The Sin of Inconvenience

Politics. Politics is something I can discuss with someone from an opposite perspective, and I am able to do so with a patient approach. Baseball is something else I can do that with ... even those Yankees fans. In fact, I'm pretty patient towards the vast majority of things that would fall under the umbrella of religious discussion. But last week I discovered a topic that I do not have it in me to take a patient approach. That issue is abortion.

A friend of Emily's (and a new friend of mine) posted the following picture on facebook:

 

I'm not a huge facebook-er, but I do try to skim it from time to time, and this managed to show up in my feed (which is quite a feat considering I only subscribe to close friends and family). I remember casually taking note of the picture thinking to myself: "good stuff," and then I saw there were multiple comments left. Curiosity got the best of me, and I was compelled to see what all the rage was about. The first few were what I expected: Christians offering their rightful agreement. Last, and awkwardly was a comment left by a pro-abortionist picking a fight with the grammar, and trying to point out inconsistencies of Christians who don't likewise mourn for the loss of skin-cells that die every day. 

My trusty HTC Incredible Android phone was where I first stumbled upon the soon-to-be warzone, so the comment I left was 140-ish characters which read: "Heh, the point that was missed is that western culture would go nuts over a single cell plant life on mars ... But has such a disregard for human life that it fails to recognize the value and dignity deserving of unborn babies."

Heidi-the-abortionist and I went back and forth a few times, and the conversation came to an abrupt halt when I pointed out the absurdity of her arguments. I was not willing to budge on the fact that human life, from the moment of conception is valuable and has inherent dignity because we are created in God's image. Quickly I pointed to Psalm 139:13, "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb." 

I am offended at the fact that abortions happen at all, but I am incensed that anyone would dare presume to defend such actions. Let's be honest for a moment: abortion is nothing less than murdering the unborn, those who have not yet had the chance to take their first breath. How can abortion not make you outraged? There is no argument I will accept - and can hardly stand to listen to - because there is no excusing the murder of an unborn baby who is an inconvenience on you. I would rather spend hours listening to Latter-day Saints defending that they can become gods than the pathetic arguments defending abortion.

From the abortionist's perspective I suppose the unborn have committed one unforgivable crime: the sin of inconvenience. To the pro-abortionist I would like to ask: who do you think you are that you believe your happiness and ... life ... is more important than an innocent unborn life? True, babies are likewise guilty of the sin of Adam, but before other men they are innocent of all crimes. 

The Christian must recognize the value of all human life, even those that are helpless and cannot contribute to society. This includes much more than the unborn, such as the mentally retarded, those will serious diseases, the handicapped and otherwise disabled, and the elderly. Life is a gift from God and it is to be regarded as such. The Psalmist writes: "I lay down and slept; I awoke, for the LORD sustains me" (Psalm 3:5, NASB). It was the Lord who created life, and it is the Lord who sustains everything that lives. Maybe it is the fact that I am a new father and still vividly remember seeing the first ultrasound of my little Molly in the womb of my beautiful wife, but I can't help but think that any argument defending abortion is a ridiculous one. 

50 million abortions, according to the Centers for Disease Control have been legally performed in the United States since 1973. Fifty. Million. Can you try to comprehend that number of people being murdered? I can't, and it breaks my heart to think that it would have been a protected right had Emily and I decided to abort Molly. Disgusting. 

All I can say to the pro-abortionist is: shame on you for defending murder of the most innocent and the most helpless in American society. American culture would do well to listen carefully to the words of Christ: "...unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3, NASB). Amen, and may the Ruler of heaven and earth grant our nation the ability to turn from our wickedness and to the true and living God.

Broccoli, Among Other Things

"Could you define the market -- everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli." - Supreme Court Justice Scalia.

Broccoli was mentioned more than once in today's case regarding President Obama's health care law, each time putting the law in an unfavorable light. Twenty-six states in the Union have brought their case to the Supreme Court in hopes of overturning ObamaCare. Al Mohler said it best this morning on his webcast that this might be the most important Supreme Court case in a generation. I mentioned the court case to a coworker today, who seemed beyond disinterested, to which I asked him if he knew the impact - either way - of the court's decision.

If the law is upheld we will first notice a decrease in the size of our wallets. Paychecks will be lower because all of our health insurance is going up. Everyone know this. The 30+ million people who will suddenly be covered under ObamaCare are not receiving coverage from private insurers out of the goodness of their hearts. No-siree-Bob. You and I will be picking up the tab on these millions of new subscribers.

Liberty is the real underlying issue that Democrats won't touch with a ten foot pole. If ObamaCare is upheld, our personal freedom and liberty to make these decisions for ourselves will be stripped away. We will be required to buy insurance for ourselves, regardless of whether we want it or not. Then the question becomes: is there anything the government can't tell us to buy? This is the precise argument made by Justice Scalia: if the government can compel us to buy private insurance, what's stopping them from compelling us to buy broccoli? 

Justice Kennedy: "And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way."

and

Chief Justice Roberts: Well, the same, it seems to me, would be true, say, for the market in emergency services: police, fire, ambulance, roadside assistance, whatever. You don't know when you're going to need it; you're not sure that you will. But the same is true for health care. You don't know if you're going to need a heart transplant or if you ever will. So, there's a market there. In some extent, we all participate in it. So, can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services? You can just dial 911 no matter where you are? (Bold MINE).

Mr. Verrilli (defending the Obama gov't) was repeatedly interrupted by the various Supreme Court Justices, and I gotta hand it to the guy because it must have been difficult making a case with such interruptions. However, this was to be expected in this extreme example of a law which would be one of the greatest expansions of government and reductions of personal liberty.

The argument was made by Mr. Verrilli, and indirectly supported by other Democratic Justices, that what makes the individual mandate (requiring everyone to buy insurance) different from saying one must buy another private product is that everyone else pays the bill for the uninsured. Holes were shot throughout this argument by the Supreme Court with other examples:

Justice Alito: "All right. Suppose that you and I walked around downtown Washington at lunch hour and we found a couple of healthy young people and we stopped them and we said: You know what you're doing? You are financing your burial services right now because eventually you're going to die, and somebody is going to have to pay for it, and if you don't have burial insurance and you haven't saved money for it, you're going to shift the cost to somebody else. Isn't that a very artificial way of talking about what somebody is doing?"

Mr. Verrilli responded by stating he believes it is "completely different" because "you don't have the cost shifting to other market participants."

Justice Alito: "I don't see the difference. You can get burial insurance. You can get health insurance. Most people are going to need health care, almost everybody. Everybody is going to be buried or cremated at some point ... because if you don't have money, then the State is going to pay for it or some ... A family member is going to pay for it."

Is that not brilliant or what? Never in a hundred years would I have come up with such a spot-on example. In fact, it is almost too perfect. Both are forms of insurance; both are examples of expenses that might be passed on to others if provisions aren't taken in advance.

On a personal note, the sad reality surrounding this debate is that there are serious problems with our current health care system. In between jobs health insurance might be up in the air. It is expensive. Many fellow citizens ... good, upstanding citizens ... are without insurance for understandable reasons. We need to find a meaningful solution to this problem. But the solution is not to take away our freedom of choice, or by indirectly punishing those of us who have responsibly purchased insurance which will ultimately create a single-payer system. All the insurance companies know this is what will happen; it is inevitable.

Rivaling for first place as my favorite quote from this lengthy exchange is the following quote:

Justice Kennedy: "Well, then your question is whether or not there are any limits on the Commerce Clause. Can you identify for us some limits on the Commerce Clause?"

Something about a Supreme Court Justice asking a lawyer to identify some limits of the government regarding the Commerce Clause just rubs me the right way. Try and picture this scene. I'm laughing it's so funny to me.

