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes,” he is not saying that the law itself has come to an end and therefore we no longer need to obey God’s commandments. Rather, he is countering a common misunderstanding the Jews had concerning the law. In the two previous verses he said,

I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God [that is, the righteousness that comes from God as a gift through Christ], and seeking to establish their own [righteousness], they did not submit to God’s righteousness (Rom. 10:2-3).

Paul is referring to the view of so many Jews at the time—and the view that he himself held before he came to know Christ—that it was possible to establish one’s own righteousness before God by a strict fulfillment of the law’s commands, especially in those things that set the Jews apart from other people, like the kosher and purity laws as they were explained and applied by the traditions of the elders. The law was viewed as a kind of ladder of merit by which one could climb into the favor of God.

This is what is behind a prayer in the Siddur, or Jewish prayer book.

Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, Who did not make me a gentile.

Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, Who did not make me a slave.

Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, Who did not make me a woman.

The rationale behind this prayer is that there are more commandments that apply to free men than to slaves, and more that apply to male slaves than to women. And if there are more commandmentss to obey, then there is a greater share of righteousness to be had by free men than by either slaves or women.

But Paul says, “No, no, no! That’s not how it works at all. Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” The word “end” in this passage is not to be taken in the sense of termination—as if the law is no more—but in the sense of goal. It’s the Greek word telos, from which we get the word teleology, which in philosophy is the study of purpose or design or in Aristotelian terms of final cause.

People will sometimes say, “I am working toward that end,” meaning, “I’m working toward that goal” or “for that purpose.”

So Paul says that Christ is the “end” of the law for righteousness. He means that Christ, and the righteousness to be had in him and through him, is the goal of the law. In other words, whatever one may have hoped to have achieved in the way of righteousness by the law is instead achieved in Christ.

In his letter to the Philippians Paul said, I would rather be found in Christ, “not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil. 3:9).

This is a righteousness that is freely available to everyone, and in equal measure. It is not the case that a free male may achieve a greater share of righteousness than a male slave, and a male slave more than a woman. It’s this thinking that led Paul to say in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

It is true that more commandments apply to men than to women; and more to free men than to slaves. But righteousness is not reckoned by the number of commandments one fulfills, but by whether or not one is joined to Christ by faith. Jews and Gentiles, men and women, free men and slaves may all have an equal share in the righteousness of Christ because he is the end or goal of the law for righteousness. When you have him you have everything you need in the way of righteousness.

I wish to stress that this doesn’t mean that obedience to God’s commandments is unnecessary. We are to obey his commandments. How could it be otherwise? And besides, obedience is the natural and inevitable result of faith. If you believe God, then when he says do this or that, you will do it. If he says don’t do this or that, you won’t do it. It’s absurd to say that you believe in God when you don’t obey him.

Not a chance!

2011-06-25T06:52:00.000-07:00

Is there any such thing as luck or chance? For example, a basketball player takes a half-court shot at the buzzer and makes it. Do you think that it’s due to chance, to the player’s skill, or to God’s will?

We can rule out chance right off the bat. As Christians we shouldn’t be in the habit of talking about chance or luck because there’s no such thing. The world is governed by God, and everything that happens can be traced in one way or another back to God’s will. This doesn’t mean that God directly causes everything to happen, as if he’s the only agent at work, the only one who is truly acting; but it does mean that everything is under God’s control.

The Westminster Confession of Faith has an excellent statement on the providence of God.

God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly: yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. (Westminster Confession of Faith 5.1-2)

In other words, in any particular event there may be any one of a number of causes at work. When a basketball player makes a last second shot, for instance, he is exerting his will and effort according to his ability, developed through training and practice. The so-called laws of physics are also at work. But above, beyond, and over all is the will of God. From a merely human standpoint it may look like a lucky or unlucky shot. But from a Christian perspective, the shot goes in or it doesn’t because God either willed it or he didn’t.

What could be more random than a roll of the dice? But yet in Proverbs we’re told

The lot is cast into the lap,

but its every decision is from the Lord (Prov. 16:33).

Consider what happened to Ahab, the wicked king of Israel. The Lord spoke through the mouth of the prophet Micaiah, who told the king that he was going to be killed in battle. Ahab didn’t believe him and went into battle anyway, and the Bible says,

Now a certain man drew his bow at random [not aiming at any one individual soldier, but aiming into the thick of the enemy] and struck the king of Israel between the scale armor and the breastplate… And the battle continued that day, and the king was propped up in his chariot facing the Syrians, until at evening he died (1 Ki. 22:34-35).

Lucky shot, right? Wrong. From a human perspective it seems lucky. From a human perspective the arrow seemed to hit its mark by chance. But it did so only because God willed it.

It’s true that the Syrian soldier exercised his will and put forth the physical effort necessary to shoot the arrow; it’s true that he used his best judgment under the circumstances to aim in such a way into the thick of the enemy so as to have the best possible chance of hitting someone; it’s true that the arrow flew according to the laws of physics, and that the person it hit just happened to be king Ahab; and it’s true that the arrow gave the king a deadly wound. But it’s also true that God was behind it all. He decreed that it should happen. But it came about through secondary causes.

Jesus tells us that not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from our Father in heaven (Matt. 10:29). Kings are among the mightiest of men, and sparrows among the least of animals; but neither one falls to the ground apart from the will of God. Paul tells us that God works all things according to the counsel of his will (Eph. 1:11). All things. But normally this involves a variety of second causes.

The last second shot that goes in then, is it due to God’s will or the player’s skill? Yes, both are true! The one thing we can rule out, however, is mere luck or chance, because no such thing exists.

On the hardening of Pharaoh's heart

2011-06-18T06:20:00.000-07:00

Please explain what it means when it says that the Lord “hardened” Pharaoh’s heart.

There are several passages that speak of God hardening Pharaoh’s heart. The first time this is mentioned is in Exodus 4:21, where God announces his intention to do this, saying to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go” (see also: Ex. 7:3; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17).

I suppose there are a couple of things our questioner has in mind about this: (1) what exactly did this hardening consist of, and (2) was God unjust to harden his heart?

We must be cautious in answering the question about what the hardening consisted of because the Bible doesn’t explain it. But I think we would not be too far off the mark to suppose that, at a minimum, God withdrew whatever positive influences operated upon Pharaoh’s mind. The Bible teaches that we are by nature sinful. We are born into the world with a spiritual defect, in that we have a natural bias toward evil. Left to ourselves we would become monsters. But God hasn’t left us to ourselves. He has ordered the world in such a way that many restraints are placed upon the natural development of our sinful tendencies. For example, the moral instruction we received from our parents, the force of habit and custom, the dictates of conscience, authority figures who keep us in line through a fear of punishment, and the sense of shame we would feel if we should do evil.

But what if all these restraints upon our sinful inclinations should be removed? What if we had no sense of shame? What if our conscience was seared (1 Tim. 4:2)? What if—as in Pharaoh’s case—there was no human authority over us and we could do whatever we wanted without fear of punishment?

I think at a minimum we could say that this is what the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart consisted in. The Lord removed all the positive influences for good and gave him over to fully act out the evil that was in his heart. Three times in the first chapter of Romans Paul speaks of this sort of thing as he describes the moral degeneration of the Gentiles as they turned their back on God. He said,

God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity (v. 24)
God gave them up to dishonorable passions (v. 26)
God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done (v. 28)

He took away their moral restraints and allowed them to fully act out the evil that was in their heart. He did the same to Pharaoh.

But over and above this, it may be that God sent an evil spirit to afflict Pharaoh. The Lord did this in the case of King Saul (1 Sam. 16:14). This was a punishment for sins already committed. And this is something we must always bear in mind. It was not the case that in Pharaoh God took a good man and made him bad, or that he took a holy man and made him sinful, or a righteous man and made him wicked. Rather, God found Pharaoh to be a wicked man and he punished him for his wickedness. A part of that punishment consisted of giving him over to fully act out the evil that was in his own heart, and this may have included turning him over to the power of a demonic spirit.

I think it’s significant that the Bible not only says that the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, but also that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex. 8:15, 32; 9:34). And several times it says that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, without specifying whether it was the Lord or Pharaoh who hardened it (7:13, 14, 22; 8:19; 9:7, 35; 14:5).

The point is that God did not find Pharaoh a good man and make him bad. No, Pharaoh was a wicked man who was fully responsible for his own demise. A part of his punishment was being turned over to his own base instincts.

Paul dealt with these issues in the ninth chapter of Romans when he said,

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (Rom. 9:14-21)

The one lump of clay is the mass of fallen sinful humanity, and Paul says, “May not God show mercy to some and harden others, as he sees fit?” The answer of course is yes he may. He is sovereign and may do whatever he pleases. But notice that in neither case is any injustice done to anyone. Some who deserve wrath receive wrath, while others who deserve wrath receive mercy. Another way to put it is: some receive justice and others receive mercy, but no one receives injustice. Pharaoh and the Egyptians received justice, Israel received mercy, and we ought to glorify God for both.

So much for global warming

2011-06-15T14:19:00.000-07:00

New research indicates that instead of facing steadily increasing global temperatures, we may actually be heading toward a little ice age.

Low sun activity is cited as the reason. In recent measurements, sunspot activity, intense solar eruptions caused by magnetic activity, has been astonishingly lower than predicted, which translates into a period of cooling — what scientists dub a “little ice age...” (read more)

But who really knows? It's always a bit dicey trying to predict the future. Current sunspot activity may not necessarily be an indicator of future sunspot activity. As Danish physicist Niels Bohr once said, "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future."

It seems to me, however, that sunspot activity - which of course is wholly beyond our control - is likely to have far more to do with global temperatures than human activity (with the possible exception of all the hot air emitted by Al Gore).

Apostasy and the welfare state

2011-06-15T05:30:00.000-07:00

The welfare state is only possible where there is a loss of the Christian faith.

But we urge you, brothers...to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may live properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one (1 Thes. 4:10-11)

What about demon possession?

2011-06-10T06:39:00.000-07:00

In the New Testament we find several accounts of people being possessed by evil spirits. Do you think that still goes on today?

I think it’s clearly possible that it still happens today, but I don’t think we should expect it to happen with the same degree of regularity with which it occurred in the period of the New Testament.

And I might add that the same is true for the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. We should not expect miracles to happen with the same degree of regularity.

Some people believe that since miracles were frequently performed by Jesus and the apostles, then they should still be frequently taking place today. The reason they don’t take place, we’re told, is because of our sinfulness or our lack of Christian maturity or our lack of faith.

But there is a serious flaw in reasoning here. We should not assume that whatever took place in the New Testament ought to be regarded as normative for the church for all time.

Here’s why: God was clearly doing something unique in Jesus’ day. It was an unusual divine intervention into human history. And God wished to overcome our natural inclination to disbelieve it.

I mean think about it. Here is a man who claims to be the Son of God; who claims to be God manifest in human flesh; who claims that his death would have cosmic significance; that in fact he would die as a sacrifice for human sin; and that whoever should be united to him by faith would be received into God’s favor.

These are pretty extraordinary claims! What kind of man would make them? Someone, perhaps, who had delusions of grandeur. Or a man who was a thoroughgoing fraud. Or someone who really was the Son of God. But how are we to tell? Any man could make these claims. But how are such claims to be verified? How are they to be proved true?

Jesus said, “The works [i.e., miracles] that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me” (Jn. 10:25). And again, “Even though you do not believe me, believe the works [miracles], that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father” (Jn. 10:38).

And this is why apostles were given the power to work miracles, too. They were commissioned to give a unique testimony concerning Jesus. They were eye-witnesses of his resurrection. They had all seen him after he was raised. Again, this is a very extraordinary claim. Who would have believed it if God himself had not confirmed their testimony by performing signs and wonders through their hands? The miracles they performed had evidentiary value. As the writer of Hebrews says,

[The gospel] was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will (Heb. 2:3-4)

It is illegitimate to take this unique role of the apostles as eye-witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection and say that what was normative for them, in terms of the power to work miracles, should be normative for us. We’re not apostles, and we’re not eye-witnesses of Christ. This is not to say that we cannot pray and ask God for extraordinary things, even miraculous things, like healing. And God does grant answers to our prayers in pretty remarkable ways sometimes. But we’re not warranted to expect the same kinds of miracles with the same degree of regularity as we see in the New Testament.

Understanding this I think helps us to also understand the place of demon possession as it took place in the New Testament period. It is precisely because the incarnation of Christ was an unusual divine intervention in human history that there was a similarly unusual demonic intervention in human history at the same time. The devil sought to counteract what God was doing. Just as there was an intensification, if you will, of divine activity, so there was an intensification of demonic activity in order to lead people astray. But of course Jesus confronted the power of devil on many occasions and triumphed over him.

Does demon possession still take place? I suppose that it does; but I don’t think we should expect it to happen as frequently today as it did in the New Testament period.

Pencils Falling to the Floor

2011-05-31T08:01:00.001-07:00

Last night while I slept I dreamed a dream. And in my dream I saw myself approach two men engaged in a lively conversation. The name of one was Christian. The other was Sam. The conversation had apparently been going on for some time.

This is what I heard:

“Yes, that’s what I said before. That’s all there is, just matter and energy. No spirit, no soul, no god, just matter and energy. If it’s not a physical entity it doesn’t exist.”

“Does your mind exist?” Christian asked.

“Of course,” Sam said. “I have a brain, just as you do.”

“I didn’t ask if you had a brain. I asked if you had a mind.”

“My mind is a function of my brain.”

“And your brain is a physical thing?”

“Yes.”

“Gray matter, electrical impulses, and chemical reactions?”

“Yes, but it’s very complicated, you know. Scientists have been studying the brain for a long time.”

“And there is nothing about the mind that is not rooted in the physical organ of the brain?”

“No. No soul, if that’s what you’re asking. All there is is matter and energy.”

“Yes, so you said before.”

“And so I’ll say again.”

“Consistency is good. I applaud it wherever I find it,” said Christian. “But I wonder if you really are consistent.”

“What do you mean?”

“You say your mind is a function of your brain, a physical organ. Does this mean, then, that your thoughts are physical things?”

“No. Thoughts themselves aren’t physical, but they are the result of physical processes.”

“Of the brain—gray matter, electrical impulses, and chemical reactions?”

“Yes. Haven’t we already been through this?”

“I just want to make sure that I understand you. Your thoughts are the result of electrical impulses and chemical reactions taking place in your brain?”

“I guess you could say so, yes,” said Sam. “But it seems overly simplistic to do so.”

“It seems overly simplistic to me, too, although for different reasons. But can you think of any other factors, besides physical ones that have a part to play in producing thoughts.”

“No. Remember, all there is…”

“…is matter and energy. Right. So you said before. And matter and energy are subject to physical laws?”

“Of course.”

“And are things which are subject to physical laws responsible for their actions?”

“What do you mean?”

“When I drop this pencil and it falls to the floor, is the pencil responsible for its action of falling?”

