Science Czar

This article is pretty scary. If this doesn't tell us who President Obama is, I don't know what is needed to convince Americans we have totally abandoned our nation's heritage.

In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

By Any Other Name

Here is yet another example of media attempting to brain wash Americans by redefining words so that words either become meaningless or are used in a way to make the masses angry. In this so-called story we are told that the market value of cars is far below MSRP.

But that doesn't mean every vehicle is a bargain; plenty are still overpriced. Right now, according to Vincentric, a firm that tracks vehicle ownership costs for the auto industry, several cars on sale now have market values far below their manufacturer's suggested retail price.

What is this story trying to do? It is quite simple. The Left in this country believes they must control everything. Therefore they are attempting to convince Americans that the "system" is unfair. You are being ripped off and there is nothing you can do about it unless a Left-wing Democrat is in power to steal from the rich and give to the poor. In essence, paint the worst possible picture of those evil corporations and anyone that believes Capitalism has benefited our society.

Facts? What facts? We need no stinking facts!

The fact of the matter is that if a person is willing to pay the MSRP, then there is (by simple definition) in fact a market that determines the value of the car. This is basic economics 101, but again, this is not about economics. This is about power and control.

Are computers next on the hit list? By proportion, computers are a far bigger rip-off. I could never sell any of my computers for the price I paid for them. I guess I was ripped off. I now see my need for Obama to save me.

Even last week, my neighbor had a garage sale. The items were clearly too expensive. Yet, he managed to dupe some people into buying some of those items. I think Obama should have done something about that. (yes, this is sarcasm)

As a member of a church, I must confess, I have never heard of a missionary coming back from a foreign country saying how the standard of living is so great throughout the world. Instead, it has always been reports of the complete opposite. Yet if one only watches the American News outlets, one would be convinced at how bad and rotten America is and how capitalism has made people utterly poor. Getting people to step outside their living rooms into reality I think may be the only solution for Conservatives. (Yes, I know there are poor people in America too.)

Any thinking person should recognize, if the government controls the prices of things, whether they be cars or anything else, then by definition the free market is not determining the price of the things, much less cars.

I have always been amazed at how certain people have the power and cleverness to convince others that black is white. Words may have lost their meaning, but a rose is still a rose by any other name. A thief is still a thief no matter what the Congress and the President and the media call themselves.

Fads Are Not the Church's Business

Here are two good examples of why pastors should remain in their calling as pastors. Although I did not read the entire encyclical from Pope Benedict XVI, I didn't see much of a difference between his views and Rick Warren's views based upon this recent USA Today article.

Warren is quoted as saying,

... people of goodwill, whether they happened to believe, as I do, that Jesus Christ is the son of God, or not, to work together on the areas where we can work together, and not worry about the areas where we can't.

The Pope's encyclical states in the first paragraph,

All people feel the interior impulse to love authentically: love and truth never abandon them completely, because these are the vocation planted by God in the heart and mind of every human person. The search for love and truth is purified and liberated by Jesus Christ from the impoverishment that our humanity brings to it, and he reveals to us in all its fullness the initiative of love and the plan for true life that God has prepared for us. In Christ, charity in truth becomes the Face of his Person, a vocation for us to love our brothers and sisters in the truth of his plan. Indeed, he himself is the Truth (cf. Jn 14:6).

Now the problem with the above quotes is that in some sense they are true. Christians should work with their neighbors for the betterment of society. Although the Gospel may impact and motivate a Christian in his duty towards the public good, that is not the Gospel, and it certainly is not the duty of pastors to try to work with "others" as pastors.

The duty of the pastor is to proclaim the message of the foolishness of the cross to dying men. When men like Warren go down this road, they have simply gone back to old fashioned Liberalism. When you present a "social gospel" as the Gospel, you will eventually abandon the Gospel. Although the fad seems to have passed, do you remember Warren going green?

If you read this article, it demonstrates all the more reasons why denominations should be very cautious about getting political. Even the SBC has gone way beyond common sense. As the article states,

Only two years ago, Southern Baptists passed a resolution urging the government to "reject mandated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions," and to "proceed cautiously in the human-induced global warming debate in light of conflicting scientific research."

Church leaders should be careful about getting involved with political fads. Quite often they find themselves on the wrong end of things.

Why Should I?