But honestly, this question is one of the key questions so far in the proceedings. Are there any limitations on government? Or can it make Americans buy anything? This is a fair question, and as much as Democrats don't want to go there they should wake up and smell the coffee. Open your eyes and notice that this isn't a little game of politics we're playing - this would affect every single American. It would take away more of our liberty and even more money by means of taxation!

I will close with this inspiring quote from Justice Scalia:

"The argument here is that this also is -- may be necessary, but it's not proper, because it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the Federal Government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; that it's supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that's what all this questioning has been about. What -- what is left? If the government can do this, what -- what else can it not do?" (Bold MINE).

Thanks for reading,
Rustypth

City on a Hill

Do you cuss? Do you get drunk? Do you think it's funny to entertain sexually explicit jokes? Do you easily blend in with American culture? Last question: do you claim to be a Christian?

Like the Cookie Monster points out: one of these things is not like the others. Cussing, drunkenness, sexual jokes, and today's culture do not jive with authentic Christianity. Yet I am seeing more and more people who call themselves Christians doing these things without shame. Now, I am a Christian and I am not perfect and am certainly guilty of doing some of these things at one time or another. But I make it a habit not to do them, and it seems many professing Christians have no problem with these sinful behaviors.

I don't know about you, but it is becoming a pet peeve of mine when I see Christians acting this way. Oddly enough, these folks don't typically hang around me very long because I tend to hold them to a Biblical standard of morality =). Why do I even care about the actions of others? Because the Bible spends a great deal of time talking about our behavior, and how we are to act in this life.

¹ And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, ² in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. ³ Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

Ephesians 2 must be one of my favorite selections from Scripture. In these verses the Apostle Paul uses the past tense to describe how the genuine Christian used to be. Notice: "you were dead in your trespasses and sins," and "you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air," and "we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind." It is true that the Christian has been saved, once and for all, from the consequences of sin - verses 4-9 speak about this. But God's plan of salvation does not end there. Continuing to verse 10:

¹⁰ For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

The Lord was kind and merciful towards His people in saving them from their sins because He loves them. But this is not the only reason He saved sinners from their sins. God's primary reason is for His own glory (Ephesians 1:6), so that in saving us we might be a testimony to His marvelous grace. This is done by good works. Do you remember what the Lord Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount:

Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 5:16, NASB).

Current statistics show that 1/4 of Americans consider themselves Evangelical Christians, which is the single largest percentage of any country in the world. Why then is the gospel not clearly known in our land? I would suggest to you it is because many of those professing to be Christians are not really Christians. For many people today Christianity is a social networking opportunity. Let's be honest: Christians are nice people to be around because they are accepting of all kinds of people. This is how it ought to be ... but with a clear and bold proclamation of the gospel calling people to turn from their wicked ways unto the only One who can save them from their sins and sinful lifestyle.

In my own personal experience, especially recently, I have met professing Christians who regularly do the aforementioned sins and have no shame whatsoever. It always leaves a bad taste in my mouth because instead of shining light for the world they increase the darkness. What angers me most of all about these kinds of people is that when they attach the name of Christ to these sinful behaviors it makes it difficult for those of us trying to set a godly example to further the testimony of the gospel.

What is our responsibility when we encounter these kinds of professing Christians? Should we say something? Should we offer correction? I believe the answer is a resounding yes! First, however, one ought to examine his own life to make sure he isn't guilty of the same thing. Second, we should approach the professing Christian in private and politely offer correction to our brother. Matthew 18 is the go-to passage for this.

How about when you do your due diligence to offer correction and it is refused? Thankfully, Matthew 18 also addresses this. You are to bring another brother with you to confront the individual. At that point if he still refuses to obey the Scriptures it could be that he is not a true Christian to begin with. The times I have corrected someone with Scripture and the response is vehement opposition I am left wondering about that person's salvation.

Ultimately it is God alone who knows the hearts and minds of people so I cannot make an infallible judgment about one's position before God. What Scripture does make clear is that we can determine whether someone is genuinely a Christian based on their works:

You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? (Matthew 7:16, NASB)

and

By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:10, NASB)

We cannot have an infallible or perfect knowledge of someone's salvation, but we can have a reasonable assurance one way or the other. So when you see someone comfortable in their sin, it is reasonable to assume they may not be truly born again. Prior to this, John makes the point that anyone who practices sin (as opposed to struggling against sin) is not truly a Christian (1 John 3:8-9). The Christian wants to live a godly life to please and honor God. He also loves his brother and should want to come along side to gently spur one another on towards love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:24). Correcting our brother should never be about boasting rights, neither should it stem from an arrogant attitude of superiority. Don't you want your brother in the Lord to likewise be pleasing to God in all that he does?

I was telling my wife the other day that I believe as time goes on, and our nation steps further into ungodliness, we will see many of these false Christians openly abandon the faith altogether. In the meantime, we should always be ready to stand firm in our clear proclamation of the gospel that has saved us from the consequences and the lifestyle of sin. We are a city on a hill that the world needs to see.

Thanks for reading,
Rusty

The Existence of God: Part 1 – The Nature of Evidence and Why Logic?

The above image (source found here) is a classic example of modern secular thinking. Christians are irrational, illogical and unreasonable. They are fools for believing in God and even more foolish for the belief that this Jesus person is the incarnation of God. Atheists, in recent years, have taken the gloves off. They are no longer engaging in polite discourse. Although religion as a whole is under attack, it is Christians who bear the brunt. To find the truth of this statement one simply need only to spend a few minutes on any popular website or public forum such as reddit or facebook. The vast majority of the atheist venom is directed specifically toward the bible, the God of the bible, Jesus and His followers. They have taken the disagreement to the level of mockery and complete intolerance for the Christian perspective. They say belief in God is a psychological crutch for simpletons, unable to handle reality. And why is the Christian so mock-worthy? According to them, evidence contradicts the bible. 

Atheists argue that the evidence against the biblical perspective on origins specifically - but other matters as well - is overwhelming. The universe and life both have “natural” origins; therefore existence itself is not a proof of God. They take this perspective even further. The claim is that science precludes the existence of God. You cannot use God as an explanation for anything in science. In other words, science can’t prove or disprove God and if it can’t be accounted for scientifically it does not exist. Although this line of thinking is full of baseless presuppositions, I’m not going to specifically address those issues at this time, but I will address them (Lord willing) in a future article that will examine the atheist world view in a more general sense. For now we will look at two of atheism’s most basic foundations.

The second biggest (we will get to the biggest in a moment) problem with atheism is its reliance on evidence. Evidence does not prove anything. Much like beauty, evidence is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, evidence must be interpreted, and one must have a framework or basis for how they choose to interpret evidence. This is called a world view. Two quick examples of why we cannot use evidence to prove anything. The atheist will point to starlight and say something like, 

“That starlight you see is billions of lightyears away, so it took billions of years to get here. The bible only allows for the universe to be thousands of years old, not billions. The bible is wrong.”

The Christian might respond,

“You assume too much. Perhaps light has not always traveled at its current rate. Perhaps there is some unknown past cosmic event, or property of the universe that we don’t yet know or understand that could account for such a phenomenon. In fact there are Christian physicists working on that problem right now.”

Then the Christian will say,

“Look at comets. Each time they pass by the sun they lose some of their material. Even by the most generous calculations comets can only last for thousands of years, not even close to millions or billions of years. We still see comets today orbiting the sun, so the universe is only thousands of years old. The bible is right.”

Now the atheist can say,

“Well this guy named Oort came up with the idea of the Oort cloud. It’s a cloud of billions of comets around the solar system, and every once in a while there is some kind of gravitational event that throws more comets our way.”

