No matter where you stand on the bail out of the financial markets, you must admit that what we are dealing with here is removing consequences. By definition, a bail out removes the obvious consequences of an action.
It seems to me that to remove consequences also removes God from our mind. He is a God of consequences. We can be sorry, we can be forgiven, but there are consequences to our actions. This reminds us of "right and wrong," and of a God who judges. Without consequences, God grows to be a fainter and fainter memory. If there are no consequences, there is no judgment, and we don't need saving, beyond being bailed out now and then.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Monday, September 08, 2008
Postmodernism, Again
Gene Veith writes on his blog about the effect of postmodernism in interpreting history. He does so through a quote from a presidential candidates's book. The gist of the quote is that absolute truth is bad and leads to tyranny. The proposed solution? Trust in God, but trust more in your judgment. How unbiblical is that?
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Obomination
In his acceptance speech, Presidential candidate Barak Obama cited Scripture. Here is the quote of his concluding paragraph:
America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise - that American promise - and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.
The closest verse I can find to the "hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess," is Hebrews 10:23 (with a little bit of Hebrews 3:6 included). Here is Hebrews 10:23 (NIV):
NIV Hebrews 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.
Notice the difference. In the Bible, we hold to our profession in Christ because God is faithful. In the speech, we must conclude our hope is either in America, Government or Mr. Obama. Lets get it straight. Our hope is in Christ, not America, Government or Mr. Obama or any other candidate. All of those replace God with a person or place. All of those are an abomonation, or in this case, an Obomination.
America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise - that American promise - and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.
The closest verse I can find to the "hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess," is Hebrews 10:23 (with a little bit of Hebrews 3:6 included). Here is Hebrews 10:23 (NIV):
NIV Hebrews 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.
Notice the difference. In the Bible, we hold to our profession in Christ because God is faithful. In the speech, we must conclude our hope is either in America, Government or Mr. Obama. Lets get it straight. Our hope is in Christ, not America, Government or Mr. Obama or any other candidate. All of those replace God with a person or place. All of those are an abomonation, or in this case, an Obomination.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Convention Thoughts
I have been watching the Democratic convention from Denver. I expect to see much of the same from Minnesota next week when the Republicans take to the air. I can't believe what I see!
The parade of legislators is endless, each with the same message. Things will change when we get a new President. Failed legislative policies of the past will be replaced by new, better ones. Bills to cut or raise taxes (depending on who you want to tax or let off) will flow down the aisles of Congress. Health Care will change overnight. Everyone will get free money!
Well, lets just stop a minute and do a Constitution check. The President, covered by Article II of the Constitution, gets about 18 lines of text to spell out his powers and duties, including five that spell out his duty to receive and appoint ambassadors and commission officers of the US (military and foreign service). The Legislature, which is the Senate and House, gets 71 lines of powers and duties, including the duty and power to make all laws. Did you read that--they make the laws, not the President. If he vetoes them, they can override the veto. THE POWER IS IN THE LEGISLATURE.
So, do you get the irony in legislators parading before the cameras calling a president to task for failing to the the thing they, and only they, have the power to do?
What could be worse than that? I'll tell you: the people who clap and possibly believe this stuff, aka the electorate.
The parade of legislators is endless, each with the same message. Things will change when we get a new President. Failed legislative policies of the past will be replaced by new, better ones. Bills to cut or raise taxes (depending on who you want to tax or let off) will flow down the aisles of Congress. Health Care will change overnight. Everyone will get free money!
Well, lets just stop a minute and do a Constitution check. The President, covered by Article II of the Constitution, gets about 18 lines of text to spell out his powers and duties, including five that spell out his duty to receive and appoint ambassadors and commission officers of the US (military and foreign service). The Legislature, which is the Senate and House, gets 71 lines of powers and duties, including the duty and power to make all laws. Did you read that--they make the laws, not the President. If he vetoes them, they can override the veto. THE POWER IS IN THE LEGISLATURE.
So, do you get the irony in legislators parading before the cameras calling a president to task for failing to the the thing they, and only they, have the power to do?
What could be worse than that? I'll tell you: the people who clap and possibly believe this stuff, aka the electorate.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Quick Thoughts on D.C. v. Heller--The 2nd Amendment Case
Here are my first impressions, in order that they came to me.
1. The acrimony in the majority and Justice Stevens' dissent is really over the top. The majority refers to dissent thinking as "wrongheaded" and "worthy of the mad hatter." Justice Stevens invokes the parable of the six blind men viewing the elephant to describe the word-for-word analysis of the majority. Nasty.