I just saw this video on RedState.com. I have to ask a simple question in response to the statement at the end of the video, "Vote Republican in 2010."

Why? Why should I vote Republican? Did not the Republicans help destroy Sarah Palin?

I don't care whether or not Sarah Palin had the right pedigree. I don't care that she didn't have all the right specifics to foreign policy. The facts are plain. She actually took on Big Government types in Alaska and rid it of corruption. She actually believed in fiscal responsibility. Unlike McCain or Obama, she actually believes that the Constitution is the Law of the land. She really does believe in liberty as it is articulated in the Constitution and the Declaration.

Now I am not suggesting we must vote for Sarah Palin. In fact, there are far more qualified people. The question still remains. With the behavior of the Republican party, we now know without a doubt it is just as corrupt and culpable as the Democrats when it comes to our nation's financial problems. They also participated in the attacks against Palin.

As a Christian, I believe Christians should participate in our government. I believe Christians have a moral obligation to act and work with their neighbors for the betterment of society. However, to confuse the Kingdom of God with the kingdoms of men and thinking that somehow the Republican party is the party that will save our nation's moral decline is simply foolish. The Republican party is no more able to articulate moral values than Democrats.

They can't even say abortion is wrong. They wish Evangelicals would go away on this issue.

They are not able to articulate why marriage is defined by the Creator. Something that should be so obvious, but yet they are terribly afraid of the politically correct speech crowd.

The corrupt Republicans in the Senate voted with the Democrats to pass the stimulus.

The corrupt Republicans helped create the situation in which Obama now owns parts of the private sector (GM, banks, ect...).

The corrupt Republicans in the house voted for the energy bill that was nothing short of a tax bill that does completely the opposite of what Obama promises.

The corrupt Republican party would like to see Former General Colin Powell as its leader. Yet he is the man who supported the Radical Leftist Chicago thug Obama, the very man who seeks to destroy freedom and liberty as we know it.

There are so many other problems that we could sit here all day wondering...

So why? Why should I vote Republican?

Celebrate the Historical Reality

Tomorrow is the day we celebrate a major historical event, our nation's founding. John Adams wrote to Abigail, his wife,

It ought to be commemorated as a day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bell, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other...

As I was reading Richard Barcellos' article, New Testament theology of the Sabbath, Christ, the change of the day, and the name of the day, I noticed a similar idea that made for great conversation with my wife and children. (This article is in the 2008, volume 1 issue of the Reformed Baptist Theological Review).

Why do we celebrate holidays? Nothing significant is in reality happening tomorrow. No Red Coats are marching through our towns. There are no true Patriots setting the sparks of freedom throughout the country side. General Washington's troops are long gone. Most Americans may be unaware of any historical significance, especially our smaller children (I am thinking of Jacob, my almost 3 year-old). For the next few years Jacob may not understand the reality of Independence Day, but he will intuitively know something is important about this day and its meaning.

Easter, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Thanks Giving and even Christmas are all really memorial days that point to a real event in history. Something really happened that we celebrate and identify. Americans do not celebrate Cinco De Mayo (unless you are from Mexico) because most of us do not identify with such a historical reality. We do identify and are in union with Washington and all of those that gave birth to the greatest nation on earth. The memorial is directly tied with its historical reality.

Richard Barcellos' article points out similar and parallel thoughts to the Lord's Day. As he wrote on page 55,

...as the old Sabbath both looked back to creation and forward to an eternal rest, so the New Covenant Sabbath looks back to the inauguration of the new creation and forward to an eternal rest.

Barcellos cites Sam waldron on the observance of the Sabbath and its historical basis, the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The New Testament teaches, therefore, that there is a new creation in Christ. The idea of a new creation is frequently associated with Christ's resurrection. By union with Christ in His death, the old man is destroyed. By union with Christ in His resurrection, the new man is created. When He rose again He became the firstborn of God's new creation. As He was the beginning of the old creation, so He is now the beginning of the new. Thus, the memorial of Christ's resurrection is of necessity a memorial of the new creation. Thus, the Lord's Day like the Sabbath and unlike any other religious observance points to both creation and redemption. (-emphasis mine)

In conclusion, I am attempting to make the brief case for the reality of the resurrection of Christ. We know and have every reason to believe that Jesus was truly raised from the dead and is the beginning of the new creation. Why? Because every Sunday for the last two thousand years, Christians in every location and every generation (with some exceptions) have celebrated this major historical event by gathering together on the Lord's Day or Sunday, the first day of the week.