Now I should point out that there is absolutely no reason to believe in the existence of the Oort cloud other than the fact that we still have comets orbiting the sun, just like Christians do not yet have an explanation for distant starlight. You see both sides can argue over evidence all day long, but we will only endlessly come up with reasons why the other's evidence does not affect our world views. Everyone has a world view, and they interpret everything on the basis of that world view. So our task - as the human race in the search for truth - is quite simple, examine the different world views and find the one that makes the most logical sense. But that leads to one very important question, why logic?

Proponent of atheism Dr. Gordon Stein has said, “The use of logic or reason is the only valid way to examine the truth or falsity of a statement which claims to be factual.” In other words, logic is the most fundamental rule by which we measure truth. You can’t prove anything without logic or reason. This is actually something Christians and atheists agree upon. The problem with this standard for truth is that it is in-and-of itself a claim of truth. So the atheist has to now prove by logic and reason, that it is by logic and reason that you prove everything. This is circular reasoning and begging the question, two logical fallacies that prove an argument to be false. The only option left for the atheist is to prove - by some method other than logic or reason - that it is by logic and reason that you prove everything. In which case, they destroy the argument on its own foundation. This is an inescapable trap and the biggest problem with atheism. The atheist perspective on its most basic foundation is totally irrational and self-refuting. The reason for this is that the atheist perspective cannot account for the existence of logic, so they have no logical reason for the use of logic and reason.  According to their own standards, science must be able to account for something for it to exist. But there is no “logic particle” or “planet logic” beaming logic (like radio waves) into the universe. But don’t Christians have the same problem? No they don’t, because their world view can account for logic and give a reason why it must be used. Logic is a reflection of God’s thinking. God is logical, and therefore logic is the standard by which we must think. To do otherwise violates God’s law and is therefore irrational. The same can be demonstrated with all non-physical properties of the universe such as morality and the laws of nature.

In closing there are four ways atheists try to get out of the logical trap their world view creates for them. The first is to try and say matter is logical therefore logic is a property of matter. There are two problems with this argument; the first is that matter changes and logic does not. If logic was based off of matter it would change. The second problem with this is that matter obeys the laws of logic and nature, laws do not obey matter therefore it cannot be the source. 

The second method of escape is to say the laws of logic are like the rules of grammar. They are not laws they are simply conventions among people. If that were true then logic would be different from culture to culture. For instance, in England it might make sense for me to contradict myself and say I am 100% a person and 100% not a person. 

The third escape is to say logic is created by chemical reactions in our brain. It is just how the human mind works. The first problem with this is that people are not always logical. That is why there are logical fallacies. If it was just how the human mind worked we would not have to be taught how to be logical. The second problem with this is that what happens in your brain is not what happens in mine. It is similar to the “matter source” and “conventions” arguments. Logic would then be changeable.

Finally they might try to say something along the lines of, “Just because you can prove something logically does not mean it actually exists.” This is referring, of course, to God. This is not really a method of escape, but rather an attack on the overall argument. What I say to this (and the three methods of escape in general) is that it is the atheist who is forced to deny and attack logic … not the Christian. It is not Christians who have to diminish logic or rational thought to try and uphold their world view. Christians can account for, or give a reason for, the use of logic. The atheist cannot. In fact in the rational world the atheist can’t prove anything because they have absolutely no basis for logic or any other kind of truth. They borrow from the Christian world view to try and fill in the gaps of their world view. The atheist world view is clearly inconsistent and irrational.

In part 2 (eta, soonish) we will broaden our view and tackle the atheist claim of neutrality, and the naturalist world view.

The Most Awful Place I've Been

Las Vegas and I met for the first time and after only one weekend I abruptly ended the relationship with a phone call. There was no salvaging what we had, because from the beginning she proved utterly sinful and ruthless to the bitter end.

Gambling is a sin, but because that [radical?] idea deserves its own entry, I won't venture into those waters quite yet. But yes, gambling is a sin, so before I even went to Vegas I made the decision not to gamble. What was I going to do there? I was planning to eat some good food, see some shows, museums and other attractions. What I actually saw was some of the most vile wickedness crammed into the few square miles of that forsaken city.

Hotels are really the upper echelons meant for housing gamblers for the massive casinos. The sheer amount of effort and creativity in designing the various casinos is brilliant, both inside and out. Bright lights enshrine every single slot machine, accompanied by enticing sounds for each and every play. Chairs are only to be found for those actually gambling, and if you lose money long enough free alcoholic beverages are brought to you. It is a sad sight to see people lose money, which is really what casinos are designed to do. Even more depressing is watching the elderly spend money in the vain hope that they might become instant winners.

The cherry on top for me was when a dancer got up on a platform and started dancing a few feet away. I was utterly disgusted and deeply offended at the sight of this girl wearing stripper's clothing. Her whole job was to cause men to lust after her long enough to stay and continue wasting money at the casinos. At this moment I had had enough and walked out of the casino. With tears in my eyes that I refused to let fall, I found my way to some steps outside and sat down. I still cannot believe that this girl's entire role in the casino is to sell herself to attract more customers. She is selling her dignity, and everyone in the casino is supporting her in ruining her life while she in turn helps ruin the lives of others.

When I sat down on the steps I looked across the street only to find an ad on a large truck with nearly naked girls with the slogan: "Get hot girls now" and included a phone number. I looked down at the ground and found more nudity scattered on fliers littering the sidewalk advertising for strip clubs and escorts/prostitutes. There was nowhere for my eyes to wander: not inside the hotels, outside and even at the ground! To add to the perversity, every 50 feet or so stands distributors of the aforementioned fliers ready to add to everyone's misery.

Drunkards were in every hotel and in public. They fell over, puked in public, and many looked over-tired and in bad shape. It was not uncommon for vacationing women to dress as scandalously as possible - I wondered if there was a competition to be the least dressed?

My conclusion: this is no place for the Christian. I naively traveled there thinking that I would be able to avoid much of what "Sin City" had to offer. I should have known better. Certainly, it is possible to have a better experience than I had if one avoids the casinos altogether, and is extremely purposeful in going to shows and other forms of appropriate attractions. But at some point you will have to travel around the city or be in public, so it will be difficult to avoid much of what I've described. I told Emily I will never go back unless it is for missionary work to spread the gospel. How sad it is that Americans go to Vegas for a weekend to get away and have a good time. Now that I have seen what Sin City is all about with my own eyes, I will actually feel bad when I hear of people going to Vegas.

One of my elders preached a sermon years ago from Psalm 12 that has always remained with me, and it is a good expression of how I feel post-Vegas:

¹ Help, LORD, for the godly man ceases to be,
For the faithful disappear from among the sons of men.
² They speak falsehood to one another;
With flattering lips and with a double heart they speak.
³ May the LORD cut off all flattering lips,
The tongue that speaks great things;
⁴ Who have said, “With our tongue we will prevail;
Our lips are our own; who is lord over us?”
⁵ “Because of the devastation of the afflicted, because of the groaning of the needy,
Now I will arise,” says the LORD; “I will set him in the safety for which he longs.”

 ⁶ The words of the LORD are pure words;
As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.
⁷ You, O LORD, will keep them;
You will preserve him from this generation forever.
⁸ The wicked strut about on every side
When vileness is exalted among the sons of men.

(Psalm 12, NASB)

Forward-Thinking

What?! How long? Only a measly 9 months left to go. No, no, we're not having another kid ... yet. I'm talking about the national election, and I admit that I'm overjoyed and worried at the same time. Overjoyed at the thought of our union transitioning from one administration to another - if you take my meaning - and simtaneously worried because I don't have enough faith in people to make the right decision. After all, we voted for our current President once, whose to say we won't do it again?

On the one hand, Barack Obama won't have an easy campaign because he can't run on his record. His policies have made him one of the most liberal presidents in United States history, the most noteworthy being his mandating nationalized healthcare. On the other hand, there's the American people, which means anything can happen. Ever since I started paying attention to politics and the national scene I've heard the same message every election: "This is the most important election of your lifetime!" What's worse is that I *think* I agree with this. Bush/Gore ... Bush/Kerry ... Obama/McFail-RINO (I mean, McCain).