“How could it be? It can’t do otherwise.”

“It can’t fall upward or sideways?” Christian asked.

“Don’t be absurd.”

“Why is it that it can only fall down?”

“I’m sure you know the answer to that as well as I do,” Sam said. “Because of the law of gravity.”

“Which is a physical law, governing physical things?”

“Yes.”

“And physical laws cannot be broken? The pencil can’t break the law of gravity and do something other than fall to the floor?”

“No. Not unless a counterforce is applied. A rocket for instance uses a counterforce in its propulsion engine to overcome the law of gravity.”

“But even in such a case we have laws of motion at work?”

“Yes.”

“And all things are subject to physical laws?”

“Yes.”

“Including the activity of the brain—electrical impulses and chemical reactions—which produce thoughts?”

Sam clearly didn’t like the direction the argument was taking him. “Well…yes…I guess so,” he hesitated.

“And a person is not responsible for his thoughts, since they are the result of physical laws operating on the physical organ of the brain?”

“That doesn’t seem quite right.”

“No? Have we gone wrong somewhere?” Christian asked. “Maybe in our first premise that all there is is matter and energy. Do we need to rethink that?”

“No. I’m sure we’ve got that right.”

“Then what about the second premise that physical things, including the brain, are subject to physical laws?”

“No. That must be right too.”

“Well, then, we do face something of a conundrum don’t we? Given the premises, the conclusion follows. Our thoughts, which are the products of the physical organ of the brain, are things we are not responsible for. The electrical impulses and chemical reactions in your brain have produced the thought that God does not exist. The electrical impulses and chemical reactions in my brain have produced the thought that he does. And neither of us is responsible for the activity of our brains that give rise to these thoughts; but yet you are acting as if we are.”

“What do you mean?” asked Sam.

“You are trying to convince me to change my thoughts about God, trying to convince me that he doesn’t exist, as if I am responsible for my thoughts.”

“Well, you’re doing the same thing, trying to convince me that God does exist.

“True, and I cheerfully admit it! But then I again I believe we’re responsible for our thoughts. I’m acting consistently with my beliefs. You’re acting inconsistently with yours.”

At this, Sam fell silent. He was thinking. Actually, he was wondering if he was thinking. Really thinking. Perhaps what was happening in his mind that he thought was thinking was nothing more than the equivalent of pencils falling to the floor.

“Perhaps we can talk about this again later,” he said at last. “I’m intrigued by what you’ve said. I’ve got some thinking to do in the meantime, though.”

He got it right

2011-05-30T12:40:00.000-07:00

Sometimes he doesn't have very flattering things to say about women. But sometimes he gets right. Like here...

   A woman's beauty lights up a man's face,
   and there is nothing he desires more.
   If kindness and humility mark her speech,
   her husband is more fortunate than other men.
   He who acquires a wife gets his best possession,
   a helper fit for him and a pillar of support.
   (Sirach 36:27-29)

The theologian's task

2011-05-28T08:00:00.000-07:00

"There is no room in dogmatic theology for a system that attempts to deduce the truths of faith from an a priori principle, say, from the essence of religion, from the essence of Christianity, from the fact of regeneration, or from the experience of the devout. This is speculation and must be resisted. Dogmatic theology is a positive science that gathers its material from revelation and does not have the right to modify or expand that content by speculation apart from that revelation. When because of limitations or weakness a theologian is faced with the choice either of simply letting the truths of faith stand alongside each other or, in the interest of maintaining the systematic form, fail to do justice to one of them, we must let the system go. Theologians must resist the temptation to let a system rule. But such dilemmas occur because we theologians are finite and limited. There is no conflict in God; God's thoughts cannot be opposed to one another; they are necessarily an organic unity. The imperative task of the theologian is to think God's thoughts after him, to trace their unity, mentally absorb it, and set it forth in a work of theology. The theologian's sole responsibility is to think God's thoughts after him and to reproduce the unity that is objectively present in the thoughts of God has been recorded for the eye of faith in Scripture." (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, p. 10)

Herman Bavinck

2011-05-26T08:44:00.000-07:00

As you can see to the left, one of the books I'm currently reading is Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics...not the full four volume set, but the recently published abridged version. Bavinck (1854-1921) succeeded Abraham Kuyper as professor of systematic theology at the Free University of Amsterdam in 1902. He is regarded as one of the leading lights among Dutch Reformed theologians. I have read a little Bavinck here and there over the years and have always greatly benefitted from what I read. I was very pleased to see that his four volume work had been abridged by John Bolt into a single hefty tome of 848 pages. I ordered it back in January but there were some delays in its publication and so I didn't actually receive it until last week. It was worth the wait! Judging by the first 150 pages, I just may have to break down and purchase the entire four volume set. He was a rare man, combining profound thought, true godliness, and a simple child-like faith.

All God's creatures like to have fun

2011-05-25T12:12:00.000-07:00

Here we go again

2011-05-24T08:29:00.000-07:00

If you haven't yet had your fill of prognostications from end times prognosticators you'll be glad to know there are still more to be had. The false prophet/teacher Harold Camping hasn't yet learned his lesson. Since at least 2005 he had been predicting Saturday, May 21, 2011 as the day of judgment, with the full end of all things coming October 21. When nothing happened last Saturday--even though, according to Camping, the Bible guaranteed his prediction--he was forced to make some revisions. His revisions follow the pattern set by another prophetic prognositcator in the 19th century. New York farmer turned preacher William Miller had predicted the Lord's return to "cleanse the sanctuary" (Dan. 8:14) no later than March 21, 1844. When it didn't take place as he expected, he said it would happen later the same year in October.

Second verse, same as the first, a little bit louder and little bit worse.

Like Miller, Camping has given a brief extension of hope to his followers by postponing the dramatic event until October. He still says May 21 was a significant day in God's last days timetable; he had just misunderstood what the significance was. He thought all Christians would be carried away to heaven, and God's judgment on earth would begin. He now says that May 21 was actually the beginning of a "spiritual" judgment...whatever that means.

Again the parallels to the Miller debacle are remarkable. To William Miller's credit, when October 1844 came and nothing he expected happened, he gave up the whole enterprise of attempting to predict the Lord's return. Others, however, were not deterred. Certain of his followers, led by Ellen G. White, said that in fact Miller was correct about the date, but wrong about the event. She said Jesus didn't return to earth to cleanse an earthly sanctuary after all. No, he cleansed the heavenly sanctuary. It was thus a "spiritual" event.

If you care to read more, you can do so here.

The Studied Irrelevance of American Foreign Missions

2011-05-23T13:28:00.000-07:00

Bojidar Marinov of Bulgaria has written a must read for everyone who is serious about missions.

Idolizing democracy

2011-05-23T09:03:00.000-07:00

Contrary to popular opinion, vox populi is NOT vox dei. Far too long have Christians fought the "culture war" (1) by appealing to numbers. "Polls show that the majority of Americans want restrictions on abortion...oppose gay marriage...want prayer in public schools..." etc., etc., etc.

But he who lives by the poll must be prepared to die by it too. A new Gallup poll shows that for the first time a majority of Americans favor legalizing same sex marriages. Having rested our case on the will of the majority in the past, are we ready to do the same now that its will has shifted?

It should be clear that we must not idolize democracy. The voice of the people is not the voice of God. We must never rest our case on the will of the people. It may not be an inappropriate thing to point out that a majority of Americans believe this or that. In fact it may be a very useful thing to know. But it must never be the basis for deciding moral questions. A "thus saith the Lord" trumps the will of the people every time.

The only legitimate function of democracy is in the selection of governing officials who are charged with the responsibility of administering the affairs of state in terms of God's word. When the weight of judging Israel became too great for Moses, he said to them, "Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads" (Deut. 1:13). The people from each tribe were to choose leaders for their own tribes, but those so chosen were solemnly charged by Moses to judge according to God's law.

Hear the cases between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the alien who is with him. You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God's (Deut. 1:16-17).

This last statement is especially significant. "The judgment [Heb., mishpat, judgment, ruling] is God's." This is a reference to the case laws introduced in Exodus 21:1, "Now these are the rules [mishpat] that you shall set before them..." And what follows in the next two chapters is a series of case laws to guide the judges' rulings when litigants come before them. The important thing to note here is that those selected to fill the various offices of government were not to render judgments based on their own authority, or on the authority of majority opinion, but on the authority of what God had already declared as the proper judgment. Theirs was not a legislative function, but a judicial one. Put another way, they were not to make law, they were to govern in terms of God's law already revealed.

Until we recognize this, and until we quit idolizing democracy, both here or abroad, (2) and begin to take our stand on "thus saith the Lord," our efforts in the culture war are doomed to utter failure.

(1) The "culture war" is properly named only in so far as we remember that "culture" is the outworking of a people's religion. The culture war really is at its root a religious war. The adherents of one religion (Naturalism) are seeking the ouster of the adherents of another (Christianity) from all positions of power and influence in society. It's a war they have largely won. They are now simply engaged in expurgating the remnants of a once Christian society.

(2) Do we really want to "make the word safe for democracy" so the majority in a Muslim nation can vote for leaders who will implement sharia?

When the deviant becomes normal

2011-05-20T16:07:00.000-07:00

Art (and I use the term loosely) has long been the avenue to popularize, legitimize, and normalize every imaginable - and for most ordinary people even unimaginable - sexual deviancy. The more a work pushes the moral boundaries, the more it's lauded by critics. Here is a case in point at the Cannes Film Festival. Ordinary people, even the French (if you can call them ordinary), got up and left the screening. It was just too much to stomach. Not surprisingly, true art afficionados (or at least those who flatter themselves with the title) gave the film a standing ovation.

There are few taboos left to break. What will they do when they're all gone? When the deviant becomes normal, the normal looks deviant. It won't be long before a man and a woman who actually really and truly love each other and stay together for life will be an aberration. Cameron Diaz has recently gone on record as saying that marriage is a "dying institution." If she is merely offering a description of the consequences of our culture's revolt against God and his law, she is correct. All the statistics bear her out. But her prescription only makes matters worse. "I think we have to make our own rules," she said. "I don't think we should live our lives in relationships based off old traditions that don't suit our world any longer."

After taking some heat for making these comments, a certain Dr. Keith Ablow came to her defense.

"Well, I’m not certain marriage ever did suit most people who tried it. From what I hear in my psychiatry office, and from what I hear from other psychiatrists and psychologists, and from what my friends and relatives tell me and show me through their behavior, and from the fact that most marriages end either in divorce or acrimony, marriage is (as it has been for decades now) a source of real suffering for the vast majority of married people."

A couple of observations: First, it's not marriage itself that is "a source of real suffering for the vast majority of married people." It's marriage to a selfish pig, or being a selfish pig to your spouse...or both.

Second, although it's true that many marriages are not doing well, it's equally true that Dr. Keith Ablowhard's sample is skewed. "I would venture that 90 percent of the married patients I speak with would rank their marriages in the top two stressors in their lives," he says. But to draw conclusions about the general population based on the experiences of those who use the services of a psychiatrist is a rather questionable way of proceeding. Are pyschiatric patients truly representative of society at large?

I have long been convinced that one of the most potent methods of evangelism is the witness of a Christian family. And since the word family doesn't mean what it used to, let me be clear. By family I mean a husband (who is a man) and wife (who is a woman) together with their children (the more the merrier). When a man stands before God and a congregation of God's people and pledges in a solemn covenant to take his bride for life and to love her self-sacrificially as Christ loves the church...and then actually follows through and does what he says he will do; and when a woman in return pledges her love and faithfulness to her husband, and also does what she says she will do...well then, you have a recipe for heaven on earth.

As much as the intellectuals and avant garde artistes and all those who follow them may like to mock and denigrate marriage and say that it doesn't suit our world any longer, if they should ever see the real thing - as opposed to the shams they and their friends have been a part of - they will love it and long for it. They won't be able to help it. They were made by God and live in God's world, and no matter how deeply they have suppressed the truth about marriage, when they see it embodied before their eyes in a faithful Christian family, they won't be able to help longing for it in spite of themselves.

Christian Fools and their Folly

2011-05-19T11:37:00.000-07:00

Perhaps you have heard that this Saturday...as in two days from now...the world as we know it is going to come to an end. So says one Harold Camping, president of Family Radio. More precisely, the rapture is supposed to occur on Saturday. The following five months will witness the wrath of God being poured out in judgment upon those left behind. The full end of all things will come later this year on October 21.

We've been through all this silliness before. Previously Mr. Camping said these things would happen in 1994. Is it necessary to say he was wrong - painfully, shamefully, embarrassingly wrong? Or, depending where you stand, laughably wrong!

Of course he had to admit as much the first time around...sort of. September 6, 1994 (the original prediction) was not the day of the rapture after all. But as it turns out, it was still a very significant day in God's timetable, he assures us. It was the beginning of the Great Tribulation. The end would come in 2008.

Oops! That's not right either. No worries, though. Further calculations have shown that the Great Tribulation actually began in 1988 (40 years after Israel became a nation). The 2nd Jubilee (the Latter Rain) began in 1994, and the end will come in 2011.

Confused? Me too. But Camping is even more so.

I'm not sure which is more surprising, that someone could so obviously and so thoroughly twist the Scriptures like Camping does, or that so many people think he's right. Incredibly, his following this time around is even larger than before. Maybe it's because he assures us that no less an authority than the Bible itself backs him up. "The Bible guarantees it," he says. Or perhaps it's because the world is filled with undiscerning Christians who simply don't know how to read the Bible. I don't mean they are literally illiterate, as in can't read. I mean they don't know how to handle the Bible, how to interpret it. They read it as if it's written in some kind of mystical code that only the most spiritually astute can decipher.

His interpretations are a wonder to behold. Really. I wonder how in the world he can have such a disregard of context. I wonder how he can join together passages that have nothing to do with one another. I wonder how he can ignore the plain meaning of the text and arrive at it's underlying "spiritual" meaning. I wonder how he can pull random numbers from this verse and that and say they represent the number of years in the Lord's timetable of end time events.

I would like to think that when May 21 comes and goes and the rapture doesn't take place, Camping will forsake his folly and apologize to the world. But I'm sure he'll have an explanation ready at hand. He'll recalculate and be out with another date sometime soon.

And what will become of those who follow him? God only knows. Some, who have staked the truth of the Christian faith on the "truth" of Camping's predictions, may forsake the faith altogether. Some, Lord willing, will reject the whole endeavor of end times speculation and join a faithful church. But there will be a few, no doubt - true believers to the bitter end - who will follow Camping whithersoever he goes.

An excellent wife who can find?