Richard Gaffin is quoted in the article on the nature of our resurrection with Christ's,

...Paul views the two resurrections not so much as two events but as two episodes of the same event.

Barcellos adds,

Christ's resurrection is the most powerful sign of the age to come.

As we gather together to celebrate the 4th of July and our nation's independence, keep in mind of the historical reality that has given us the freedoms and liberties that no nation has on earth today. As we gather together this Lord's Day, Sunday, let us celebrate the historical reality that is the basis for its observance. Perhaps not with fireworks, but celebrate it as the Lord commands with singing, prayer, preaching, baptisms and the memorial of the Lord's Supper.

We may be as certain of the resurrection of Christ and the new creation as we are with Independence Day.

How Things Really Are

As I slowly plow through Dennis Johnson's Triumph of the Lamb, I found his comments in chapter 3 quite helpful in how we approach and interpret the book of Revelation. In Revelation chapter 1 the apostle John gives us a picture of Jesus Christ, to which Johnson writes,

Other aspects of the speaker's description exhibit the impact of Old Testament imagery on John's visionary experience, but also the newness of the revelation that he receives. Images drawn from different Scriptures or, even more confusing, different figures in the same prophetic vision are brought together to describe the Son of Man.

Johnson then offers an example of how Jesus is described.

He wears a robe that reaches His feet and a sash, like the ancient high priest in the tabernacle.

As Johnson says on page 60,

Revelation's visions show us how things are, not how they look to the physical eye.

Keeping this interpretive method before us will cause us to see that John was not merely describing futuristic things in terms his generation could understand. He was in fact telling us about the nature of things. Therefore, when we read of scorpions or locusts, the author is not describing war craft helicopters. He is using Old Testament language to describe the realities around us for every generation. As Johnson wrote on page 16,

Revelation is addressed to a church that is under attack. Its purpose, to reveal "things which must soon take place," is not to satisfy idle eschatological curiosity or feed a hunger for revenge but to fortify Jesus' followers in steadfast hope and holy living.

Again, why use symbols? Since "One of the key themes of the book is that things are not what they seem", the church of Jesus Christ must view the world from a viewpoint that God has given to us. The kingdoms of man are truly at war with God's Kingdom. The Dragon, Beast and False Prophet wage war against God's people. Although there may be periods of peace (something which we should pray for), natural man is anything but morally neutral.

Therefore God's revelation to us about ourselves should be considered as we consider the choices we make in this present evil age. How we do evangelism or how we interact with governments or even how we seek to glorify God in our daily living.

But the symbols show us something about the church, the great city, the bride, and the Enemy, revealing what does not appear to the naked eye.

We could even ask, "Do we agree with what God has to say about ourselves and the world around us?"

Obama Is a Homophobe?

Campaign promises are usually just that...campaign promises. Why we ever believe politicians is beyond me. But even so, most politicians will not usually go in the complete opposite direct of a promise, at least not in a way that makes them look really bad.

In this New York Times Opinion piece, Obama's administration is said to have "submitted a disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law that protects the right of states to not recognize same-sex marriages and denies same-sex married couples federal benefits." What arguments were put forth? Homophobic arguments. The article states,

The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the “traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.” In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.

The argument put forth by Obama's administration was considered hurtful. "Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization" also responded by stating,

“I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones.”

The Opinion piece went on to criticize the Administration.

If the administration does feel compelled to defend the act, it should do so in a less hurtful way. It could have crafted its legal arguments in general terms, as a simple description of where it believes the law now stands. There was no need to resort to specious arguments and inflammatory language to impugn same-sex marriage as an institution.

Although I have argued similar points, homosexuals as usual, completely miss the point. They simply define the debate in such a way as that no serious debate can take place. Their position and presuppositions must be the quick sand...I mean foundation from which we all must argue (Just listen to James White's debate with Barry Lynn and John Shelby Spong). But even Obama's Administration apparently sees the major flaw in all of this.

I must confess I have no idea why the Administration took the position it did. I have no idea if they are consistent in their fundamental principles or if they were just looking for a political way out (I think the latter is most probable). However, in doing so, they have only reinforced their political opponent's arguments and have undermined the philosophical "work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act in Congress."