This go-round it feels more urgent. What's at stake is more important to me than the ever-present threat of international terrorism. Our current President stands for everything I am opposed to as a Christian man. He generally believes that government can fix any problem and has a right to interfere in all aspects of our lives. Healthcare has been nationalized, which will add to the deficit. While he gives lip-service to marriage, he speaks out of both sides of his mouth by promoting same-sex "marriage" and homosexual super-rights. The cherry on top for me has been the recent attempt to side-step the First Amendment by making us pay for abortion pills via ObamaCare.

To say that I am "outraged" would only be a part of how I feel, but perhaps "worried" would be a better term altogether. I am worried that the government will try to force me to pay for someone else to have an abortion, to murder someone's unborn child. God did a marvelous act of grace in giving to us our nation's founding fathers who had the vision to create our Constitution and Bill of Rights. This is the only deterrent that will [hopefully] stop this kind of utter madness. Freedom of Religion means I have the right to practice my religion, and cannot be forced to go against my religious convictions.

But all the Democrats claim they hear from Republicans is: "You want to stop women from having access to all forms of birth-control?!" Anyone else a little annoyed that this is all they can focus on? No one is saying women shouldn't use birth control - although some of us are saying abortion, which is a disguised name for "murder," should be illegal. The real issue is that those of us who believe abortion is murder should not be forced to pay for someone else to commit murder. It really is that simple. Yet it continues to amaze me at how deaf they are to our concerns.

Emily and I prayed tonight that the Lord might grant to our culture repentance from the ungodly direction we're running down. We are running towards utter ruin, and I don't mean to sound pessimistic; it's the truth. Only the living God can do such a work in American society. I pray for the sake of my wife and daughter, my friends, my coworkers, and my acquaintances that God radically shifts American culture back towards godliness.

Forward-thinking is something I've noticed people are lacking today, and not just financial planning. People are so caught up in themselves, after all ... everyone believes he/she is the most important person in the universe. Personal happiness trumps duty, responsibility and morality ... every time. But now, as a father, I fully understand the need to think forward. I want my daughter to grow up in a society she can be proud of - not one that continues to increase in decadence, depravity and sinfulness. I want so bad for her to be safe as a [hopefully] Christian woman who has the freedom to openly serve Christ in this world. The thought of her having to face government persecution because of her [potential future] Christian life breaks my heart.

Now, I'm saying this as a Christian father concerned for his daughter, and for the future of the nation that I love. Roman authorities were the church's first experience which offered centuries of persecution. By God's free grace we don't have similar experiences to that of Roman persecution, but it is my prayer we never get to that point. Al Mohler said in his webcast this week that religious freedom should never be taken for granted. It is not inherently guaranteed in this world, and we should stand firm for our right to practice our Christian faith - and not just at church, but in the public square as well.

Whatever the Lord sees fit to have happen, we know we are required to submit to the governing authorities that rule over us (Romans 13) and trust in the promise that whatever happens to the Christian has been ordained by God as the best thing for him. It is because of God's promise that I may rest easy because my daughter's future has been predetermined by God, as well as the nation's. "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" (Romans 8:28, NASB).

We Have Experienced An Act of God

How do you let someone know you have something important to tell them? Do you try to preface what you are about to say, or do you jump right into it? As a Christian, husband and a father, I find myself in this very predicament. I have something important to tell you, my reading audience; but I want to be sure to have your full attention because what I have to say today means a lot to me. 

There are sermons, and there are sermons that stick with you. This past Lord’s Day morning, one of our elders preached a sermon that had a profound impact on me and my wife. James preached from Matthew 19:1-6,

When Jesus had finished these words, He departed from Galilee and came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan; and large crowds followed Him, and He healed them there. Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Having heard Dr. White preach on this text a few times already, I thought I was prepared for what I was about to hear. Little did I know that this would turn out to be my favorite sermon. 
 
James sought to answer the question of why Christians believe marriage is what it is. Early on he directly addressed those ages 12-25, during which my wife and I smiled at each other because we can no longer be included in that age-group =). He spoke to this age-group because according to some polls 70% of their generation believes same-sex marriage is an acceptable form of marriage. Is it any wonder that many are saying it is inevitable that all 50 states will soon legalize same-sex marriage? You know something … unless our youngest generation has a change of heart I would have to agree with that statement. 
 
I don’t want to discount God’s ability to change the culture, or to change the spiritual condition of an entire generation. Without the Lord’s intervention it appears these things are bound to happen. James was not trying to be an alarmist; after all, this is the discussion happening now in our society. 
 
Our culture demands that we embrace the idea that all opinions are equal. But for the Christian this is impossible because we know not all opinions are equal. Oh sure, everyone has a right to his own perspective, but the Christian cannot accept that there is more than one correct view of marriage. God has spoken clearly in His Word about what marriage is, and we need to be ready and willing to give a defense when the opportunity arises. Matthew 19 is a remarkable selection from Scripture because Jesus is asked a ridiculous question and responds with a beautiful defense of what marriage is. 
 
This gem of a question is what prompts the entire discussion: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” Isn’t that lovely? Can we get divorced for any reason at all? Christ’s brilliant response directs the questioner back to the source of truth: the Scriptures. Might I suggest that this should be our approach as well. When we encounter non-Christians on the subject of marriage we should be quick to go to the Scriptures. 
 
Jesus then cites from Genesis 1 and 2, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?” From the beginning of creation God made them male and female. This was a part of God’s creative design for human beings. He created gender, and it was good. 
 
A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife in marriage. It is worth mentioning, a man does not leave his father and father, or mother and mother. He leaves his father and mother, indicating the truth that from one generation to another marriage remains the same. 
 
Today, the amount of gender confusion is disturbing! We hear stories of parents allowing their young children to undergo sex-change operations because they believe their physical gender is not their true identity. The two genders are equal in value but not equal in identity. Male is not the equivalent of the female gender – but you best be careful because saying this in our society will reward you with accusations of hate speech. How sad it is that our culture fails to recognize men and women are different – equal but not the same. 
 
“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” Who is it that becomes one flesh in marriage? One man and one woman. This is a divine institution … the first divine institution, in fact. But what we are hearing today is the cry that everyone should have the right to marry whomever they wish! Do they really mean that? Can and should marriage mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, or does it have an inherent meaning derived from the Creator? 
 
Absurd as it sounds, there are men who would marry multiple women, women who would marry multiple men, same-sex marriages, human beings marrying animals, adults marrying children, incestuous marriages, and other variations that I am unable to imagine. Should our approach be, “Well, if that’s how they want to do marriage, that’s fine”? The Christian cannot have this attitude. God is the Creator of human beings, of gender, and of marriage. 
 
Any change from God’s design relating to gender identity or marriage can only bring about disastrous results. We saw what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah … can we expect anything different for America if we continue down this path? 
 
By the goodness of our God we have a breathtaking message to share with this lost and dying world. The Christian who is married has such an opportunity to explain the message of Christ because we have experienced an act of God. As a man who is married to a godly and beautiful woman, I can personally attest to how wonderful it is to experience Christian marriage. Both the man and the woman have differing impacts upon the other, but both are complementary toward one another. I have experienced the tempering affects of a woman upon me – how I spend my time, my outlook on life, making me less selfish, and the desire to be a better man. 
 
This kind of relationship cannot be accomplished with two members of the same sex. Well … why? Because it is like having a relationship with a mirror. A mirror-image of yourself is not a complementary relationship. Can’t a same-sex couple love each other, and shouldn’t they be able to marry? God is the Creator and sustainer of life, so He alone has the right to define what love is and how it is to be expressed. He clearly says in the Bible that men and women were created to marry, and not 2 of the same gender. 
 