2011-05-18T08:16:00.000-07:00

To the left you will see that one of the books I'm currently reading is the Apocrypha. For those who may not know, it's a collection of Jewish writings composed between the close of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New. This morning I happened to read this...and it expresses beautifully how I feel about Melinda, my bride of (almost) 25 years:

Happy is the husband of a good wife;
     the number of his days will be doubled.
A loyal wife brings joy to her husband,
     and he will complete his years in peace.
A good wife is a great blessing;
     she will be granted among the blessings
     of the man who fears the Lord.
Whether rich or poor, his heart is content,
     and at all times his face is cheerful.
     (Sirach 26:1-4)

Word games

2011-05-17T07:33:00.000-07:00

Thomas Sowell has an excellent piece on the Fed and its shenanigans:

When people in Washington start creating fancy new phrases, instead of using plain English, you know they are doing something they don't want us to understand.

It was an act of war when we started bombing Libya. But the administration chose to call it "kinetic military action." When the Federal Reserve System started creating hundreds of billions of dollars out of thin air, they called it "quantitative easing" of the money supply. (Read more of Fed Up with the Fed?)

Schlissel's take on the take down of Ben Lowdown

2011-05-09T13:05:00.000-07:00

"Some have asked for guidance in their thinking and reaction to the killing of Ben Lowdown. Okay, some quick ones. But first let me assure you that these comments are NOT personal and have no one in view.

That said, I mourn over our unreaction to this unqualifiedly wonderful news and regard our confusion as evidence that we have taken another huge step toward perfect judgment. The outpouring of conflicting opinion is grievously revelatory. What do I mean?

Let us start with the foundation..." (more)

On the death of the wicked

2011-05-05T06:47:00.000-07:00

Is it wrong to be glad that Osama bin Laden has been killed? What should a Christian’s response be to the news of his death?

Our response ought to be one of humble thanksgiving that God has taken out one of our enemies.

“But,” I hear you saying, “is it really appropriate to give thanks for someone’s death?” Yes it is, when it is such a man as Osama bin Laden, a man who was responsible for the cold-blooded murder of many thousands of people both here in the United States and elsewhere around the world.

The fact of the matter is that we frequently find the saints of God in Scripture giving thanks to the Lord and praising his name for taking out their enemies. For instance, at the time of the exodus, Israel stood beside the Red Sea and saw Pharaoh and the Egyptian army lying dead on the shore and they “sang a song to the LORD, saying,

I will sing to the LORD, for he has triumphed gloriously;
     the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea…
This is my God, and I will praise him,
     my father’s God, and I will exalt him.
The LORD is my strength and my song,
     and he has become my salvation;
The LORD is a man of war;
     the LORD is his name” (Ex. 14:31-15:1-2)

Likewise, in the book of Judges we read of how God used the armies of Israel to defeat the Canaanites who had oppressed them, and used a tent peg and hammer, wielded by the hands of a woman to take out Sisera, the enemy commander. Deborah, the judge of Israel, led the people in singing a song of praise:

Most blessed of women be Jael,
     the wife of Heber the Kenite, of tent-dwelling women most blessed.
He asked water and she gave him milk;
     she brought him curds in a noble’s bowl.
She sent her hand to the tent peg
     and her right hand to the workmen’s mallet;
she struck Sisera;
     she crushed his head;
     she shattered and pierced his temple.
Between her feet
     he sank, he fell, he lay still;
between her feet
     he sank, he fell;
where he sank, there he fell—dead.

And then to end the song, she said:

So may all your enemies perish, O LORD!
But your friends be like the sun as he rises in his might (Jud. 5:31)

And we could go on to cite many other passages, especially in the Psalms, of God’s people longing to see vengeance come upon the wicked. Here’s an example from Psalm 52. See if it doesn’t sound like he could have been speaking about Osama bin Laden.

Why do you boast of evil, O mighty man?
     The steadfast love of God endures all the day.
Your tongue plots destruction,
     like a sharp razor, you worker of deceit.
You love evil more than good,
     and lying more than speaking what is right.
You love all words that devour,
     O deceitful tongue.
But God will break you down forever;
     he will snatch and tear you from your tent;
     he will uproot you from the land of the living.
The righteous shall see and fear, and shall laugh at him, saying,
“See the man who would not make God his refuge,
but trusted in the abundance of his riches
     and sought refuge in his work of destruction!” (Psalm 52:1-7)

It should go without saying that our hope and preference would be that all the enemies of the Lord—and our enemies—would come to repentance and find the Lord’s mercy so as to be reconciled to God (Ezek. 33:11). But if they remain obstinate and rebellious and continue to plot murder and mayhem…well then let us learn to pray the Psalms of imprecation, i.e., the Psalms that call upon God to strike the wicked.

May his days be few;
     may another take his office!
May his children be fatherless
     and his wife a widow!
May his children wander about and beg,
     seeking food far from the ruins they inhabit!
May the creditor seize all that he has;
     may strangers plunder the fruits of his toil!
Let there be none to extend kindness to him,
     nor any to pity his fatherless children!
May his posterity be cut off;
     may his name be blotted out in the second generation!
May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the Lord,
     and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out!
Let them be before the LORD continually,
     that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth! (Ps. 109:8-15)

Such prayers are not to be prayed lightly, or for trivial reasons. They’re not meant for say, the driver who “steals” the parking space we were just getting ready to pull into. The Psalmist goes on to show what kind of enemy he has in mind.

For he did not remember to show kindness,
     but pursued the poor and needy
     and the brokenhearted, to put them to death.
He loved to curse; let curses come upon him!
     He did not delight in blessing; may it be far from him! (Ps. 109:16-17)

David is talking about bloodthirsty, violent men who slaughter the innocent. Elsewhere he says, "The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence" (Ps. 11:5). Such a man was Osama bin Laden. The Lord hated him. I know this shocks evangelical piety, but if the Scriptures are true, this statement is also true.

I can hear you say, “But doesn’t the Lord love everyone?”

Yes and no. He loves all men as men, as creatures whom he fashioned with his own hands, creatures whom he made in his own image; but he hates those men who have made themselves monsters.

The boastful shall not stand before your eyes,
you hate all evildoers.
You destroy those who speak lies;
the LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man (Ps. 5:5-6)

Let us be glad that bin Laden is dead and gone. We ought to feel a sense of deep satisfaction that justice has been done. But as I mentioned at the outset, the appropriate response is one of humble thanksgiving. Sadly, however, our response has been anything but humble. We have not deserved the Lord’s kindness to us in delivering our enemy into our hands. We have not even acknowledged that it was he who did it. I listened to the president’s speech in vain for any recognition that the Lord has been merciful to us in taking out our enemy. The speech was largely an exercise of self-congratulation and American braggadocio. “Today’s achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people.” No, Mr. President. It’s a testament to the kindness and mercy of our God that he hasn’t given us over to the power of our enemies as our sins deserve.

Except for the now customary and nearly meaningless, “May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America,” he never acknowledged the Lord. Surprised? The closest he came to doing so was when he said, “We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation.” Give thanks for them? Yes we should, but to whom? Why doesn’t he say? Why isn’t he explicit that it is the Lord God Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ…you know, the God of the Bible, the only God there is?

Without doubt, our troops acted with bravery and conducted their mission with great precision and efficiency. They should certainly be commended and given the highest honors for their heroics. But they should learn to say (if they haven’t already), “Blessed be the LORD my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle” (Ps. 144:1). And again,

Through you we push down our foes;
     through your name we tread down those who rise up against us.
For not in my bow do I trust,
     nor can my sword save me.
But you have saved us from our foes
     and have put to shame those who hate us (Ps. 44:5-7)

We fool ourselves if we think that American power is invincible. It is not. God is capable of drowning entire armies in the midst of the sea (Ex. 14:30), or of striking them dead with a single blow (2 Ki. 19:35). Our portion is not to boast of our success as if it is due to our superior power or the justness of our cause, but to humbly recognize that it has come only through his kind providence, and this in spite of our many sins.

What Usama Bin Laden's been learnin'

2011-05-02T07:39:00.000-07:00

Usama Bin Laden's been learnin' that it was not seventy two virgin's awaiting him in heaven, but 72 demons in hell.

An international thief for president?

2011-04-30T17:32:00.000-07:00

All right, I am now officially nervous about a Donald Trump presidential campaign. Actually, "nervous" might be too mild a description. "Frightened" is perhaps more accurate. I'll be scared to death if it looks like he might possibly win.

Why the fear, you ask? The reasons are many. But here's one that ought to scare everyone: he is a thief at heart.

Let me explain.

The power of eminent domain is a power the government has to appropriate private property for public use provided the owner is compensated according to the market value of the property. The power is mentioned - and limited - in the Fifth Amendment. By "public use" we should understand use by the government in carrying out its duties as enumerated by the Constitution. But in recent years, as we have moved further and further from the original meaning and intent of our founding documents, eminent domain has been used to transfer private property from one private citizen to another for the purpose of economic development. The Donald has attempted more than once to use this power for his own personal profit.

And now for the scary part. Last week he was a guest of Greta Van Susteren of Fox News, who asked him about Obama's doings with respect to the goings-on in Libya. Did the President do the right thing in authorizing the cruise missile strikes? Should the U.S. do more to help the rebels? What would he do if he were president?

“I would go in and take the oil — I would just go in and take the oil. We don’t know who the rebels are, we hear they come from Iran, we hear they’re influenced by Iran or al-Qaida, and, frankly I would go in, I would take the oil — and stop this baby stuff."

What in the world is he thinking? On what grounds should we "just go in and take the oil"? It doesn't belong to us. To "just go in and take it" would be nothing less than an act of thievery on an international scale.

And another thing. Would he first seek to gain Congressional approval before going to war? He seems to assume that if he were president he could simply act on his own. But the Constitution requires a declaration of war by Congress before the president commits troops for war (Art. I. Sec. 8).

I have been astonished at the enthusiastic support he's received as a potential GOP presidential candidate. He's currently tied with Mike Huckabee for first place in a CNN poll. My hope is that his rising popularity has more to do with his blunt manner of speaking - which I have to admit I find rather refreshing in an age when candidates can blather on for hours and leave you wondering what they actually mean - and less to do with who he is and what he stands for. I just hope that with the 2012 elections so far off there will be plenty of time for people to actually consider what a Trump presidency would mean and why it would be a disaster.

What portions of the OT Law are still binding?

2011-04-29T07:37:00.000-07:00

I have heard you say before that God requires us to keep the commandments of the Old Testament. But does he expect us to keep all of them? If not, what commandments are we supposed to keep, and what commandments are no longer necessary, and how do we know the difference?

This is a very good question. Let’s begin making our way toward an answer by suggesting a basic rule of thumb for properly applying the Old Testament today, which is this: We should assume that whatever God once required of his people is still required unless he has altered the requirement in some way. In other words, our operating assumption ought to be one of continuity between the Old and New Testaments. Everything God required of his people in the Old Testament should be assumed to have an ongoing obligation for us today unless the New Testament teaches us otherwise. This is implied in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount when he says:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:17-19).

Here we find the assumption of continuity with a hint that portions of the Law and the Prophets may be “accomplished” in such a way as to make them no longer necessary for God’s people to observe. What portions might these be?

When we read the Old Testament law carefully it becomes apparent that not all the commandments are of the same kind. Some of the commandments clearly have a moral purpose, which is to say, the behaviors they require or forbid are inherently moral or immoral. We say that these commandments are a part of the “moral law.” What commandments might these be? Briefly, they are laws that require us, first, to do our duty to God, second, to do our duty to men. Let me give a few examples.

Commandments that have to do with our duty to God are those that require us to love, trust, and obey him, and give him our ultimate and exclusive allegiance. “You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:3). “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deut. 6:5), and so on.

Commandments that have to do with our duty to men are those that forbid us to harm our neighbor. “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13). “You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him” (Lev. 19:13). Also, commandments that require us to help our neighbor in his time of need whenever it is in our power to do so. “If…one of your brothers should become poor…you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need” (Deut. 15:7, 8). Here’s another, “You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep going astray and ignore them. You shall take them back to your brother” (Deut. 22:1).

These commandments that speak of our duty to God and men are rooted in our nature and relations to one another as moral beings; and as long as our nature and relations to one another remain what they are—which is forever—they can never be done away with.

But there is another category of law in the Bible besides the moral law. We call it the “ceremonial law,” and it is no longer required of God’s people. The ceremonial law has to do with the various rituals and observances associated with the temple and the priesthood and with Israel’s separation from the nations. These include such things as:

(1) Sacrifice and offering—we no longer have to bring animal sacrifices to a temple

(2) Purification rites—the various sprinklings with blood and washings with water

(3) Dietary restrictions—in Mark’s Gospel we read of how Jesus declared all foods clean (Mk. 7:19)

(4) Laws associated specifically with Israel’s possession of the land (laws governing the sale of land and land returning to the original owner in the year of jubilee, etc.)

In sum, all of these laws that do not have a clear moral dimension but have to do with rituals associated with the temple and with marking Israel off as a distinct people are no longer binding. But those laws that command our obedience to God and our just and equitable treatment of our neighbor are still in force.

If you simply start with the Ten Commandments and their logical implications, you’ll do all right.

Judge not?

2011-04-15T08:32:00.000-07:00

When Jesus says, “Judge not, that you be not judged,” does he mean that we are never to find fault with other people’s behavior or try to correct them?

No, he doesn’t mean this at all; but it doesn’t stop people from quoting the verse in a such a way as to imply that we must never say one thing is better than another morally—one behavior versus another; one lifestyle versus another; one culture or civilization versus another; or one religion versus another.

To make judgments of this sort, we are told, violates Jesus’ command. And it’s ill-mannered, to boot. When our opponents quote this verse, they think it is sufficient to put a stop to the debate. They think they have used the one unanswerable argument against us. But there are a couple of ironies here.

In the first place, if the verse means what our opponents say it means—that we shouldn’t make any moral judgments whatsoever—then their quoting the verse is self-defeating. Those who use the verse in an attempt to put a stop to our making moral judgments are themselves making a moral judgment that moral judgment making is wrong.

The second irony is this: the people who use the verse in this way are people who don’t use the Bible as their standard for anything else but this!

Now, the notion that Jesus’ command, “Judge not, that you be not judged,” means that we are to make no moral judgments at all is, frankly, absurd because it’s impossible.

God has made us in his image, which includes, among other things, the ability to make moral judgments.

He has given us the ability to think, to reason, to perceive truth, to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil. It’s impossible to think and not form moral judgments.

As creatures made in his image, we can no more not form moral judgments than we can not think. Try not thinking sometime. You can’t do it! And just as you can’t not think, you can’t not make moral judgments when you think.

So much of Jesus’ instruction, both in the immediate context of the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere, proceeds upon the assumption that we will (and we should!) make moral judgments.

For example, in the immediate context, Jesus commands us not to act like hypocrites (6:2, 5, 16). He is teaching us both by example and by precept to make a moral judgment concerning hypocrisy and those who practice it.

Consider also what Jesus says just a few verses after he says, “Judge not, that you be not judged.” In Matthew 7:6, he says, “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do now throw your pearls before pigs.” He is saying that there are people who are worthy of these titles—worthy to be called dogs and pigs—and Jesus expects us to judge them as such, that is, to come to the conclusion that that is the kind of men they are.