Let's face it, if God's created order can be redefined to support homosexuality, then why not incestuous relationships?

Smokeless Culture Will Be Closer To God

Baptist Press reported,

President Obama signed into law June 22 legislation giving authority to the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products for the first time.

Apparently the SBC feels good about themselves.

The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and other advocates for the new law applauded the bill's enactment.

So what does religious liberty have to do with applauding the removal of the Tobacco from the hands of American citizens? I wonder how many people will be saved by a duty that has nothing to do with the church.

Do we really need a Religious Liberty Commission? This may very well be a good example of the confusion of responsibilities between church and state. How can this not lead to politicizing the church?

ERLC President Richard Land served as one of the leaders of the religious coalition that backed the legislation for several years. Other organizations in the 25-member Faith United Against Tobacco included the United Methodist Church, American Baptist Churches USA, National Council of Churches, Seventh-day Adventists, Presbyterian Church (USA), Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and Islamic Society of North America.

The SBC is able to work with the ABCUSA and other Liberal denominations? I guess maybe the political/religious Left and Right may actually be united over something?

All of Christ's Work Is Perfect & Unified

Pastor Cory Kitch has another review of the book, The Shack. Read here. His review is quite helpful at explaining some of the false views of God and man that so many have. The problem with this book is not so much the book itself but the fact that so many Christians are reading it and thinking it is a good book.

I'd like to add some thoughts to this portion of Cory's post.

Papa: “Forgiveness does not establish relationship. In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me, but only some choose relationship. … When Jesus forgave those who nailed him to the cross they were no longer in his debt, nor mine. In my relationship with those men, I will never bring up what they did, or shame them, or embarrass them.”

What you have here is, unfortunately, a fairly common understanding of what Jesus accomplished at the cross. Unfortunately, it’s so wrong. Humanity, as William Young sees it, has been put in a neutral place because of what Jesus did on the cross. Because Jesus died on the cross, humanity is now in a place to act on their good nature and choose Christ, or act on their bad nature and not choose Christ. What’s wrong with this assumption? Where do I begin?

The Bible clearly teaches that humanity is not in a neutral state. Even reason teaches we are not in a neutral state. Just think about any relationship you’ve ever had! Not choosing to do someone good or love someone implies the opposite does it not? Take a look at what the Bible says about human nature.

If you have read this Blog at all, you will know that I have noted many Evangelicals have departed from the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement. Don't get me wrong. Most still use the terminology. Yet they have become inconsistent with the Biblical truth of Christ's work.

The idea, that everyone has their sins forgiven at the cross while not having a "relationship" with Jesus, is to miss who Jesus really is and what He has done. Now Cory has already nailed the neutrality issue and God's sovereign work, so I will not repeat that here. It must be kept in mind that theologians may distinguish between aspects of Christ's work, but we must never divorce them from one another. There is a unity in the different teachings of Scripture. Here are a few problems when this is denied.

1) Terms have meaning.

If Christ is our Substitute and He actually bore our sins, and if everyone's sins have actually been imputed to Christ, the logical conclusion is that all will be saved or Universalism. This teaching is self destructive. If we are going to universalize the Biblical text in an unBiblical fashion, then we need to face the end results.

2) Imputation is lost.

If Imputation is to have any meaning at all, we must be consistent with what has actually happened at the Cross.

2Co 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

And again,

Rom 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

These verses are about the great exchange. Our sins were born by Christ. Even though He did not commit sin, He was punished as if He had. He was imputed or credited at the Cross as a sinner in our place. His righteousness now belongs to His people/us.

If we say that every person has had their sins forgiven already at the cross, then this teaching is lost and the basis for Justification and even Original Sin is gone.

3) Union with Christ is denied by those who believe "we are already forgiven, just believe and get to heaven."

On the cross there is a union of the elect with Christ in His life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension. To insist that man is morally neutral is to say that Christ has unified Himself with non-elect people in His death on the Cross. He has paid their sin debt, and they yet still go to hell (something which no one has explained why they go to hell).

Rom 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
Rom 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
Rom 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
Rom 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?
Rom 8:32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Rom
8:33 Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies;
Rom
8:34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

Scripture is clear. When Christ died, his people died. When Christ was raised, His people were raised. This is no hypothetical union or substitution. This is a reality which comes to His people through faith.