Should Christians live and let live, and keep their mouths shut? Consider this: how is it loving to see our friends, family and coworkers living a devastating homosexual lifestyle and not offer to show them the God-designed way to happiness and peace? 
 
James made one final point that I want to pass along: when our society sees Christian couples married for 20 … 30 … 40 years, this is a wonderful testimony of Jesus Christ. It is a living, breathing demonstration of God’s goodness in marriage and ultimately of the saving power of the gospel. My prayer for myself and my wife (grammar alert?) is that we might have marriages as long-lasting as each of our parents, who have set this godly example. 
 
Christians today have opportunities to share the gospel, as we have throughout the ages – today, these opportunities might stem from conversations about the goodness of God in marriage. Always be ready.

You Will Soon be Paying for Everyone’s Morning-After Pill

You probably heard the news. The readers of this blog aren’t living under a rock (hopefully). President Barack Obama announced his plans to require health insurers to provide for all forms of contraception to women free of charge. Of course, insurance companies are not going to be providing for these medications out of the goodness of their hearts … or pocketbooks. The end result will mean that every single person in the United States will be paying for everyone’s contraception, including abortive pills.

Pay close attention to what I’m about to say because you likely won’t hear it from me again … I am proud of how the Roman Catholic Church responded to these new demands. The Roman Church made an announcement that started a whole lot of controversy: that their bishops would rather go to jail than go against their religious conviction by going along with this new policy. Now, in the case of Roman Catholics, they believe all forms of contraception are morally wrong. I do not believe there is a Biblical reason to hold such an extensive view, however, I stand firmly with them against all forms of abortion.

Did the President honestly believe he could force this kind of direct, in-your-face policy without an uproar from the people whose religious liberty would be trampled upon? Or was he only meaning to test the waters to see exactly what he could get away with? Personally, I believe he was trying to gain support for his various proponents for the upcoming election. Apparently, he would much rather gain the support of abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood than those with religious convictions. Gotta love politicians running for office.

Our nation’s founding fathers had enough foresight to include a Bill of Rights in the United Stated Constitution guaranteeing in plain English our rights as American citizens. The first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Such a masterful of defining religious liberty. Yet somehow, our President believes he can sidestep the Bill of Rights by forcing people – against their will – to pay for a service they have the highest religious and moral objections to. 

Eventually, the Southern Baptist Convention let it be known that they would act in accordance with the Roman Catholics, and would rather go to jail than pay for the murder of unborn children. The political chatter that followed was disturbing to listen to, because no one really seemed to apprehend why Christians and Roman Catholics would be opposed to paying for people’s abortion medications. If you are one of the masses who still hasn’t perceived the reasoning behind our madness, I’ll be straight with you: because we believe abortion is murder, and we refuse to have blood on our hands.

Obama, being the master communicator that he is, waited a few days, then announced a “compromise” that would be suitable for everyone:

Today, we’ve reached a decision on how to move forward.  Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services -– no matter where they work.  So that core principle remains.  But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -– not the hospital, not the charity -– will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.

The result will be that religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services, and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly.  Let me repeat:  These employers will not have to pay for, or provide, contraceptive services.  But women who work at these institutions will have access to free contraceptive services, just like other women, and they’ll no longer have to pay hundreds of dollars a year that could go towards paying the rent or buying groceries.

In the words of Gandalf the Grey, “I suppose you think yourself terribly clever…” How about it, Mr. President? What am I missing, because this sounds like religious objectors will still be paying for all forms of contraception, even abortion pills?

I can only pray that through a series of governmental checks and balances this kind of belligerent attack on our religious freedom be completely undone. Our founding fathers, especially John Adams and Thomas Jefferson are turning in their graves at Barack Obama’s oppression of the free peoples of the United States.
In fact, recently, my elder Dr. James White posted a youtube video discussing recent current events. His conclusion offers how we, as Christians, might respond and pray for our nation. I encourage you to take the time to watch the video; Christian, you will be encouraged.

Timeless Truth and Timely Methods

Early on in my career as a Starbucks customer, I noticed more and more of my Christian friends reading the same book. It had a purple cover, though it was the subtitle that ultimately did me in: “Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality.” Blue Like Jazz was the book “everyone” was suddenly interested in (everyone except me, apparently *grin*). At the time I was on this kick of reading any book that was seemingly having an influence on the Church. While I never did break that habit, I was able to work my way through Donald Miller’s work.

Blue Like Jazz is one of those rare books where I actually *felt* dumber after reading it. I mean, come on, any book that dedicates 31 pages of pointless cartoons can’t be taken seriously can it? One more quick rabbit trail before I plunge into the real purpose of this blog article … one of the funny things about Miller’s book is that when you ask people who’ve read it what they think it was about, the most common answer is: “I don’t know.”

In any case, it was in this book that I first heard of Mark Driscoll. And it was not a good introduction:

“I had this friend from Seattle named Mark who was the pastor of a pretty cool church near the University of Washington, in the village. He had a lot of artists going to his church and a lot of hippies and yuppies and people who listen to public radio. I went up and visited him one time, and I loved the community he had put together. I felt like I could breathe for the first time in years. Visiting Mark’s church in Seattle helped me realize I wasn’t alone in the world. I would talk to my friends about his church, to my friends at the church I was attending, but they didn’t get it.

Mark had written several articles for secular magazines and had been interviewed a few times on the radio and had gotten this reputation as a pastor who said cusswords. It is true that Mark said a lot of cusswords. I don’t know why he did it. He didn’t become a Christian till he was in college, so maybe he didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to say cusswords and be a pastor. I think some of my friends believed that it was the goal of the devil to get people to say cusswords, so they thought Mark was possessed or something, and they told me I should not really get into anything he was a part of. Because of the cusswords. But like I said, I was dying inside, and even though Mark said cusswords, he was telling a lot of people about Jesus, and he was being socially active, and he seemed to love a lot of people the church was neglecting, like liberals and fruit nuts. About the time I was praying that God would help me find a church, I got a call from Mark the Cussing Pastor, and he said he had a close friend who was moving to Portland to start a church and that I should join him.” (Blue Like Jazz, p. 133-134. Bold Mine).

I urge the reader to do yourself a favor and not read Blue Like Jazz or anything else by Miller (other books include Searching for God Knows What – which is nearly as pointless). But Miller did do one thing for me, and that was to introduce me to “the Cussing Pastor,” Mark Driscoll.

Pinpointing the exact date is impossible now, but it was a few months after Miller’s book (sometime in 2004) that I began hearing more and more about this pastor who cusses. Christian friends began listening to his sermons, and as time went on I learned that he was a Charismatic Calvinist (that is, a Charismatic and a Calvinist), and very cool taboot. Unfortunately, the more I learned about Mark Driscoll the more problem areas I was discovering. Friends were reading his book, The Radical Reformission, where he invites the reader to “begin a radical journey with me as we explore what life in Christ can mean in the context of an emerging church in a changing world” (Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, p. 23).

Up to this point, my initial reaction to Driscoll was this: how can this man honestly be qualified for the office of Elder with such a filthy mouth? Don’t misunderstand me, I recognize that Christians let expletives slip out from time to time. But this is something we ought not to be proud of, and work hard not to do. I remember listening to sermons with my friends where he is cursing, and then I would read Ephesians 4:29, “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear” (NASB). With the luxury of hindsight, I might also have read from the pastoral epistles regarding the qualifications of an Elder.

Because I’m not one to rely on hearsay only, I quickly bought and read The Radical Reformission. Little did I know that I was about to open up the can of worms known now as “The Emerging Church Movement” (ECM).  Mark explains the beginnings of the ECM:

“A team of young pastors, including myself, was then formed by Leadership Network, and we flew around the country speaking to other pastors about the emerging culture and the emerging church … Now that the time has come to write, I am presenting this book as a contribution toward the furtherance of the emerging church in the emerging culture.” (Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, p. 16-17).