You make moral judgments concerning people all the time. Let me give you just one example: when you choose a babysitter for your children. You evaluate whether a potential babysitter is a good person or a bad one. I pity your children if you don’t!

In Matthew 7:15 Jesus says, “Beware of false prophets.” But how can we do this if we are to make no judgments?

In Luke 12:57, he says, “Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right [and by implication, what is wrong]?”

When Jesus himself was misjudged concerning how he kept the Sabbath, he didn’t say, “Judge not, that you be not judged.” No. He said, “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment” (Jn. 7:24).

God calls us again and again to make moral judgments. Scripture teaches us that it is a mark of maturity to do so. The writer of Hebrews says, “Solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil” (Heb. 5:12). It is a mark of maturity to do this!

“Judge not, that you be not judged,” is undoubtedly one of the most widely misunderstood passages in the entire Bible; and I dare say that it is precisely because it is so widely misunderstood that it is also one of the most widely loved and quoted verses in the Bible.

People who wouldn’t be able to quote any other verse of the Bible to save their lives, can quote this one. They can’t tell you where to find it, but they know it’s there…somewhere. And boy, are they glad it’s there, too, because they think it gets them off the hook of moral accountability.

People use it as a means to create an atmosphere of moral ambiguity, which is to say, an atmosphere in which the distinction between right and wrong is not clearly maintained.

And there are people who have a vested interest in keeping things this way. Evil thrives in an atmosphere of moral ambiguity.

It is not true that all human choices are equal, and therefore to be equally affirmed. It is not true that all religions are equally valid; that all people are equally virtuous (or vicious); that all civilizations are morally equivalent.

We must never fall into the trap of believing that Jesus endorses this nonsense when he says, “Judge not, that you be not judged.”

Is the national debt a moral problem

2011-04-15T08:29:00.000-07:00

As Christians we’re concerned about the moral issues of the day, but shouldn’t we also think about the national debt as a moral issue?

You’re exactly right. We have done well for several years to recognize that we simply cannot be silent concerning the great moral issues of the day, whether it’s abortion, which is by far the greatest moral issue of our time, or the redefining of marriage so as to include same-sex couples, or any one of a number of other issues that we have rightly understood to be at their root moral in nature.

What we have been slow to realize is that the national debt is also a moral issue. Most people think of it as merely an economic or political issue. But it is at its very core, a moral issue.

The U.S. national debt now stands at over 14 ¼ trillion dollars. We can’t even properly conceive of how much money that is. But let me try to give you at least a little perspective.

God created the world about six thousand years ago. How much money do you suppose one would have to spend each day for the last six thousand years to equal 14 ¼ trillion dollars? Are you ready for this? Six and a half million dollars a day, every day, for six thousand years. That’s a pretty big chunk of change!

If you divide the national debt by the number of citizens, each citizen owes $45,000 dollars. That’s every man, woman, and child. But here’s the kicker: if you divide the national debt by the number of taxpayers—because not every citizen pays taxes—each taxpayer owes $128,000.

It is most definitely a moral issue, and here’s why. Let’s say that I borrow $10,000 from you; but, not being able to pay you back myself, I go and forcibly take the money from someone else in order to pay off my debt to you. Would you say that this is moral or immoral? I’ve done right by you, haven’t I? I’ve paid back what I owed you, but I’ve robbed someone else to do it.

This is what we’re doing with our national debt. We are borrowing and spending money on ourselves and expecting our children and grandchildren to pick up the tab. In effect, we’re robbing future generations.

Proverbs says, “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children” (Prov. 13:22). Judging by this standard we’d have to say that we’re not very good people because not only are we not leaving them an inheritance, we’re doing just the opposite; we’re saddling them with enormous debt.

Perhaps someone will say, “Can’t the government just print more money?” Well, yes it can, and yes it does, but this only compounds the problem. Whenever the government increases the supply of money—by whatever means it chooses, whether running the printing presses, lowering the fractional reserve, etc.—it has the effect of reducing the purchasing power of every dollar. This is why the dollar doesn’t buy as much as it used to. It has lost much of its value, and will continue to do so as long as we have an inflationary monetary policy, which (by the way) hurts the poor far more than it hurts the rich, because the poor don’t have access to the new money.

Our national debt is not only immoral because we are making future generations pay for our expenses, it’s also immoral because we are paying our creditors with devalued dollars.

All the way around our national debt is immoral. The only question is: Do we have the moral courage to reverse course? There are a few hopeful signs. But I fear it will be too little, too late. Let’s hope not. Let’s continue to put pressure on our leaders to cut back on spending; and if they won’t do it, let’s get rid of them. Let’s vote them out of office and vote someone in who understands the moral nature of the issue.

What's new about the New Testament?

2011-04-15T08:24:00.000-07:00

Good question! But before I answer it, let’s be clear about what is not new: We do not have a new God. We do not have a new standard of righteousness. We do not have a new way of salvation.

We do not have a new God. This should be so obvious that it need not be mentioned. But I do mention it because many people seem to think that God has changed from the OT to the NT. They think in the OT he was all law, condemnation, and judgment; and that in the NT he is all love and grace and mercy. Not so. We have the same God, who is, on the one hand, both holy and just; and on the other, both gracious and merciful. This hasn’t changed. He eternally is what he is.

We have the same God, and he holds us to the same standard of righteousness, which is revealed in his Law. How could it be otherwise? The Law is a reflection of his own righteousness. How could he ever depart from it? His standard is the same in both Testaments.

Likewise, we have the same way of salvation. In both the OT and NT men are justified as a gift of God’s grace, received on the basis of faith. This hasn’t changed. It wasn’t by a different method in the OT.
When Paul discusses our justification in Romans, what does he say? Does he say, “This is a new doctrine,” “a new way of salvation”? Does he say that in former times men were justified by works, or by their obedience to the Law, but now they are justified by faith as a gift of grace? No, he points to the experience of Abraham, whom Scripture says “believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). In other words, Abraham was justified in the same way we are justified. We are justified as a gift of God’s grace, received on the basis of faith. All who have ever been saved have been saved in the same way.

So once again: we have the same God who holds us to the same standard of righteousness and offers us the same way of salvation.

So if none of these things are new, what is new about the NT? Several things.

First, the OT looked forward to a Messiah to come; whereas the NT looks to the Messiah who has come.
Second, the OT anticipated with types and shadows the person and work of the Redeemer; whereas the NT sees those types and shadows fulfilled in Jesus.

Third, in the OT redemption was promised; in the NT redemption is accomplished. Now here I want to be careful here so as not to give a wrong impression. When I say that in the OT redemption was promised, whereas in the NT redemption is accomplished, I don’t mean to suggest that men were not redeemed in the OT. Redemption promised and redemption accomplished has to do with the work of Christ in history. Men were truly redeemed, truly forgiven, born again, justified, filled with the Holy Spirit, etc., in the OT in anticipation of the work that Christ would in time perform through his death and resurrection. God was buying on credit, as it were. When you buy an item on credit, you take possession of the item now with a promise to pay for it in the future. This is how God dealt with the saints in the OT period. He purchased them on credit. He took possession of them, saved them, justified them, redeemed them, with a promise to pay for it in the future. The animal sacrifices in the temple were a token of that future payment. The payment itself was the death of Jesus on the cross.

So, in the OT redemption was promised; in the NT redemption is accomplished.

Another thing that is new in the NT—and this is BIG—is GENTILES. Gentiles as Gentiles are made fellow heirs with the Jews of the promises of God (Eph. 3:1-6). Good thing, too, because I would venture to say that nearly every Christian who is listening to me right now is a Gentile. The message of the NT is that because of Christ and what he has done, you don’t need to become a Jew—that is you don’t have to adopt a distinctively Jewish lifestyle—in order to be incorporated into the people of God. There is much to say about how understanding this serves as the key to understanding Paul, especially his argument in Romans and Galatians.

Some good news

2011-03-25T12:31:00.000-07:00

Some good news (finally!) in the ongoing fight against abortion. The Kansas Senate passed a bill prohibiting abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy. Governor Brownback is expected to sign the bill. You can read about it here. (Exercise: see if you can detect all the subtle--and not so subtle--ways the news writer reveals his bias).

Why is religion "dying"

2011-03-23T15:56:00.000-07:00

Fox News reported on a new study done by the American Physical Society which suggests that religion may soon die in several western countries. The reason? "For societies in which the perceived utility of not adhering is greater than the utility of adhering, religion will be driven toward extinction."

Perceived utility?

It comes down to utility, does it? It used to come down to truth. The question--back when people thought more rationally--was not, "Is it useful?" but "Is it true?"

Behold! Your Public Sector Unions at Work

2011-03-12T08:03:00.000-08:00

A humorous look provided by Andrew Klavan.

The hullabaloo in Wisconsin

2011-03-01T13:46:00.000-08:00

Something to keep in mind about the current hullabaloo in Wisconsin is the significantly higher compensation public employees receive compared to those with similar jobs in the private sector. You can read about it here. This is not often reported.

Another thing that is not often reported is that Governor Walker is not proposing doing away with collective bargaining altogether (although I would be in favor of that), but only collective bargaining for pension benefits and health insurance. Under the Governor's plan public employee unions will still be able to bargain collectively for base salary.

I admire the governor's courage. Godspeed to him!

The last living U.S. WWI vet has died

2011-02-28T05:08:00.001-08:00

He was 110. You can read about him here.

Funny Faces

2011-02-27T20:57:00.000-08:00

Daughter #4 (Hannah) has a fun application on her little thingamajig (otherwise known an IPod Touch) that allows you to do all kinds of strange things to pictures. Face Goo, I think the app is called.

Check out these pictures of yours truly.

Is it lawful to take an oath?

2011-02-25T09:12:00.000-08:00

In Matthew Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all…” Does this mean that a Christian should not allow himself to be put under oath as a witness in a court of law or take an oath of office? (5:33-34)

Some people have believed that Jesus here prohibits all oath-taking without exception, regardless of the subject matter and regardless of the occasion. But I think those who have come to this conclusion have not really understood Jesus’ meaning.

We find several passages in the OT in which the Lord speaks of this matter of swearing an oath in his name. He says, for instance, in Deuteronomy,

You shall fear the LORD your God. You shall serve him and hold fast to him, and by his name you shall swear” (Deut. 10:20).

There are times when taking an oath in the name of God is not only permitted, but even required, such as in a court of law when an appeal is made to God to witness the proceedings, to ensure justice, and to bring down wrath upon those who might give false testimony. To swear an oath in his name upon such an occasion is actually a way of honoring him. It is an expression of confidence that he governs the affairs of men and will in fact punish perjurers.

The same is also true with respect to vows, promises made either to the Lord or to other people, when someone obligates himself to fulfill certain commitments.

If a man vows a vow to the LORD, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth (Num. 30:2; cf. Deut. 23:21-23).

What Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount, then, is a summary of these passages: “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ ”

What he goes on to say, “But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all”, should not be understood as annulling the OT law. A little earlier Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matt. 5:17). Jesus does not set himself up in opposition to the Law of his Father. It is unthinkable that the Father should say, “You shall swear by name,” and that the Son of the Father should say, “You shall not swear at all.” If this were the case, there would be a contradiction in the Godhead.

It should be noted that Jesus permitted himself to be put under an oath when he stood trial. When he was standing before the council, Caiaphas said, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt. 26:63). To adjure means to charge under oath. Up to this point, Jesus remained silent. He didn’t answer a single charge that was brought against him. But he permitted himself to be put under oath, and he answered appropriately.

What Jesus finds fault with is the practice of flippant, needless oaths in everyday conversation. We are told by those who understand something of the times in which Jesus lived that hardly a conversation took place among the Jews where there was not some oath taken. They would swear upon every trivial occasion. This is what Jesus was condemning.

But beyond this, in their legalistic hypocrisy, they determined that there were some forms of swearing—some forms of oath-taking—that obligated a person to perform what he had promised, and others that did not. There was a great deal of convoluted reasoning behind it all, but it seems to have come down to this. If a man made an oath that referred to God, then he was obligated to keep his word; but if he did not refer to God in his oath, then he was not obligated to keep it. One could swear by heaven and earth, by the sun and moon, by the gray hairs of his father, by the grave of his dear departed mother, but if he did not refer to God in his oath, then he was free from obligation. But even here there was a lot of hair-splitting. Swearing became a clever way of lying. One could give credence to his lie by taking ever so solemn an oath, but if he did not swear with just the right formula—with just the right words—he was not bound by it.

Oaths are designed to give assurance of one’s truthfulness, and there are occasions when oath-taking is proper, as in the solemn proceedings of a court of law, the inauguration of a public official who swears to fulfill the duties of his office, in a wedding where the bride and groom pledge themselves to each other for life, etc.

There are formal occasions like these when oath-taking is proper. But the Jews often used oaths and vows simply to aide and abet their deceit. (And we are no different.)

It is in this context that Jesus says, “Make no oath at all.” There should be no need. Our word should be our bond. We should regard a simple yes or no to be as binding as the most solemn oath. This is why Jesus says that in our ordinary day-to-day conversation, we should let a simple yes or no suffice and that whatever goes beyond this proceeds from evil motives.

An assembly of petulance and sophomoric behavior

2011-02-18T13:42:00.000-08:00

Newly elected Allen West, representing the 22nd district of Florida had some choice words for his colleagues on the left side of the isle:

Over this past week I have watched and listened to members of the House of Representatives from across the aisle.

I am appalled at their ignorance, belligerence, and dishonest rhetoric filled with empty emotional platitudes. Have they no shame in realizing that their inept, incompetent failures are the reason why we are debating this continuing resolution. They failed to pass a budget during the 111th Congress.

Have they no honor in realizing that their fiscal irresponsibility over the past four years has resulted in our standing on the precipice of a fiscal canyon from which we may not recover.

Also troubling are the events in the state of Wisconsin which mirror those that happened in Greece several months ago. We are witnessing the abject hostility of a unionized entitlement class that is being lauded by the liberal left, seemingly to include our President.

It is such a critical time for our Republic, yet there seems no visionary leadership — it is as if America stopped producing adults. I have never seen a greater assembly of petulance and sophomoric behavior as what I have witnessed this week on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Strong words from a good man. For more click here.

When an animal, why not do as an animal does?

2011-02-07T09:16:00.000-08:00

If anyone is still in need of proof that the theory of evolution affects far more than the narrow academic discipline of biology, he can find it here. The author, a certain Jenny Block, tells us that we have a lot to learn about what is "normal" or "natural" about human sexuality by looking at the sexual behavior of animals. "As much as we've evolved, it can be easy to forget that, at the core, we're animals, too."

Not with Ms. Blockhead here to remind us. But judging from what she writes, it would be a happy thing to forget...if it were true.