Col 2:12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

4) Faith in Christ is denied as the means which forgiveness is received

To say we are already forgiven before we believe is problematic. It is true that at the cross Christ actually procured the forgiveness of sins, but this is a Calvinistic doctrine, not a free-will doctrine. For those in union with Christ do have their sins dealt with perfectly. In time the elect come to faith by the work of the Spirit through those who preach the Gospel proclamation. The elect hear the Good News and turn to Christ in faith.

Rom 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
Rom 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works

5) Faith becomes divorced from Christ's work.

Faith becomes something we work up within ourselves instead of something Christ procures for His people. It is precisely because of the work of the Spirit in applying the finished work of Christ that we believe. If Christ had only hypothetically died for us, then we would be dependent upon ourselves to trust Christ. This idea separates us from Christ's Person and his work.

Phi 1:29 For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake

It is through faith that we receive the righteousness of Christ, and it is a gift of the Triune God.

6) Christ's High Priestly Role is undermined.

As our High Priest, Christ intercedes in behalf of the elect of God. Are we seriously going to consider that when Jesus prays to the Father in behalf of those for whom He died, that somehow the Father will miss someone? Is it really possible that Jesus could offer, in prayer to the Father, His own sacrifice and somehow that sacrifice only be hypothetical?

Heb 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

Did He or did He not perfect forever those who are sanctified by His one offering?

7) The doctrine of Election is denied.

I will state this simply. If everyone is elected or that we elect ourselves, then no one was elected. As the villain said in the cartoon movie, The Incredibles, "When everyone is super, then no one will be."

Obviously much more could be said. My point is simple. We can not divorce all of the aspects of Christ's work. Distinguish, yes...separate, no.

Is This Justice?

The MP3 sharing software problem is one that philosophically baffles me. On the one hand, artists have rights over their copyrighted material. I may no more copy a book written by a famous author on this blog than I could steal money from a bank. On the other hand, Biblically speaking, if I steal a gallon of milk, I can't be fined thousands of times what the milk is worth. There must be justice that fits the crime.

YahooNews reported a story of a woman that has been fined $222,000.00.

An attorney for the recording industry, Tim Reynolds, said the "greater weight of the evidence" showed that Thomas-Rasset was responsible for the illegal file-sharing that took place on her computer. He urged jurors to hold her accountable to deter others from a practice he said has significantly harmed the people who bring music to everyone.

Now usually, when companies are sued for large amounts that people don't deserve (like the hot coffee incident with McDonalds), the lawsuit is intended to make certain large wealthy companies change their ways. Since they have large amounts of money, it is argued that large settlements are needed as punishment to get them to change their ways.

However, how does a woman that is "a 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd" have the amount of money that they are demanding from her? As she said,

"There's no way they're ever going to get that."

Obviously, the ridiculous amount is unjust and unlawful. But it gets even better. When you check the basis for the charges, the plaintiffs admit something that is stunning.

The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companies. For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24 infringements.

So this is the heart of the matter. It sounds terrible that she offered 1700 songs. They sought to prove only 24 infringements. They then admit,

Although the plaintiffs weren't able to prove that anyone but MediaSentry downloaded songs off her computer because Kazaa kept no such records, Reynolds told the jury it's only logical that many users had downloaded songs offered through her computer because that's what Kazaa was there for.

So they admit they have not a shred of evidence for their charge. Yet they fined her more than she could possible repay and far more then what the songs are worth. This isn't justice. It is extortion. Like the drug trafficking problem, the government goes after the user instead of the dealer, which in this case, is Kazaa.

Sibley urged jurors not to ruin Thomas-Rasset's life with a debt she could never pay. Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to $150,000 per song.

Justice requires proper proportions for crimes committed. When murderers are getting away with murder due to technicalities, this case seems to prove that our society's thinking is a little backwards. Please, notice the phrase in the above quote, "up to". This is to allow freedom for common sense. Apparently, this jury has none.

So why write about this? I think this is a case that illustrates how far we have come from a sound Biblical perspective on the world. It is one thing to have frivolous lawsuits against giant companies. It is quite another when big companies go after the "little guy".

All of this seems quite surprising in a culture that seems to have gone off the deep end in their hatred for big corporations. It just proves one thing. The love affair between politicians and big money will never end. I think I have to agree with Riddlebarger on this one.