Fine; but what is the purpose of the Emerging Church Movement (ECM)? Driscoll explains:

“Our lives shape, and are shaped by, the culture we live in, and the gospel must be fitted to (not altered for) particular people, times, and circumstances so that evangelism will be effective … We have the church, or the gathering of God’s people – which includes those who are not Christians (Matt. 13:24-30) – where people are built up in their faith and knitted together in loving community. They can then faithfully engage those in the culture with the gospel, while experiencing its transforming power in their own lives.” (Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, p. 20-21).

Based on the annotations I made on these pages it is safe to assume I did a double take when I read that. Some of what he says is true, like how our lives shape and are shaped by the culture. However, he strays way off of the straight and narrow path when he speaks of the church being made up of Christians and non-Christians. He builds on this point throughout the book to such an extent that I am certain he did not misspeak here. In fact, he explains his view of evangelism called “Reformission Participation Evangelism” which he describes as “Belong to the church, then believe in Jesus” (Driscoll, p. 68) and “Reformission evangelism blurs the lines between evangelism and discipleship” (Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, p. 73). He continues:

“In reformission evangelism, people are called to come and see the transformed lives of God’s people before they are called to repent of sin and to trust in God. Taking a cue from dating is helpful on this point. If we desire people to be happily married to Jesus as his loving bride, it makes sense to let them go out on a few dates with him instead of just putting a shotgun to their heads and asking them to hurry up, put on a white dress, and try to look happy for the photos.” (Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, p. 68, Bold Mine).

“LGBT”–Just When I Thought I Had it…

Just when I thought I had it, they went and changed it. “LGBT,” of course, is an acronym for “Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender,” representing the gay rights movement. They have since expanded the acronym to “LGBTQIP,” which means: “Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer/Questioning Intersexed/Intersexual Pansexual/Polysexual etc.” And all I can say is … wow. I wasn’t prepared for that.

I had the privilege of working my way through Michael Brown’s A Queer Thing Happened to America: And what a long, strange trip it’s been. He successfully provides a history of the homosexual (and other sexual orientations) movement in America. He explains the birth of the movement, their goals, what they have accomplished, and concludes by offering thoughts on how we, as Christians, ought to respond.

To my homosexual friends, before I continue I wanted to speak to you for a moment. I want to be clear about a few things because I know how emotionally charged this issue can be. First, I am a Christian, which means that I believe homosexuality is sinful. It is sinful because the Lord says so in the Bible and He has defined the way in which human sexuality is to be expressed. Second, I am, however, opposed to any violence or persecution done towards the homosexual community. There is no excuse for the mistreatment of any human being, regardless of their sexuality. We are all equal in value because we are all made in the image of the triune God. Thirdly, though we may disagree, I would hope for the opportunity to have a civil conversation about these important subjects because of the great impact it has on Western Civilization.

Brown’s work has had a tremendous impact on my life already, and I would urge you to read the book if you have time to do so. It is, at times, full of historical and statistical information – which can be a bit dry at times – but very useful. I am not an alarmist, and do not want to sound like one (Michael Brown mentions more than once in his book that he doesn’t either). But the factual information in this book is helpful in understanding where our culture is at when it comes to homosexuality.

If you’ve been in the workforce over the past decade (as I have) you have noticed a monumental shift in people’s attitude towards homosexuality. Our culture shifted from awkwardness to passiveness to rabid support. Support is now said to be in the name of “diversity,” and Brown spends a good amount of time explaining how this is used to mean anything non-Christian, especially in favor of homosexual activism. My last two jobs are both fully on board in offering their support for same-sex marriage, homosexual equality, and homosexual activist groups.

Being a Christian in this kind of environment becomes difficult because we can’t support this kind of “diversity” because it would force us to go against our religious convictions. But as you have probably discovered the “diversity” we are talking about really isn’t meant to include the views of Christians, but only of the one-sided perspective of gay activists. There is no support of pro-family organizations, or of any “traditional” viewpoint. I would ask the reader: is this really diversity?

Hot topics such as this often stir up all sorts of emotions because we are dealing with people’s sexuality, which is a core element of each one of us. It is important. Yet, as Christians, we are required by God to disagree with homosexuality out of love – both love for God, and for those practicing the homosexual lifestyle. Sadly, some lack the ability to understand how one can disagree with the lifestyle choices of another and yet still love them. Nevertheless, this is how the Christian is supposed to operate. We may strongly and passionately disapprove of homosexuality but we are required by our God to love all people.

Homosexuality (and sexuality in general) will be one of the hot topics Christians can use to speak the truth to a lost and dying world. While the world is demanding that marriage be redefined to include same-sex couples and polyamorous (i.e. polygamy) relationships, we must be ready and willing to respond with the Bible as our primary weapon. The Holy Spirit uses the preaching of the gospel as the primary means to save sinners from their sinful lifestyle, unto repentance and life in Jesus Christ. Isn’t this precisely what Paul said: “¹⁶ For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16, NASB). Amen to that.

Appreciate you reading,
Metzger

Love Triumphs Over Truth?

Picture this: a group of Christian leaders from different backgrounds, ministry perspectives and life experiences coming together for the sake of unity. Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? This was the essential purpose of the Elephant Room 2 (ER2). Unfortunately, ER2 was destined to encounter serious problems one of the 7 men on the list was none other than T.D. Jakes, a renowned Modalist. Other notables include the now infamous Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, and James McDonald. An interesting bunch of men, to be sure, but what did it produce?

If you’ve had your head out of the sand for any length of time you know the Internet has been buzzing about the sad results for days on end. What was most disappointing to me, personally, was the segment of time spent discussing Jakes’ view of the godhead. The big question (arguably the only decent question too) put to Jakes was by Driscoll asking him about his use of the term “manifestations.” This was an important question because Modalism believes that God consists of one divine Person who expresses himself in different modes or manifestations. Jakes replied by citing 1 Timothy 3:16, continuing to defend his use of the term manifestations!

If ever Jakes should have been asked what he meant by this, this would have been the time. But what actually happened? Nothing. Jakes was given a pass by the other 6 men, including Mark Driscoll. I am in complete agreement with Dr. James White who comments: “Driscoll and the rest heard what they wanted to hear, fist-bumped and applauded, and all was well. It would have been so painfully simple to bring this entire question to a complete conclusion.”

It was not as though Driscoll is ignorant of the essential issues at stake here. He received his Graduate degree in exegetical theology from Western Seminary, and knows all the core essential differences between the Trinity and Modalism. Yet he would not defend the Biblical view. Instead he chose to pretend all is well for the sake of unity, leaving many people with the false impression that T.D. Jakes is a Trinitarian.

The Ruling Elder had some *excellent* comments about Mark Driscoll’s views on the Trinity. In his article he brings out that Driscoll’s own views on the Trinity are at best underdeveloped, specifically with reference to the eternality of the Son-ship of Christ (that the 2nd Person of the Trinity has not only eternally existed, but that He has eternally existed as the Son in relation to the Father).

He cites from Driscoll’s book:

“The whole attempt to define the eternal relations in the immanent or ontological Trinity seems misguided. First, God has given us no revelation of the nature of their eternal relations. We should follow the command of the Bible: "The secret things belong to the Lord our God" and refuse to speculate. Second, the Apostles' Creed defines the Son as "begotten, not made." The point was that something begotten was of the same substance as the one who does the begetting. But the term "begotten" could never be defined with any clarity, so it was of little use. Third, begotten unavoidably implies a beginning of the one begotten. That would certainly lend support to the Arian heresy that the Son is a created being and not the Creator God. For these reasons it is best to omit the creedal terms "begotten" and "proceeds" from our definition of Trinity. Our authority is not in creeds but in Scripture.” (Mark Driscoll, Doctrine: What Christians Believe (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2010), 27-28)

While this might sound impressive to those unfamiliar with the subject, it is a fancy way of saying that for hundreds of years Christians have been too rigid in how they define the Trinity. I also need to just get this out there … I pray that Driscoll can come to terms with all that the Bible has to say about the triunity of God – including the eternality of Christ’s son-ship (John 1, as the classic example).