Among the points she makes in her article are these:

They [animals] exhibit habits other than monogamy. They are polygamous and polygynous... Bonobos, for example, have multiple sexual partners at any given time in their life.

Well then, let's hear it for the sexually liberated Bonobos! But before we take them as an example of what is normal or natural behavior, perhaps we should consider the fact that they have also been known to eat their young. If we take them as a guide in their sexual behavior, why not in their eating habits too?

She also writes:

They [animals] are homosexual as well as heterosexual. Marine birds, mammals, monkeys, great apes, dolphins, penguins, cattle, bonobos [there they are again] and rams are just a few of the many animal species in which scientists have observed homosexual behavior.

Her conclusion:

Humans are homesexual as well as heterosexual, obviously. And each is perfectly normal and absolutely biological.

The implications are clear. If animals do it, why not human beings?

Ms. Blockhead's piece is just one of many attempts to justify all kinds of human behavior, but especially sexual behavior (surprise!), by appealing to the animal world--and all this based on the assumption that we are nothing more than highly evolved animals.

The inversion of the created order is complete. When God created the world he created it with an order, thus:

God
   |
Man - Woman
   |
Animals
   |
Satan

Adam and Eve were to respond to God and exercise a godly dominion over the animal world. But in the Fall, the order was reversed. The devil used an animal (a serpent) to tempt Eve, and through her to tempt Adam, to ignore God. The new order looks like this:

Satan
   |
Animals
   |
Woman - Man
   |
God

The devil has convinced us that we are nothing more than animals and that we should take our cues as to what is normative behavior, not from God and his law, but from the animal world.

Christians and the Law

2011-01-28T06:29:00.000-08:00

What role does the law have in the life of a Christian?

Well, you know there are some people who think the law has no place in the life of a Christian. They think that the law and the gospel are two opposing principles; that you can have one or the other, but not both. They think of the law as an onerous burden, from which we are delivered by Christ.

But let me recite for you a few verses from the 119th Psalm, the longest Psalm, and indeed the longest chapter in the Bible…and it’s entirely devoted to singing the praises of God’s law.

Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the LORD! (v. 1).

Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law (v. 18).

My soul is consumed with longing for your rules at all times (v. 20).

Put false ways far from me and graciously teach me your law! (v. 29).

What’s this? Graciously teach me your law? But I thought law and grace were opposing principles. I thought they were incompatible, irreconcilable.

That’s not what the Psalmists thinks, is it? He sees God’s law as a gift of grace: “graciously teach me your law.” Later he will say, "Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day” (Ps. 119:97).

Are you able to say this? Do you love God’s Law? Do you delight in it?

We could go through the whole of Psalm 119, all 176 verses of it, and nearly every verse speaks of the glory of God’s Law. The Psalmist, whoever he is, whether David, as some believe, or Ezra as others suppose, was inspired by the Holy Spirit. And what does he say? The Law is a bad thing, something we would be very glad to be rid of? No, he magnifies God’s Law as good and holy and as graciously given to Israel.

Consider Psalm 147

He declares his word to Jacob, his statutes and rules to Israel. He has not dealt thus with any other nation; they do not know his rules (Ps. 147:19-20a).

This was a blessed privilege given only to Israel, to which the Psalmist responds by saying, “Praise the Lord!” (Ps. 147:20b). Praise the Lord that he has given us his statutes and rules—his Law.

In Romans three, Paul says,

What advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God [i.e., the Law and the Prophets] (Rom. 3:1-2)

And in chapter nine, in speaking of the many gifts God had given to Israel, he says,

To them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises (Rom. 9:4)

Now, I should say that the Law is useless as an instrument of justification, and some of the apparently negative things Paul says in the NT about the Law, he says because of the misuse that many Jews made of the Law. He says in First Timothy, “We know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully” (1 Tim. 1:8). But many Jews, especially among the Pharisees, looked upon the Law as a ladder of merit. The more commandments I obey, the greater my righteousness…and the greater my standing with God. But Paul disavows using the Law like this. He says there a lot of people who “have confidence in the flesh.” He means, in their merits as Law-keepers.

If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness, under the law blameless (Phil. 3:4b-6).

He goes on to say, however, that despite whatever confidence he might think to put in himself, he would “rather be found in him [Christ], not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil. 3:9).

We cannot trust in our obedience to the law to save us; we must trust in the mercy of God as it is offered to us in Jesus Christ. But this doesn’t mean the law has no place in the life of a Christian. It most certainly does. The law is of great use to us in informing us of the will of God. It teaches us our duty both to God and to our neighbor. It is the standard of righteousness, the rule of the Christian life. It shows us what behavior is pleasing and displeasing to God.

Let us learn to say with the Psalmist, “Oh how I love your law, it is my meditation all the day!”

What about unanswered prayer?

2011-01-18T08:28:00.000-08:00

There are many promises in the Bible regarding prayer. But why is it that so many of our prayers go unanswered?

Prayer is one of the many precious privileges we have as God’s covenant people. He has indeed promised to answer our prayers. For instance, Jesus says in Matthew 7,

Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” (Matt. 7:7-11).

In Mark 11, he says,

Have faith in God. Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours” (Mark 11:22-24).

We could go on to cite many more passages as well. But the question is, why is it that our prayers often seem to go unanswered. Let me offer a few suggestions.

Prayer is a part of a personal relationship with God. When we pray, it is not like we are interacting with a vending machine, where we put our money in, press the appropriate buttons and get exactly what we want in return. But this is how some people seem to approach God in prayer. It’s a kind of mechanical and automatic affair: “I make my requests known to God and in return I get what I want.” But clearly we should not think of prayer in this way.

Again, prayer is a part of a personal relationship with God, who is a wise and loving father. Because he loves us, he delights to answer our prayers. But because he is wise, he doesn’t always answer them in the way we had in mind—or in the time-frame we might wish.

Let me give you an example. When my son was very young, he wanted a gun—a .22 caliber rifle. I was not opposed in principle to my son owning a gun; but I didn’t think he was old enough yet to have one. And so I got him a BB gun instead. It was more appropriate for his age. I granted his request, but not in precisely the way he wanted. When he got older, however, he got his .22.

This is how God often deals with us. It may be his desire to grant a request, but he sees that we are not yet ready for it. And so he may delay granting it. Perhaps he will give us something else instead, something more appropriate for us and better suited to our needs. Or he may see that it is in our best interests not to grant the request at all.

We should trust that he is both loving and wise, and leave it to him to answer our prayers however he sees fit.

Having said this, however, I should also point out that the Scriptures give several conditions for answered prayer.

First, what we pray for must be in keeping with God’s will. “This is the confidence we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us” (1 Jn. 5:14).

Second, we must ask with right motives. “You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions” (Jas. 4:3).

Third, we must be walking uprightly before the Lord. “If I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened” (Ps. 66:18).

Fourth, we must ask in faith. “Let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord” (Jas. 1:6-7).

Fifth, we must not harbor unforgiveness in hearts if we expect an answer to prayer. “Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses” (Mk. 11:25).

Sixth, husbands must treat their wives well if they expect God to hear them. “Husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered” (1 Pet. 3:7).

Lastly, we must ask in Jesus’ name. He is the only mediator between God and men. We cannot approach God the Father on our own merits, but must rely instead upon the merits of Christ.

Why did Jesus say, "Don't Tell"?

2011-01-18T08:25:00.000-08:00

Why did Jesus tell the people he healed not to tell anyone?

This is a curious thing, isn’t it? Especially in light of the fact that Jesus has commissioned us to make him known. We find that on several occasions during his earthly ministry that Jesus told the people whom he healed not to let anyone know about it.

This was not always the case, however. For instance, when Jesus delivered the Gerasene demoniac from the power of Satan, and the man “begged that he might be with him… Jesus sent him away, saying, ‘Return to your home, and declare how much God has done for you’” (Lk. 8:38-39). So here’s one time, at least, when Jesus told a man to tell everyone.

But on most other occasions he told people not to tell. In Matthew 9 we read about two blind men whom Jesus healed. It says,

And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them, “See that no one knows about it” (Matt 9:30).

In the first chapter of Mark we read of a leper who was healed; and it says,

Jesus sternly charged him and sent him away at once, and said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them” (Mark 1:43-44).

Jesus told him to tell the priests because the law required that people who were healed of leprosy were to be thoroughly checked out by the priests and were to offer certain sacrifices and perform certain rituals (Lev. 14:1-32); but Jesus told him to tell no one else.

We also find that when Jesus raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead, her parents were astonished, but he “strictly charged them that no one should know” about it (Mk. 5:43).

On still another occasion, when Jesus healed a man who was deaf and mute, he charged the entire crowd to tell no one. “But the more he charged them,” it says, “the more zealously they proclaimed it” (Mk. 7:36).

This was often the case. People couldn’t keep it quite, especially the ones who had been healed. And you can understand their excitement, not to mention their gratitude! But why did Jesus say that they should tell no one? I think we find a clue in the account of the leper who was cleansed. Even though he was told not to mention it to anyone, it says,

But he went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news, so that Jesus could no longer openly enter a town, but was out in desolate places, and people were coming to him from every quarter (Mk. 1:45)

If his miracles were widely known they would attract so much attention and create so much excitement that his movements would be inhibited. He “could no longer openly enter a town, but was out in desolate places.” He could no longer move about as he wished. This was while he was in the land of Israel, where he conducted almost all his earthly ministry. When he told the Geresene demoniac to tell everyone about the miracle he received, it was in a land that Jesus visited once, and then only very briefly. It would not hinder his movements there if everyone knew about it because he was not planning to stay there.

I should also point out that there was undoubtedly a concern on Jesus’ part that people’s attention would be distracted from what he regarded as a more important aspect of his ministry than that of working miracles, namely the ministry of the word. He came as a prophet and a teacher. But many would be attracted to Jesus only for the sake of the miracles he performed. They would be attracted to him much like they would be attracted to a carnival sideshow. They would not be interested in the truth he came to teach, but in having their senses dazzled by seeing a miracle. They would be like Herod. When Jesus was on trial before Herod, we’re told that Herod was very glad to see him, “because he had heard about him, and he was hoping to see some sign done by him” (Lk. 23:8).

These are the main reasons why he told people not to tell. But the thing we should remember is that circumstances have changed and we should now do what Jesus told the Geresene demoniac. We should now declare to everyone how much God has done for us.

The Salt of the Earth

2011-01-18T08:21:00.000-08:00

What does Jesus mean when he says that we are the salt of the earth?

In the ancient world salt was considered essential for maintaining life. The Roman author Pliny said, “Without salt human life cannot be sustained.” The book of Sirach (180 B.C.) has it that “The basic necessities of human life are water and fire and iron and salt and wheat flour and milk and honey, the blood of the grape and oil and clothing” (Sir. 39:26). In a certain Rabbinic writing, it is said, “The world cannot endure without salt.”

So valued was salt that in different cultures it was sometimes used as a form of money. No doubt you have heard the phrase, “So and so is not worth his salt.” The saying has its origin in workers being paid at least a portion of their wages in salt. If someone is not worth his salt, he is not worth what he is being paid. We have a reminder of this historical fact (salt as money) in our word “salary,” which comes from salarium, the Latin word for salt.

One of the most obvious uses of salt is for seasoning. This use has been around since the beginning of time. It was recognized in the sacrificial system of the OT. The Lord told Israel, “You shall season all your grain offerings with salt…with all your offerings you shall offer salt” (Lev. 2:13).

The seasoning properties of salt were recognized by Job. He asks, “Can that which is tasteless be eaten without salt?” (Job 6:6). The expected answer is “no”. Things that are tasteless or insipid are so unappetizing as to be uneatable.

The world is a tasteless, insipid place without the righteous to season it. And the righteous do season it with the holiness of their lives. Consider how Paul instructs the Colossians:

Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that your may know how you ought to answer each person. (Col. 4:6)

Gracious, prudent, circumspect speech is one way in which we season the world. It seems that our culture is becoming increasingly vulgar, increasingly coarse and rude and crude. One of the ways in which we distinguish ourselves as Christians is by how we speak. We don’t imitate the way the world speaks.

Not only in speech, but in all our behavior, in what we do (deeds of love and kindness) and in what we don’t do, we are to make the world a more tasteful place

Salt was not only used for seasoning, but also for preservation. Of course people in the ancient world didn’t have refrigeration or any means of canning food for long-term storage, but they did have salt; and this was used to preserve food, especially meat. A high concentration of salt inhibits the growth of bacteria and other microorganisms by drawing the water out their cells. It takes up to twenty percent salt to properly preserve meat, but preserved in this way it could be kept for a very long time. Salted meat was a common staple on sea voyages until relatively recent times.

How does this property of salt apply when Jesus says, “You are the salt of the earth”? It applies in two ways. First, the presence of a faithful remnant of godly people slows down the rate of moral decay in a culture. It is the Christian community that functions as the conscience of a nation; more than this, it is the Christian community that functions as the prophetic voice of God to the nation. Imagine what the United States would be like today if there were no Christians bearing witness by word and deed to the truth of God. We rightly lament the moral degeneration of our times; but how much worse would things be if there were no Christians here laboring in the cause of the gospel, raising godly families, laboring in the political realm, raising their voices for truth and virtue?

The preservative properties of salt apply to us in another way: it is on account of the righteous that the world is spared the judgment it deserves at the time it deserves it (Gen. 18:22-32; Matt. 23:22-23).

It is for the sake of the righteous within a culture that God spares the culture the judgment it deserves at the time it deserves it. Sometimes the judgment is averted altogether. Sometimes it is merely delayed. Sometimes the judgment comes, but is mitigated. He does this as a favor to his people. He does it for their sake. It is one of his covenant mercies to them that the culture in which they live is spared judgment. The presence of a faithful remnant of godly people preserves a culture from the wrath of God.

Is Jesus God?

2010-12-21T12:41:00.000-08:00

Is Jesus God? And if so, to whom is Jesus praying when the Bible speaks of him praying? Is he praying to himself?

To the first question, “Is Jesus God,” I answer, “Yes, he is.” But having said this, I must be careful to explain exactly what I mean.

When we say that Jesus is God, we are talking about his nature, not his identity. In other words, we are not saying Jesus is the Father. Rather, we are saying that with respect to his nature, Jesus is what the Father is.

Sometimes when we use the word God we specifically mean God the Father. When we speak about praying to God, for instance, we are identifying the one to whom we are praying.

But sometimes we use the word God in a different way. For instance, when we say Jesus is God, we are saying he is God as opposed to human or angelic. We’re talking about his nature. We are talking about what he is.

The Scriptures are very plain on this point. John makes it quite clear when he says at the very beginning of his Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” In this verse, “the Word” is a reference to Jesus in his pre-incarnate state, that is, before he came to earth as a human being. And John says very clearly, “the Word was God.” But notice how he also makes it clear that he does not mean that Jesus was the Father. He says, “The Word was with God [the Father], and the Word was God [that is, with respect to his nature—meaning that he was what the Father was].”

This is not the only place where the Scriptures speak of the deity of Christ. In his letter to the Romans Paul says that “Christ…is God over all” (Rom. 9:5). In Philippians he speaks of Jesus being in the form of God and being equal with God (Phil. 2:6-7). In Colossians he says that the “fullness of deity dwells bodily” in him (Col. 2:9).

In addition to these explicit statements regarding the nature of Christ, we find that divine works are attributed to him. Chief among these is his work of creation.

All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (Jn. 1:3)

The world was made by him, yet the world did not know him. (Jn. 1:10)

There is…one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Cor. 8:6)

By him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. (Col. 1:16)

Who can create except God alone? And yet several times over Jesus is said to have been the Creator of all things.

Clearly, Jesus is God. He is not God the Father, but with respect to his nature, he is what the Father is.

And since Jesus is distinct from the Father in terms of his person, we can see how the Bible can speak of him as both being God (in his nature) and praying to God (the Father).

Is the Devil real?

2010-12-21T12:38:00.001-08:00

I’ve heard it said that the devil doesn’t really exist and that whenever the Bible mentions the devil it is simply a personification of evil. What do you think?

Many people have questioned whether or not it’s possible in this day and age to believe in a personal devil. Many otherwise sincere Christians, who have been affected far more than they should by the Enlightenment, have suggested that “Satan” or “the devil” is simply a personification of evil; that there is no real personal being, no real malevolent spirit, known as Satan. They think this is just the Bible’s way of speaking about evil to a pre-scientific and superstitious people. “Now, of course,” they say, “we know better. Now we’re scientific. We’re rational. We now know that this is just a figure of speech.”

We know nothing of the sort. In fact, just the opposite is true. The devil is mentioned often in such a way and in such contexts that lead us to exactly the opposite conclusion. He is a very real being, spiritual in nature, malevolent in character.

It is one of his tricks in our day and in the West to make people think he doesn’t exist. He then has an easier time of deceiving them, because they are not standing guard against him.

Let me ask you, who is easier to assault, someone who has no idea he has an enemy, or someone armed to the teeth and ready for battle because he not only knows he has an enemy but also knows the enemy is on the move, seeking to destroy him?

This is how the Bible speaks to us about the devil. The apostle Peter warns us: “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” (1 Pet. 5:8)

The names which are used in Scripture to speak of him are very instructive. The word “Satan” means opponent or adversary or enemy. And indeed he is the enemy of both God and men. He aims at nothing less than the complete overthrow of God’s kingdom and the damnation of human souls.

The chief means by which he opposes us and seeks to overthrow the kingdom of God is by tempting us to do evil. In fact, twice in the NT he is referred to simply as “the tempter.” The first is in Matthew chapter 4. Our Lord Jesus Christ had just spent 40 days in the wilderness fasting.

And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” (Matt. 4:4)

The devil sought to devour Jesus; sought to undo him; sought to entice him to sin, not only here but at other times as well. On this occasion there were three temptations the devil used against him. But of course Jesus stood firm and never yielded to temptation.

The apostle Paul also refers to Satan as the “tempter.”

For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent to learn about your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and our labor would be in vain. (1 Thes. 3:5)

So “Satan” means opponent, adversary, enemy. And the chief ploy he uses to undo us is to tempt us to do evil.

But he also uses slander and accusation. In fact, the word “devil,” diabolos in Greek, means accuser or slanderer.

Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. (Zech. 3:1)

And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world— he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. (Rev. 12:9-10)

He slandered and accused Job before God by suggesting that Job only served God for the personal benefits he received from him.

There is another means he uses to tempt us to depart from God which is particularly effective, and that is to stir up persecution against us. In his message to the church at Smyrna in the 2^nd chapter of Revelation, Jesus says,

Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life. (Rev. 2:10)

When the Bible mentions the devil, it is not merely a literary device for the purpose of personifying evil. It means a very real malevolent spiritual being, against whom we are to guard ourselves.

Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. (Eph 6:11)

On Jesus' Genealogy

2010-12-21T12:36:00.001-08:00

In Matthew it says that Jesus’ father was Joseph, and in Luke it says that his father was Eli. How can this be?

The genealogy of Christ is given by both Matthew (1:1-17) and Luke (3:23-38). There are some important differences between them. In Matthew, the genealogy runs from Abraham forward to Jesus, while in Luke it runs from Jesus backward to Adam.

From Abraham to David, the two genealogies agree. But from David, Matthew traces Jesus’ descent from Solomon, while Luke traces it from Nathan. So here is our first question: How can Jesus be descended from two different sons of David? But more importantly, how can Joseph be the son of Jacob as Matthew asserts, and also the son of Eli as recorded by Luke? Several theories have been advanced to reconcile this apparent discrepancy, but the two most probable ones are as follows:

Some have suggested that Matthew gives Joseph’s genealogy, while Luke gives Mary’s. In this case, Eli (Joseph’s father according to Luke), was really Mary’s father. Why then is he said to be Joseph’s father? It may have been the case that Eli had no male heir. According to the law, his inheritance would then pass to his daughter Mary (Num. 27:8), and in turn would be transferred to her husband, Joseph (Num. 36:1-9). Joseph, then, would be the actual, biological son of Jacob (as per Matthew), but a reputed son and legal heir of Eli (as per Luke).

A second possibility is that both Matthew and Luke give Joseph’s genealogy, but that he is said to have two different fathers because of a levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5-10).

If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel (Deut. 25:5-6)

In a case such as this, the son who is born is the actual biological son of one man (the living man) but is regarded as the legal son and heir of another (the dead man). The son, then, in a sense, has two fathers. This may be the best way to account for the difference in the two genealogies of Christ. This solution was first proposed by a church father named Africanus (c. 200).[1]

It is not uncommon to hear skeptics of the Bible point to the genealogies of Jesus as recorded in Matthew and Luke as a discrepancy, or a contradiction which disproves the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. However, as we have seen, the genealogies are capable of being reconciled with each other.

Whatever the true relationship of the genealogies and the people involved, one thing is clear: the early Jewish opponents of Christianity who had access to the official genealogical records, as well as the Gospel accounts, never raised an objection concerning the Gospel record at this point, which in itself is sufficient evidence that they do not contradict each other.

[1] See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 1:7

Why was Jesus Baptized?

2010-12-21T12:32:00.001-08:00

Why was Jesus baptized? The Bible says that John preached a baptism of repentance, but Jesus wasn’t a sinner who needed to repent. So why was he baptized?

It’s interesting that John wondered about this himself. So we’re in good company if we wonder why it should be that Jesus came to him for baptism. Scripture tells us that when Jesus came to be baptized, “John would have prevented him, saying, ‘I have need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?’” (Matt. 3:14). John was aware that he himself was a sinner and needed cleansing. He was also aware that Jesus was not a sinner in need of repentance.

But Jesus didn’t come to John and receive baptism for the purpose of confessing his sins and seeking forgiveness. His baptism served a different purpose. He hinted at this when he said, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15). This fulfilling all righteousness has to do with Jesus fulfilling the Law and the Prophets. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said,

“Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matt. 5:17).

All that Jesus did, he did for us and for our salvation—not only in the death he died but also in the life he lived. This is important for us to understand. We normally think of his work on the cross as being the whole of his saving work. But it was necessary before his death to lead a perfect life, to perfectly obey the Law, to fulfill all its requirements. He not only died for us, he lived a perfect life for us. This was necessary in order to qualify him to be our Savior. Our savior had to be a righteous savior, an obedient savior, a covenantally faithful savior.

Israel had been unfaithful. Israel had broken God’s commandments, had dishonored God and his Law. But Jesus came and kept the Law…entirely.

Every obligation that God imposed upon Israel was necessary for Jesus to fulfill. God required Israel to receive John’s baptism; and thus it became a requirement of Israel’s substitute as well. This is what Jesus means when he says, “It is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” It was one of his duties as our substitute.

On the day of his baptism, which was also the day when he was anointed with the Holy Spirit and became the Messiah, that very day was the day on which he officially began taking our place. That’s when he began his ministry of substitution. At waters of the Jordan he began to take the place of sinners. He was not a sinner, of course. But he came to take the place of sinners and to identify with sinners.

From our dear friend, Rev. Steve Schlissel

2010-12-02T08:34:00.000-08:00

Ministering in Corinth, NY

An intro to the texture of ministry in NYC

by Steve Schlissel

The report on the radio said a husband in Coney Island became enraged when he found his wife with another man. He stabbed his wife, his two daughters, seven and three years of age, then stabbed himself and set his apartment on fire, further injuring himself. No one died, all were hospitalized in stable condition. I wondered if I would meet any of them on my rounds as a volunteer Protestant chaplain at the local municipal hospital. Later that week, I did.

As I left off speaking with a patient in a ward I turned toward the Chaplain whom I assist and found him speaking in Spanish with a Black female patient who appeared to be in her early thirties. The woman’s head was bandaged. Her sister, a portly and pretty woman, was visiting her. The sister did most of the talking. My grammar school Spanish helped me to keep up with much of the conversation. She said the children were on the ninth floor of the hospital, the husband on the sixth. Yes, this was the wife I had heard about. Somehow, the sister detected that I was aware of the circumstances of the case. “You read about this?” she asked me in English.

“I heard it on the radio,” I replied

She warned me, “Don’t believe all that you heard,” obviously concerned about her sister’s reputation, “Thank you for telling me,” I said.

The Chaplain asked me to pray for the victim and I did. There was cordial conversation and good wishes exchanged. When we got into the hall I asked if we could go see the husband. The Chaplain consented. At the wing entrance was a police officer whom we informed of our plan to visit the prisoner-patient. We found him handcuffed to his bed in a regular population ward of six men. Face burns could be seen through an oxygen mask. There were also severe burns on his hands and body. He told us of his stab wound, the most serious injury. The Chaplain, a dear Black man of 67 and an all-to-eager Arminian, proceeded to tell this man of Jesus’ “love” for him almost immediately following our greeting. After a moment of antinomian “comforting,” he said, “The pastor [me] will speak to you now and pray for you.”

I always feel awkward when I am thrust, as it were, into prayer or counseling, but this time I was both more and less so. More, because ministering to a man who had just stabbed his wife and children is not something I do daily. Less, because I was eager to remove any false hoped of God’s indulgence that my Arminian friend may have inculcated.

While he was not openly enthusiastic about our visit (he was too weak to show it if he was), he certainly was not resistant to our presence. What should I do? What would Christ do? I try to bear in mind the background of some in the Corinthian church; former fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners, as well as “regular” sinners (I Cor. 6:9-11). Sounds a lot like Messiah’s Congregation.

“Listen carefully to me,” I began. “After you did what you did to your wife and children, you stabbed yourself, you tried to destroy yourself. Isn’t that right?” He nodded, but seemed fearful.

“I am not the police, so you may speak to me freely, I am a pastor, a minister. The police are not your biggest problem. You must face God. Do you understand?”

“Yes.”

“When you tried to destroy yourself you began to carry out the punishment that you know you deserve for what you did. If you do not repent, what awaits you is far worse than anything the police or courts may do. Do you understand?”

He nodded. While I’m certain my companion would have wanted me to lead this man in “the sinner’s prayer,” I tried only to impress upon him the justice of God and His mercy. “What you tried to do to yourself, God did to His Son. He destroyed Him on the cross because of our sins. He is your only hope. You must repent.” Then I took his hand and prayed that God would impress upon him the seriousness of his sin, the enormity of his guilt, and cause him to flee to Christ for refuge. We prayed for his wife and children. We prayed for mercy. Then we went and did the same for the two beautiful children on the ninth floor. The stab wound on the chest of the three-year-old was visible when we approached her bed. How is one supposed to feel at such a sight? Compassion for the baby? Rage at the father (and possibly the mother)? Sadness? Illness? The sisters, fearful at first, seemed put at ease when they learned that, in the marvelous Providence of God, the Chaplain was a fellow Panamanian. They accepted prayer and managed a smile. I touched the cheek of the little one. She is such a beautiful child. What will her future be like?

There is no “dramatic ending” to this episode. The episode was itself the drama. It is a drama that is repeated in different forms, in different ways and in different circumstances on a daily basis in this field of service: Corinth, NY. Every day the sensitive soul can rightly cry out, “Who is sufficient for such a task?” How does one minister Christ? There is no one answer, except if it be, “Faithfully.” But learning from the Word and Spirit exactly what “faithful” means in any given circumstance, well, it is arduous enough to make one confess, “Our sufficiency is from God!” And after we have confessed this, we still feel inadequate and needy. Earthen vessels, indeed. Pray that God would grant us wisdom as we walk through the doors He opens.

Diverse doors. Examples: A Jewish police officer who was injured pursuing an escapee was open to conversation about things serious. A woman with AIDS (from shooting drugs), and whose brother had recently died from the same plague, politely listened to the gospel and the hope in Christ on several occasions before she, too died. A Cambodian woman visiting her ailing mom, expressed interest in coming to church. The daughter of a Chinese woman forced $5 into my hand as thanks for the prayer offered for her mother, who did not understand a word of it. God did. A twenty-six-year-old paralyzed Black man who was just released from prison talked with me about his other convictions- concerning God. He is interested in understanding life. I pray that Christ reveals Himself to “True” (how’s that for a hopeful street name?). A twenty-year-old Puerto Rican girl had a miscarriage. And speaking of names, hers if Providencia! As I ministered to her, sharing my wife Jeannie’s experiences with miscarriages and a stillbirth, I discovered that this darling child did not know what her beautiful name meant. I excitedly explained Providence to her and when I left, I think we were friends. I really could go on and on. It is wonderful and burdensome to minster in Christ’s name. He is what everyone needs.

Corinth, NY, is swollen with need. Jews and Gentiles, young and old, rich and poor. (And whoever said that the poor, in virtue of their poverty, are humble, has never ministered to the poor!) They are sinners all, like me. Through our actively-reaching-out membership, and through referrals, we are called upon to minster to more people than we can competently handle. A young Jewish businessman who stands to make it big in the Big Apple- if folly and cocaine don’t kill him first. A mother of two whose husband walks out on her. A woman in her thirties who was sexually abused by her father. A young man climbing out of the pit of using drugs, getting drunk and patronizing prostitutes. A middle-aged homosexual man who calls us to talk, but refuses to listen.

Experience shows that the vast majority of those to whom we reach out will also “refuse to listen”; they will not enter the fold. People who push for numbers can only be regarded as foolish or blind. Ministry is not a numbers game. At least, not here it isn’t. Yet we must do all things for the sake of the elect, whether they be many or few.

As the fruits of our human sin and national apostasy begin to appear, they appear in Corinth, NY, first. Sow a great wind, reap a greater whirlwind. The winds are blowing so hard, it frequently seems overwhelming. But the words that Jesus spoke to Paul in Corinth were never more applicable than they are now, than they are here: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. For I am with you, and not one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city.” We must care about His many, to be sure, but they must be cared for as people. People who need our time, our love, and sometimes our money. Living in this city, ministering to these people, one finds that Paul’s words must be repeated with urgency: “Brethren, pray for us.”