Driscoll has done many things over the years (I’ve been keeping tabs on his ministry since 2003), and by now it is hard for him to truly surprise me. But EP2 did surprise me. I have gotten accustomed to his cussing (which he did finally stop – to his credit), to his starting “relevant” church movements, becoming involved in the dramatic, his ability to “see things” through personal extra-Biblical revelation, and all around over the top activities. But I did not expect him to embrace into the fellowship of faith someone who denies the Trinity.

I expect more from a church elder. I expect him to have the discernment to recognize when a heretic is playing with words to try to muddle an issue. With Jakes specifically, I expected him to defend the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity – as taught in Scripture – and for him to have loved T.D. Jakes enough to share that truth with him.

Speaking about the qualifications of elders, Paul wrote:

⁷ For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, ⁸ but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, ⁹ holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. (Titus 1:7-9, NASB).

Because of his extensive knowledge of God and the gospel, I expected Mark Driscoll to “[hold] fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.” This is God’s expectation of the office of elder, and the standard to which Driscoll is held.

Much more could be said (and probably has been said somewhere in the blogosphere) so I’ll conclude with this: unity should be the Christian’s goal wherever possible, but not at the expense of truth. Unity and truth work in perfect harmony together, because it is the faith that unifies the body of Christ. The Apostle Paul said it best: “²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28).

Rusty

Today is a Sad Day for Us All

With a winning vote of 33 to 29, the Republican-led New York state legislature passed a bill legalizing gay marriage. Today is a sad day for us all. New York joins Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Washington D.C. as having legalized same-sex marriage, which according to the Wall Street Journal amounts to more than 10% of the U.S. population.

I called my best friend to chat and the news about New York was bound to come up. Here’s his reaction: “That’s sad, but I’m not at all surprised.” You know what, I happen to agree with him. We all saw this coming: with Cali’s Prop 8 overturned, a recent Gallup poll indicating for the first time a majority of Americans now support gay-marriage, and now rumors President Obama may officially lend his support, we saw this coming from a mile away.

Homosexual rights advocates claim legalizing same-sex marriage boils down to an issue of equality. They make the case that they are treated as sub-class citizens, lacking basic human rights … natural rights … and now compare their struggle to blacks in the 1960’s who fought to defend their civil liberties. But is this what’s really going on here?

Dr. Michael Brown rightly answers this question when he pointed out that there is a huge difference between blacks being denied access to public water fountains and forced to sit at the back of a bus, with the situation homosexuals find themselves in. Homosexuals have all the same rights before the law as heterosexuals have. What’s more, it is commonly accepted in businesses around our nation that sexual-orientation not be a means of discrimination. Finally, no respectable person is advocating for gays and lesbians to be mistreated on any level. So what “natural rights” do homosexuals claim they are denied? They would say they are denied the right to legally marry.

It is here that we have to take a step back and ask: what is marriage? Well, historically and before the law (I suppose I now need to say: the law in most states), marriage is a union between one man and one woman. How is it that the homosexual community claims they are denied equality before the law? Because they don’t have the right to get married? Actually, homosexuals have the right to marry – they can marry a member of the opposite sex. The homosexual advocate might respond, “Well that’s not what I want marriage to mean.” Oh, I see. Isn’t what you’re really after a redefinition of marriage? You want marriage to be whatever you want it to be, isn’t that right?

Though they, and other liberals, will adamantly deny it they know what kind of slippery slope this is. Because once you allow one group to redefine marriage to fit new parameters, whose to say another group doesn’t also have the right to redefine marriage into something else (i.e. polygamy, incest, bestiality)? If you think I’m off my rocker, consider that 30 years ago no one seriously considered a day when marriage could mean anything other than one man and one woman. What’s more, there are current court cases in Europe involving each of the aforementioned cases. It’s not that far of a stretch.

Please don’t misunderstand me, however, because the reason I and many other conservatives stand firmly in defense of “traditional” marriage has nothing to do with the fact that it is historical. Rather, it has everything to do with the true and living God of Biblical Christianity. The Creator of the universe also defined how human beings ought to live, including the institution of marriage:

⁴ And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, ⁵ and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? ⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6, NASB).

As Christians we believe marriage to be between one man and one woman for life. To deny God’s view of marriage is to deny the Christian faith; there is no middle ground on this one.

For all the rigamaroo of how Christians really view homosexuals, please know that we do not hate them. We do strongly disagree with the homosexual lifestyle and especially a redefining of marriage. Though it is uncommon in this day and age to disagree with someone and not hate them, nevertheless, this is the truth. We are able to separate the beliefs and behaviors from the individual, and we are required by our faith to love the individual.

Our message is an all inclusive message that everyone everywhere is born having offended the one true God, the Creator of all things. This God is all-powerful, all-knowing, unchanging, and eternal (which means there was never a time when He did not exist, in fact, He existed before time itself). Unlike human beings, who only have one personality sharing one being, God’s one Being is shared by 3 distinct Persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Each of these divine Persons are distinct from one another so that each can say of Himself: “I,” and of the other two, “You.” These Persons share some functions – such as Creating the Universe – and also have unique functions, which you will how they play out in what follows.

The first human beings, Adam and Eve, broke God’s law and every person after them has been born bearing their guilt. To make it even worse, each of us continues to commit our own personal offenses against the Lord as we disobey His commands (sin). The consequences of this are extremely severe because God is a perfectly just and righteous Judge. He must punish sin. This includes all kinds of sin … including the sin of homosexuality. The punishment for sin is death, both physical and spiritual. This means that not only do we die physically, but we deserve to stand before God’s throne and face judgment and sent to Hell forever. Hell is described as the lake of fire where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. It is filled with sorrow upon sorrow as God removes His restraint from all sent there to suffer the mental and physical ramifications of sin. It is a terrible terrible punishment, but it is a just punishment.

For those who might argue that they weren’t aware of God’s requirements, the Bible also tells us that God wrote His law on our hearts, to be an integral part of humankind. Therefore we have no excuse before Him because we know what is right and what is wrong.

One final note of clarification before I move on: Why is homosexuality considered an offense to God? Because God has defined human sexuality and how it is to be lawfully expressed: between one man and one woman in marriage.

Thankfully, the message of Christians doesn’t end there. In eternity past, the Father chose from the mass of sinful humanity a particular group to demonstrate His grace and mercy upon. There was nothing in this group, no work or foreseen faith, that caused the Father to choose them, but is based solely upon His good pleasure. At the predetermined time, He sent His one and only Son (Jesus Christ) to earth in the form of a baby. This is an amazing moment in history 2,000 years ago because we have the Creator entering into His Creation. The Maker of all things entering into time and space. He humbled Himself and added the nature of humanity to Himself – so now He has 2 natures: divinity and humanity. He is fully God and fully man; one divine Person with 2 natures. The Holy Spirit miraculously caused the virgin Mary to conceive Jesus as a baby. Jesus was born sinless, and perfectly obeyed God’s law for the entirety of His life without sinning.

Around the age of 30 years old, Jesus began His earthly ministry lasting 3 years. He performed miracles, healing the sick, the lame and the blind – even raising the dead (a feat he would soon overcome Himself). Jesus also proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God, which plainly meant that He would open up the doors to the forgiveness of sins. At the end of His ministry, Jesus was betrayed over to the Jewish authorities and crucified on a cross. Though he was innocent of all crimes he was murdered by His own creatures.