******
Now go to Messiah's website and donate as generously as you can to this faithful ministry. Or, if you prefer, you can send a check to: Messiah's Ministries, 2662 East 24th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11235

A solution to Tiger's golfing woes

2010-12-01T07:42:00.000-08:00

The LPGA just voted to allow "transgender women" to play on the tour.

As I read the story, it occurred to me that this may be the solution to Tiger Wood's golfing woes. Since returning from his short, self-imposed exile from the PGA, he's been having difficulty regaining his pre-scandal form. Perhaps he can undergo "gender reassignment" surgery and compete as a woman. I'm sure in the interests of egalitarianism no one would complain that he...uh, she (it?) would have an unfair advantage.

It's just this sort of thing that demonstrates the absurdity of rebellion against God. When we fail to acknowledge him, we lose touch with reality and seek to create an alternate reality--an enterprise which is inevitably doomed to failure.

How ironic is it that the man/woman/thing's name is Lana Lawless? "Sin is lawlessness" (1 Jn. 3:4).

The Pilgrims' cautionary tale

2010-11-23T05:53:00.000-08:00

Kate Zernike, writing for the New York Times, finds fault with Tea Partiers for their "interpretation" of the Pilgrims' early ecomonic experiment in socialism. The Pilgrims were required by the terms of their agreement with the London Company, which financed the colony, to hold all things in common. As you can imagine this created all kinds of disincentives to work.

Eventually, William Bradford, the governor of Plymouth Colony, decided to parcel out the land for each family to farm, with each family benefitting according to the labor they put into it. The result was a stunning increase in production. (Should we be surprised?)

This little experiment in collectivist policy has served as a cautionary tale for years among conservative and libertarian thinkers. Ms. Zernike, however, objects. She refers to it as "one common telling" of the story of the Pilgrims. Perhaps it's a common telling of the story because this is the story that no less an authority than William Bradford tells in his fascinating first hand account entitled On Plymouth Plantation.

Here's Bradford in his own words:

All this while no supplies were heard of, nor did they know when they might expect any. So they began to consider how to raise more corn, and obtain a better crop than they had done, so that they might not continue to endure the misery of want. At length after much debate, the Governor with the advice of the chief among them, allowed each man to plant other corn for his own household, and to trust to themselves for that; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. So every family was assigned a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number with that in view, - for present purposes only, and making no division for inheritance, - all boys and children being included under some family. This was very successful. It made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could devise, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and give far better satisfaction. The women now went willingly into the field and took their little ones with them to plant corn, while before they would allege weakness and inability; and to have compelled them would have been though great tyranny and oppression.

The failure of this experiment of communal service, which was tried for several years, and by good and honest men proves the emptiness of the theory of Plato and other ancients, applauded by some of later times, - that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For in this instance, community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort. For the young men who were most able and fit for service objected to bring forced to spend their time and strength in working for other men’s wives and children, with any recompense. The strong man or the resourceful man had no more share of food, clothes, etc., than the weak man who was not able to do a quarter the other could. This was thought injustice. The aged and graver men, who were ranked and equalized in labour, food, clothes, etc., with the humbler and younger ones, thought it some indignity and disrespect to them. As for men’s wives who were obliged to do service for other men, such as cooking, washing their clothes, etc., they considered it a kind of slavery, and many husbands would not brook it. This feature of it would have been worse still, if they had been men of an inferior class. If (it was an thought) all were to share alike, and all were to do alike, then all were on an equality throughout, and one was as good as another, and so, if it did not actually abolish those very relations which God himself has set among men, it did at least greatly diminish the mutual respect that is so important should be preserved amongst them. Let none argue that this is due to human failing, rather than to the communistic plan of life in itself. I answer, seeing that all men have this failing in them, that God in His wisdom saw that another plan of life was fitter for them.

My kingdom is not of this world

2010-11-19T06:30:00.000-08:00

Why are so many Christians today so concerned about politics and trying to reform government when Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (Jn. 18:36).

Why are so many Christians concerned about politics? Because it matters to God, and it should matter to us as well, whether the righteous or the wicked are in power. And it will matter to us if we have any regard for the glory of God and any love for our fellow man.

Solomon says in Proverbs 29:2, When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.

The people groan under the rule of the wicked because it is a burden to be governed by them. The bad example of their private lives and the folly and injustice of their rule are hard to bear.

We should be concerned about politics—about government—because government has to do with the ethics of a nation. The ethics of a nation are reflected in its laws and in the faithful administration of the laws. In the same way that the Lord blesses or curses a man according to whether he is righteous or wicked, so the Lord will bless or curse a nation according to whether its leaders are good or bad men.

In addition to this, the Bible teaches that we are to do good whenever it’s in our power to do so. Good government is something that good men will naturally desire to promote. Promoting it is one of the ways in which we serve our neighbor.

As for the saying of Jesus that his kingdom is not of this world, this should not be taken to mean that his kingdom does not exist in this world or that his kingdom is not concerned with the things of this world. As Abraham Kuyper has said, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’ ”

Indeed, Jesus himself said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matt. 28:18). Did you notice that he said, “In heaven and on earth”? All authority on earth belongs to Jesus Christ. It was given to him by our Father in heaven. Those who hold positions of authority have that authority on loan from Christ our King. They have a delegated authority. And they are to exercise the authority that has been given to them in a manner consistent with his will. If they do not, they are in rebellion against their rightful sovereign, and they will have to answer to him for it.

When Jesus says that his kingdom is not of this world, he is talking about its point of origin. He says it is not of this world, meaning that it does not originate here. Jesus did not receive his authority from men or from any human institution—as Pilate did (the man to whom Jesus was speaking when he made this statement). Jesus’ kingdom originates in heaven with God. But having said this, we must be quick to add that this does not mean that his kingdom does not exist here in this world. It most certainly does. And it is the duty of every Christian, as faithful citizens and ambassadors of Christ’s kingdom, to bring kingdom principles to bear upon their participation in civic affairs. At a minimum this means (under our form of government) that we vote, and that we vote for the candidate that most consistently reflects biblical principles in his personal life and in his public policies. Beyond this, as God enables, we should also give financial support and otherwise campaign for good candidates. Political action is not the whole of kingdom work, but it certainly is part of it, and I would argue that under our form of government where we are given the right to choose our leaders, it’s a very important part.

What About Baptism for the Dead?

2010-11-12T06:23:00.000-08:00

Please explain the baptism for the dead that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 15:29.

Paul speaks of baptism “for the dead” in a context in which he is defending the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead at the last day. Some of the Corinthians apparently had denied that there would be such a resurrection, as we see from verse 12.

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? (1 Cor. 15:12)

This skepticism concerning the resurrection also appeared while Paul was preaching in Athens in Acts 17. Scripture says that some of his hearers mocked him when he mentioned the resurrection of the dead (Acts 17:32).

This skepticism apparently infected some in the church at Corinth as well. And then he proceeds to defend the resurrection against those who for whatever reason denied it.

One of the points that he brings up in defense of the resurrection is the practice of baptism on behalf of the dead.

What do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? (1 Cor. 15:9)

The Greek phrase which is translated “on behalf of the dead” may also be translated “with reference to the dead” or “on account of the dead.”

Many scholars have assumed that Paul was talking about some early heretical practice that was rooted in a pagan ritual—a practice that he doesn’t necessarily agree with or approve, but one that he finds helpful to his argument nonetheless.

It seems to me rather that Paul has in mind an Old Testament ritual washing that was commanded for those who had contact with a dead body. We read about this in the book of Numbers. The Lord says,

Whoever touches the dead body of any person shall be unclean seven days. He shall cleanse himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day, and so be clean. But if he does not cleanse himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not become clean. Whoever touches a dead person, the body of anyone who has died, and does not cleanse himself, defiles the tabernacle of the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from Israel; because the water for impurity was not thrown [sprinkled] on him, he shall be unclean. His uncleanness is still on him (Num. 19:11-13)

This passage is referred to in the 9th chapter of Hebrews. Guess what the washing with water is called. Baptism! In speaking about the nature of things under the Old Testament law of purification, and after referring to Numbers 19, Paul says,

Gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings [baptismos] (Heb. 9:10)

This is not the only place in the New Testament where the ritual washings of the Old Testament are referred to as baptisms. We have another instance in Mark 7.

Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash [baptizo]. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing [baptismos] of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) (Mk. 7:1-4)

We see, then, that the ritual washings of the OT are called baptisms. Moreover, there was a specific ritual washing—a specific baptism—which God commanded for those who had had contact with a dead body. This is what Paul is referring to, when he speaks of baptism on account of the dead. The Christian community in Corinth, being composed of Jews and of God-fearing Gentiles attached to the synagogue, would have been familiar with this practice.

And Paul is suggesting that this ritual washing on account of contact with a dead body presupposes the continued existence and future resurrection of the one who had died.

And they say one culture is as good as another

2010-11-08T04:16:00.000-08:00

Many Afghan women suffer a living hell.

On the Power and Glory of Christ

2010-11-07T18:14:00.000-08:00

The following is from the pen of St. Athanasius (ca. 293-373), the great champion and defender of the deity of Christ at the Council of Nicaea. It's from his work entitled De Incarnatione Verbi Dei (On the Incarnation of the Word of God). In the following passage, he speaks of the power of Christ over all the forces of evil.

When did people begin to abandon the worship of idols, unless it were since the very Word of God came among men? When have oracles ceased and become void of meaning, among the Greeks and everywhere, except since the Saviour has revealed Himself on earth? When did those whom the poets call gods and heroes begin to adjudged as mere morals, except when the Lord took the spoils of death and preserved incorruptible the body He had taken, raising it from among the dead? Or when did the deceitfulness and madness of daemons fall under contempt, save when the Word, the Power of God, the Master of all these as well, condescended on account of the weakness of mankind and appeared on earth? When did the practice and theory of magic begin to be spurned under foot, if not at the manifestation of the Divine Word to men? In a word, when did the wisdom of the Greeks become foolish, save when the true Wisdom of God revealed Himself on earth? In old times the whole world and every place in it was led astray by the worship of idols, and men thought idols were the only gods that were. But now all over the world men are forsaking the fear of idols and taking refuge with Christ; and by worshipping Him as God they come through Him to know the Father also.

Anyone, too, may put what we have said to the proof of experience in another way. In the very presence of the fraud of daemons and the imposture of the oracles and the wonders of magic, let him use the sign of the cross which they all mock at, and but speak the Name of Christ, and he shall see how through Him daemons are routed, oracles cease, ad all magic and witchcraft is confounded.

Who, then is this Christ and how great is He, Who by His Name and presence overshadows and confounds all things on every side. Who alone is strong against all and has filled the whole world with His teaching. Let the Greeks tell us, who mock at Him without stint or shame. If He is a man, how is it that one man has proved stronger than all those whom they themselves regard as gods, and by His own power has shown them to be nothing? If they call Him a magician, how is it that by a magician all magic is destroyed, instead of being rendered strong? Had He conquered certain magicians or proved Himself superior to one of them only, the might reasonably think that He excelled the rest only by His greater skill. But the fact is that His cross has vanquished all magic entirely and has conquered the very name of it. Obviously, therefore the Saviour is no magician, for the very daemons whom the magicians invoke flee from Him as from their Master. Who is He, then? Let the Greeks tell us, whose only serious pursuit is mockery! Perhaps they will say that He, too, is a daemon, and that is why He prevailed. But even so the laugh is still on our side, for we can confute them by the same proofs as before. How could He be a daemon, Who drives daemons out? If it were only certain ones that He drove out, then they might reasonably think that He prevailed against them through the power of their Chief, as the Jews, wishing to insult Him, actually said. But since the fact is here again, that at the mere naming of His Name all madness of the daemons is rooted out and put to flight, obviously the Greeks are wrong here, too, and our Lord and Saviour Christ is not, as they maintain, some daemonic power.

If then, the Saviour is neither a mere man nor a magician, nor one of the daemons, but has by His Godhead confounded and overshadowed the opinions of the poets and the delusion of the daemons and the wisdom of the Greeks, it must be manifest and will be owned by all that He is in truth Son of God, Existent Word and Wisdom and Power of the Father. This is the reason why His works are not mere human works, but, both intrinsically and by comparison with those of men, are recognized as being superhuman and truly the works of God.

Can we really know that we have been born again?

2010-11-05T06:24:00.000-07:00

Can we really know that we have been born again? And if so, how do we know?

The answer is yes, we can know that we have been born again, or born from above, (as the passage might be better translated).

In his first letter, the apostle John gives us several marks or effects of the new birth by which it can be known. Let’s look at what he has to say.

The first mark of being born from above is found in 1 John 2:29, “If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of God.”

John points this out because there are many who, as Paul says, “profess to know God, but by their deeds deny him” (Tit. 1:16). They say that they are Christians, but they practice unrighteousness. John says, “No, those who have been born of God practice righteousness.” That is, their lives may be characterized by this. They live in obedience to God’s commands.

The second mark is closely related to this. It is found in 1 John 3:9, “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.”

He is not suggesting that a true Christian lives in sinless perfection, but that the life of a true Christian cannot be characterized as a life of disregard for God and his commandments. A true Christian, one who has been born of God (or born from above) does not make a practice of sinning. And the reason he doesn’t make a practice of sinning is because he has something of the divine nature imparted to him: “God’s seed abides in him.” A man’s son bears the characteristics of his father. You often detect a strong physical resemblance between father and son. Their mannerisms, too, are often similar. The way they speak is similar. So is the way they react to things. Why the similarity? Because the son is the son of his father. In the same way, those who are born of God share in the holiness of God. If you find someone who professes to know God but they seem to have no concern to grow in holiness, you have found someone who is deceived.

The third mark of being born from above is found in 1 John 3:14, “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers.”

This thought is repeated a little later when he says, “everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him” (1 John 5:1a). So do you love the saints? Do you love God’s people? Do you prefer the company of Christians to the company of unbelievers? If so, you have one of the marks being born of God.

The fourth mark is found in 1 John 5:1b, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.” In other words, if you acknowledge Jesus of Nazareth to be the promised Messiah, which is the same thing that Paul says in Romans: “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 10:9) — and this is a sincere confession from the heart—then you have a mark of having been born of God (cf. 1 Cor. 12:3).

The fifth mark of being born from above is found in 1 John 5:4, “For everyone who is born of God overcomes the world.” This means that no one who is born of God is continually ensnared by the world. Earlier in the letter he had said,

“Love not the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world” (1 Jn. 2:15-16).

If we are continually overcome by the desires of the flesh (see Gal. 5:16ff), or find that the fundamental motivating force in our thinking is the acquisition of wealth, and the things that wealth can buy, then we love the world and the love of the Father is not in us. But if we find that in fact we are overcoming the world; if we find that these things do not have a powerful hold over us; that we are motivated instead by a love for God and a love for our neighbor; then we have another mark of having been born of God.

Near the end of his letter John says,

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life (1 Jn. 5:13).

And if these things are so, we may, as Paul says in Romans, “draw near [to God] with a true heart in full assurance of faith” (Heb. 10:22).

Off by 38 years

2010-11-04T06:19:00.000-07:00

What a difference a couple of years make. After the 2008 election cycle the incredibly annoying James it's-a-wonder-anyone-ever-listens-to-him Carville predicted the democrats would rule for the next forty years.

Every four years Americans hold a presidential election. Somebody wins and somebody loses. That's life. But 2008 was an anomaly. The election of President Barack Obama is about something far bigger than four or even eight years in the White House. Since 2004, Americans have been witnessing and participating in the emergence of a Democratic majority that will last not four but forty years.

He was off by 38 years.

Marching Orders

2010-11-02T08:32:00.000-07:00

Princeton theologian A. A. Hodge (1823-1886), in his Evangelical Theology writes,

The kingdom of God on earth is not confined to the mere ecclesiastical sphere, but aims at absolute universality, and extends its supreme reign over every department of human life.

It follows that it is the duty of every loyal subject to endeavour to bring all human society, social and political, as well as ecclesiastical, into obedience to its law of righteousness...

It is our duty, as far as lies in our power, immediately to organize human society and all its institutions and organs upon a distinctively Christian basis. Indifference or impartiality here between the law of the kingdom and the law of the world, or of its prince, the devil, is utter treason to the King of Righteousness. The Bible, the great statute-book of the kingdom, explicitly lays down principles which, when candidly applied, will regulate the action of every human being in all relations. There can be no compromise. The King said, with regard to all descriptions of moral agents in all spheres of activity, "He that is not with me is against me." If the national life in general is organized upon non-Christian principles, the churches which are embraced within the universal assimilating power of that nation will not long be able to preserve their integrity.

It's OK to Leave the Plantation

2010-11-02T07:38:00.000-07:00

Check out this two part interview with Mason Weaver about his new book It's OK to Leave the Plantation. Good stuff. Part 1. Part 2.

The Extremists are Coming!

2010-10-22T06:55:00.000-07:00

This Klavan on the Culture is classic.

What does it mean to be born again?

2010-10-22T06:52:00.000-07:00

What does Jesus mean when he tells Nicodemus, “You must be born again”? What exactly is the new birth?

To begin let me say that instead of “born again,” the original Greek might have been better translated “born from above.” “Unless one is born from above he cannot see the kingdom of God.” There is another very common Greek word that means “again” but it’s not the word used here. The word used here has the primary meaning of “from above,” or similarly “from the top,” and this is how it is translated in its every other occurrence in the Gospel of John (3:31; 19:11, 23).

Not only in the Gospel of John, but in every other occurrence in the New Testament, the word most naturally means from above, or from the top. This seems to be how it should be understood in the passage, “Unless one is born from above he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:3).

The coming down of Jesus from heaven is a prominent theme throughout the Gospel of John.

No one has ascended into heaven except him who descended from heaven, the Son of Man (Jn. 3:13).

He who comes from above is above all (Jn. 3:31).

He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world” (Jn. 8:23).

This contrast is important and a frequently occurring theme in John’s Gospel. Jesus is from above. He is from heaven. We are from below, from the earth. And Jesus tells us that if we wish to see the kingdom of heaven, we must be born from above.

Nicodemus doesn’t understand Jesus’ meaning. He asks, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” (Jn. 3:4) He is thinking in human terms. And Jesus rebukes him for not understanding. “Are you a teacher in Israel,” he says, “and you do not understand these things?” (v. 10).

Jesus is talking about a work of the Holy Spirit which is accomplished in the soul of man. It is the implanting of new spiritual life. It is a change which is wrought by the Holy Spirit in a man’s nature. It is a reversal of the moral and spiritual effects of the Fall.

When man fell into sin, there was a fundamental change that took place in his nature. He became a slave to sin and averse to all true spiritual good. Whereas, before the Fall righteousness came naturally to him and he had a taste for divine things, afterward sin was natural, and righteousness unnatural. Man lost his taste for things divine. He lost his taste for true spiritual good. Man in his fallen state is described in Job as drinking iniquity like water (Job 15:16). In other words, he has a thirst for sin. For some it is a thirst for very crass and obvious forms of sin. For others, it is a thirst for more refined and sophisticated forms. As Paul says, “The sins of some men are conspicuous, going before them to judgment, but the sins of others appear later” (1 Tim. 5:24). But everyone born since Adam has been affected by the Fall such that apart from divine grace he is wholly disinclined to what is spiritually good. He is averse to the things of God. Not that every man is equally wicked, or that every man is as evil as he could possibly be, but that every man—apart from divine grace—is naturally disinclined to love and obey God.

This is the condition of everyone who has been born since Adam. He is devoid of grace, devoid of the Spirit. He is earthly and natural, and nothing but flesh. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born to a fallen man is a fallen man.

But with the birth that comes from above, accomplished by the Spirit, all this changes. He is no longer merely an earthly man. Now there is a heavenly aspect to his being. He’s no longer limited by the flesh, but has the Spirit of God residing in him. He is no longer merely a natural man, but has a supernatural element to him. He’s been given a taste for divine things. He is enabled to believe and to turn away from sin.

On Resolving Conflict

2010-10-14T11:16:00.000-07:00

As Christians, how should we go about resolving conflict with a neighbor?

The first thing you should do when someone does something to offend you is to go tell a bunch of other people about it. Or if it’s a really serious offense, you should punch him in the nose, right on the spot.

Of course I’m teasing. This is what we might want to do; but not what we should do. What we should do is follow the Bible’s instructions. The Bible is a very practical book and gives us instructions about how to deal with offenses in a godly manner.
The first option, of course, is simply to overlook the offense.

Good sense makes one slow to anger,
and it is his glory to overlook an offense (Prov. 19:11)

Jesus speaks of this also, when he says,

You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, “Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt. 5:38-39).

In other words, absorb the shock. Suffer the wrong without retaliation. Peter says, “Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling” (1 Pet. 3:9). More than this, we are taught to respond with kindness and gentleness when we are wronged. “Bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you” (Lk. 6:28). And in Proverbs, we are told,

If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat,
and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink,
for you will heap burning coals on his head,
and the Lord will reward you (Prov. 25:21-22)

“Burning coals heaped upon the head” is a reference to the sense of shame and remorse that anyone with a conscience will feel when he has wronged his neighbor, but his neighbor, instead of retaliating, treats him kindly in return.

When we do this—when we don’t seek to retaliate, but respond with kindness and gentleness—the conflict is often diffused and comes to an end. Not always, but often this is the case.

Now, I should point out that there are certainly times when it is appropriate to confront the person who has wronged you and to insist that he make things right. In Leviticus 19:11 we read,

You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:17-18).

He says, “You shall reason frankly with your neighbor” when he has wronged you. In other words, confront him with his wrongdoing; point out how he has sinned against you. He doesn’t say, “Go tell everyone else what he has done to you.” Rather, go to the one who has offended you.

This is what Jesus says, also. “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone” (Matt. 18:15), which is what you would want done to you. If you were the guilty party—if you had done wrong to your neighbor—you would rather your neighbor come directly to you and speak to you about it than go and tell everyone else.

Whoever covers an offense seeks love,
but he who repeats a matter separates close friends (Pr. 17:9)

“Reason frankly with your neighbor,” “go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone.” And I would add this also: do this humbly and charitably, realizing that you may have misunderstood his words or his actions that have offended you. Offense is often taken where none is intended. Often conflicts arise through simple misunderstandings. So make sure you understand the situation as thoroughly as possible before you start casting blame.

What if there is no satisfactory resolution? Well then, Jesus says, “Take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses” (Matt. 18:16). In other words, initiate the process of seeking a formal resolution to the conflict by involving Christian brothers who can serve as witnesses to the confrontation according to what Jesus says in Matthew 18:15-17.

Finally, as Paul said, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all" (Rom. 12:18).

The gist of the argument

2010-10-14T11:00:00.000-07:00

More than half of Thomas E. Woods' book, Nullification: Resisting Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, consists of historical documents explaining and defending the right of states to nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government. One of these documents is "An Exposition of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798" written in 1833 by Judge Abel P. Upshur. He sums up the argument in five points:

1. The Constitution of the United States is a Compact between the States, as such.

2. The Government established by that Compact, possesses no power whatever, except what "the plain sense and intention" of that Compact gives to it.

3. Every act done by that Governement, not plainly within the limits of its powers, is void.

4. Each State has a right to say whether an act done by that Government is plainly within the limits of its powers or not.

5. The States are not bound to submit to, but may resist, any act of that Government which it shall so decide to be beyond the limits of its powers. (p. 225)

The notion of states' rights is foreign to most Americans today. Most Americans think of the states as nothing more than administrative districts of the federal government. In reality, it was the states who created the federal government to act as their agent to carry out certain limited functions. The federal government is to be the servant of the states, not their master. When the federal government oversteps its delegated powers, it is the states as states who must resist by nullifying its unconstitutional acts. This means we must elect state representatives and state senators and a governor who understand how the state can and should act as a wall of defense to protect its citizens against the unauthorized use of power by the federal government. It is the health care bill that gotten people to think again about the role of the states; but the right of the states to nullify federal laws ought to be used with respect to a host of other issues as well.

I think Woods is spot on in his treatment of this whole subject and I hope that his book becomes a runaway best seller.

A reflection on heroes

2010-10-13T15:09:00.000-07:00

Some good words from my son, James.

Heroes are not made in a moment, but often heroes are defined by a moment. Often a moment where all others abandon hope. Heroes are not born into greatness but often greatness follows them. Heroism is never thrust on someone, though often trying events are thrust on a hero. It is never events that create a hero, though it is often events that allow someone to be heroic. Heroes are always looking out for the good of others even when others are not looking out for them. Heroes are not arrogant or proud, though many will be proud of a hero. Not everyone is a hero, but everyone could be a hero. It's not every day you see or meet a hero, but many heroes are everyday heroes.

A wise son makes a glad father (Prov. 15:20).

A dangerous compromise

2010-10-13T06:46:00.000-07:00

In August the general presbytery of the Assemblies of God backed away from a commitment to uphold the Scriptural teaching of a recent six-day creation by issuing a wavering statement that reveals the denomination has made a dangerous compromise with the spirit of the age.

The advance of scientific research, particularly in the last few centuries, has raised many questions about the interpretation of the Genesis accounts of creation. In attempting to reconcile the Bible and the theories and conclusions of contemporary scientists, it should be remembered that the creation accounts do not give precise details as to how God went about His creative activity.

The "lack of precise details" is no reason to reject what is clearly revealed. We should not be dogmatically more precise than the creation accounts themselves (Gen. 1-2), but we most certainly shouldn't be less precise either. This is true of other portions of Scripture as well.

Shall we say that because Scripture does not give us precise details as to how Jesus healed the paralytic (Matt. 9:1-8), we are therefore free to suppose it did not happen immediately (as a plain reading of the text implies), but over a period of weeks or months or even years?

Just so, if Scripture says that God created all things in six days, then--in the absence of clues within the text itself which suggest the passage is to be taken otherwise than literally--we ought to heartily affirm the same.

Nor do these accounts provide us with complete chronologies that enable us to date with precision the time of the various stages of creation.

How do we know they are not complete? And what is meant by "the various stages of creation"? Are they assuming progressive creation over millions of years? The creation accounts are written in the style of historical narrative. They are clearly intended to be taken as descriptive of actual history, not as allegory, myth, or legend. The only sense in which it is appropriate to speak of "stages of creation" is with reference to the six days, which are not symbolic of long ages, but were literal 24 hour days, which is evident by the repetition of the phrase "and there was evening and there was morning, the first (second, third, etc.) day."

[E]qually devout Christian believers have formed very different opinions about the age of the earth, the age of humankind, and the ways in which God went about the creative processes.

True, devout Christians have formed very different opinions about these (and many other) things. But a Christian may be devout, and yet not think clearly, or handle the Scriptures accurately. This is no excuse not to uphold what Scripture clearly teaches.

Given the limited information available in Scripture, it does not seem wise to be overly dogmatic about any particular creation theory.

But if God has revealed the fact that he created all things "in the space of six days", is it really only a theory? And is it being "overly dogmatic" to insist upon it?

Whatever creation theory we individually may prefer, we must affirm that the entire creation has been brought into being by the design and activity of the Triune God. Moreover, we also affirm that the New Testament treats the creation and fall of Adam and Eve as historical events in which the Creator is especially involved. We urge all sincere and conscientious believers to adhere to what the Bible plainly teaches and to avoid divisiveness over debatable theories of creation.

This is just the point, isn't it? The Bible plainly teaches a recent six-day creation. It is not those who insist on it who are being divisive, it is those who are offering substitutes for it. Jude tells us to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). To do this is not divisiveness but faithfulness.

Benefits of reading the classics

2010-10-11T08:25:00.000-07:00

There are a number of benefits to reading the classic works of antiquity. One is simply our natural delight in things beautiful--and there is something truly beautiful about a well-written work. Another is the fact that what passes for a classic work usually achieves that status not only on the merits of the writer as a writer, but on the merits of the writer as a thinker. Classic works deal with grand themes and timeless truths about human nature. As a result of this, for good or ill the works have served as a formative influence on the development of western thought. One simply doesn't understand the modern world as well as he should if he doesn't know how we got here.

For the Christian, perhaps the greatest benefit of reading the ancient classics is the ability to "inhabit" the world of the Bible. Reading the classics helps us to experience the historical and cultural context in which God revealed himself to the prophets and apostles.

I have had the opportunity over the course of the last several years to teach classic literature at the high school level. I am especially fond of the first two years in the four year program. In the first year we read ancient Mesopotamian and Greek works. In the second year we read works from the Roman era. It's a reading course I wish I had had when I was in school. But, alas, with very few exceptions, the emphasis that used to be placed on a classical education has been all but lost.

Here is a list of books I have my students read in the first two years:

Year One: Ancient Mesopotamia and Greece
Epic of Gilgamesh (David Ferry)
Code of Hammurabi
Hesiod's Theogony and Works and Days
Homer's Iliad and Odyssey (Richmond Lattimore)
Herodotus Histories
Plato's Republic
Sophocles' Theban Trilogy

Bible: Genesis, Exodus, 1 & 2 Samuel, Job

Year Two: Ancient Rome, New Testament, & the Early Church
Livy's Early History of Rome
Virgil's Aeneid
Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars
Early Christian Writings
Athanasius' One the Incarnation of the Word of God
Augustine's Confessions

Historical fiction: Quo Vadis by Henryk Sienkiewicz, a novel about life in Nero's court and the trials of living faithfully as a Christian during his reign

Bible: Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Revelation