Jesus Christ’s death was no accident, however. In fact, it was predestined by God (Acts 4:27-28) to accomplish a specific purpose. What Jesus accomplished by dying on the cross was breathtaking: He acted as a substitute for the guilty sinners the Father chose in eternity past. This means that all the past, present and future sins of these particular sinners were paid in full in his body on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). The beautiful thing about this is that rather than these sinners being found guilty before God (which they would in-and-of-themselves) and cast into Hell for all eternity, they had their sins paid for by a perfect substitute: Jesus Christ.

How does this deliverance from sin become applied to sinners? The Scriptures are clear that it is not obtained by works of any kind. It is also clear that salvation is not achieved by outweighing your bad deeds with good deeds. Forgiveness of sins is found by trusting and believing solely in the work of Jesus Christ; it is by faith alone that sinners are saved from their sins. But there is another problem: sinners cannot even believe in God. The Bible actually states that sin has affected us so much that we lack the ability to have faith in (trust) God and His truth. “Dead in our trespasses and sin” is a Biblical description of how we are born into this world. What this means is that we are spiritually dead to the things of God because of our sinful nature – which is how all of us are naturally born. While it is fairly obvious, I’ll go ahead and state the obvious: dead people can’t believe in anything. Dead people can’t do much of anything =). Therefore it is necessary for God to spiritually resurrect us, also called being “born again.” This is a work of God, and indeed, must be a work of God because dead people can’t raise themselves from the dead.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise then to say that just as God resurrects sinners to newness of spiritual life that He also grants the ability to believe in Him. After being raised to spiritual life we then have faith in Jesus Christ to save us from our sins. This faith is the passive mechanism by which God imputes (or “considers to be ours”) the righteousness (goodness) of Christ to the sinner. The result is that the sinner is no longer standing before God with His own supposed righteousness, but rather as having considered to have Jesus’ righteousness as his own. The sinner is not made righteous, but is declared and considered to be righteous because of Christ. This again leaves salvation to be a work of God alone.

This declaration of God happens at a moment in time as God has predetermined for His elect people, by which He then secures and seals them with the Holy Spirit to be a guarantee of their salvation. The Holy Spirit is with believers in Christ until He returns to earth on the Last Day where He will destroy the universe with fire in judgment. On this day, every person who has ever lived will stand before the great throne of God and bow before Him, acknowledging that Jesus Christ is Lord of all. It is then that sinners are divided: the righteous from the unrighteous. The unrighteous stand before God with their own works, and woefully fall short of God’s just standard. They are sent to Hell to pay for their own sins forever in the pit of darkness. The righteous are considered righteous, not because of works they had done, but because they trusted in Christ to deliver them from their sins, by which Christ’s righteousness was imputed to them. They are ushered into the new heaven and new earth where they will worship and serve God forever and ever, fellowshipping with the saints, and will always shine as trophies of God’s grace.

My message to the homosexual community is this: today is the day of salvation. Your Creator made you in such a way that the natural and lawful expression of your sexuality is in the sacred bond of marriage between one man and one woman. Turn (repent) of your wicked ways, including your homosexuality, to the true God who alone has a way of salvation. He is the Creator and He knows what is best for you; He knows you even better than you know you. He has the right to do as He wishes, because the Lord is God.

This is not a hateful message, but it is one I believe, and it is the truth. As passionate as you are of your homosexual lifestyle, I am of my Christian lifestyle. We can agree to disagree, and we can peaceably live together. But please know that if you want to talk with me further about any of this, it would be my privilege and honor to discuss these important life-changing topics with you. For these issues are nothing short of matters of life and death.

Thanks for reading,

Casey

If You’re Going to Believe in Predestination…

Back when I was first converted to belief in Calvinism, I didn’t have anyone good enough in my life to lock me up during my cage-stage (by “cage-stage” I mean the period of time when new Calvinists ought to be locked in a cage because they go nuts =)). It was a topsy-turvy time for me because of how drastic Calvinism was beginning to change my life. I needed to find a more theo-centric (God-centered) church, figure out how to preach the gospel Biblically, and how to worship God in a way that was honoring to Him.
One of my dear friends, who was along for the ride but still on the fence wanted to know why I thought Calvinism was important. I reiterated some of the points above, but also added that I knew if I was going to believe in predestination I was going to believe in it completely. What I meant by that was that I’m not like those who give God the ultimate credit for good in the world but don’t also attribute to Him as the ultimate reason for the existence of evil.

As an Arminian I grew accustomed to hearing (and wound up believing) arguments that God was involved in the world but that He created human beings in such a way that He allows us to have “free will.” Now, whatever was meant by “free will” was never made clear to me, but was clear is that our decisions were free in the sense that God was not forcing us to make them. This to me was the end-all-be-all argument against Calvinism because I reasoned to myself: how can a decision be free if you are predestined to do it? And therefore God cannot ultimately be responsible for our decisions, or the existence of evil.

Why the Arminian version of me didn’t likewise conclude that God was not then responsible for good things in the world due to free will, I can only attribute to my being terribly inconsistent. But the beautiful and utterly opposite quality of Calvinism is that it is so wonderfully consistent with itself and with the Bible.
What do the Scriptures teach with regard to man’s will in relation to God’s sovereignty? For starters, man does have a real will and he makes real decisions and choices. However, man’s decisions are not autonomously made outside of the will of God, but are instead subject to His sovereign decree. Naturally this brings us to a discussion of primary and secondary causes. The Arminian says of election, for example, that God chose us by looking down through the corridors of time, and based on foreseeing who would choose Him then reacts by electing them unto salvation. For the Arminian, the first cause and ultimate reason people are elected unto salvation must be as a direct result of man’s will. The Calvinist recognizes that God alone is the Creator, and when He created time itself this includes all the actions that occur in time. Therefore the reason God has knowledge of future events is not because He is passively receiving information, but because of His eternal decree of future events. For the Calvinist the first cause and ultimate reason people are elected must be attributed to God’s will and sovereign decree.

Fundamentally, Arminianism is lacking a Biblical understanding of precisely how sin has affected mankind. Since the Fall of Adam, the whole of a man is affected by sin, most notably the will of man. The Bible describes our will as being dead, and corpses … well, they don’t decide much of anything. This is why if God left the end result up to us we would all end up apart from Him because we are unable to make positive advancements in the gospel.

Since man’s will is not autonomous, it must be subject to God’s will. One or the other must be the case. A helpful example in the Scriptures is Acts 4:27-28: “²⁷ For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, ²⁸ to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.” (NASB). Here we see the choices of many people having been predestined by God. God’s decree is the first cause; man’s choices are the secondary cause that actualizes the events. Let me ask you: according to the text what is the ultimate cause of Jesus dying on the cross? Well, God’s predestined purpose. Here’s another question for you: were Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and Jews all responsible for their involvement? Well, yes absolutely.

This is referred to as Compatibilist Freedom. God’s decree is the ultimate cause of everything with our choices being a part of that decree. God’s will predestined man’s decisions.

The Arminian might object: well doesn’t this mean our decisions aren’t real decisions since they’ve been predetermined? Only if for a decision to be considered a “real decision” it must be completely autonomous apart from God’s sovereignty – which is clearly not what the Bible teaches.

Doesn’t this make God the author of evil? Well, man is the one who authors, or actualizes, sin. Man is the secondary cause of human decisions. God’s decree for what would happen is the first cause.
My favorite part about this Biblical truth is that when evil things happen in the world, we know that they have meaning. We know this because God predestined them to occur, just like the death of His Son – which is the worst thing that has happened since the Creation of the world. Sometimes, God predestines things that He hates, but it is always for a purpose. While we don’t always know the full extent of why God predestines something, we know that it is for the good of those who love Him: “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.” (NASB).

And that is a comforting thought.
rustypth