2. Justice Stevens uses the same historical references as the majority, yet draws different conclusions. It would be interesting to read the original sources, although the majority seems to have done a better job of explaining why Stevens is wrong than he does in disputing them.
3. Justice Breyer's dissent is substandard. That was my impression upon first reading. I then went back and searched the majority opinion for specific rebuttal of Justice Stevens' dissent, and likewise, Justice Breyer's dissent. The majority felt it necessary to answer Justice Stevens many times. Not so with Breyer. I guess they felt like me--it really wasn't necessary.
4. The idea that a city can ban handgun ownership was clearly struck down. In fact, the court ordered the district to grant a license to Mr. Heller. Now the District is not a state, but through the 14th Amendment, it would seem to me that this decision is going to loosen handgun bans everywhere. The court seemed to favor a "shall issue" standard. It is also noteworthy that the Court reviewed the historic literature and found the broadest right to keep and bear arms possible.
1. The acrimony in the majority and Justice Stevens' dissent is really over the top. The majority refers to dissent thinking as "wrongheaded" and "worthy of the mad hatter." Justice Stevens invokes the parable of the six blind men viewing the elephant to describe the word-for-word analysis of the majority. Nasty.
2. Justice Stevens uses the same historical references as the majority, yet draws different conclusions. It would be interesting to read the original sources, although the majority seems to have done a better job of explaining why Stevens is wrong than he does in disputing them.
3. Justice Breyer's dissent is substandard. That was my impression upon first reading. I then went back and searched the majority opinion for specific rebuttal of Justice Stevens' dissent, and likewise, Justice Breyer's dissent. The majority felt it necessary to answer Justice Stevens many times. Not so with Breyer. I guess they felt like me--it really wasn't necessary.
4. The idea that a city can ban handgun ownership was clearly struck down. In fact, the court ordered the district to grant a license to Mr. Heller. Now the District is not a state, but through the 14th Amendment, it would seem to me that this decision is going to loosen handgun bans everywhere. The court seemed to favor a "shall issue" standard. It is also noteworthy that the Court reviewed the historic literature and found the broadest right to keep and bear arms possible.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
The Two Seeds
In Genesis 3, God, as part of the curse, puts hostility between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman; then he promises redemption to the woman.
Today in church we were reviewing the conflict that the movie, Expelled has spawned. Anti-God "seed" and those who claim Him as father argue over intelligent design. Did God create us? We say He did, they say He didn't.
I asked why there aren't more conflicts representative of the seed conflict. Why don't we see more "spiritual warfare?" The conversation concluded that we don't because we have made peace with so many ideas that are contrary to a Christian worldview.
Cindy said that she thinks that most of us lack the training needed to go on the defensive (offensive) and take on those who speak loudly against God. Yet, Peter says that we are always to be ready to "apologize" for our faith.
My suggestion was that we use our minds to point out the inconsistencies in other worldviews. For example, I read from Darwin's The Descent of Man, and showed where he, within five pages of explaining how the survival of the fittest applies to civilized man, and where he says it doesn't. That is an inconsistency we need to talk about.
At the same time, we should expect that the natural man won't understand our worldview, but at least we will have taken the first step to get him to question his. That may create conflict, but it is a kind act towards preparing others for the Gospel.
Always, when doing apologetics, use the Railroad Sign" approach; stop, look and listen. Stop before you barge right in. Look and listen to see if this is a good time to do this. Will your making your point humiliate your friend in front of others? Is he so angry that he won't hear what you say? Can you plan a follow up conversation?
Finally, don't be surprised by conflict. Spiritual conflict is what Jesus promised us. It is what He uses to reach others through you--the seed.
Today in church we were reviewing the conflict that the movie, Expelled has spawned. Anti-God "seed" and those who claim Him as father argue over intelligent design. Did God create us? We say He did, they say He didn't.
I asked why there aren't more conflicts representative of the seed conflict. Why don't we see more "spiritual warfare?" The conversation concluded that we don't because we have made peace with so many ideas that are contrary to a Christian worldview.
Cindy said that she thinks that most of us lack the training needed to go on the defensive (offensive) and take on those who speak loudly against God. Yet, Peter says that we are always to be ready to "apologize" for our faith.
My suggestion was that we use our minds to point out the inconsistencies in other worldviews. For example, I read from Darwin's The Descent of Man, and showed where he, within five pages of explaining how the survival of the fittest applies to civilized man, and where he says it doesn't. That is an inconsistency we need to talk about.
At the same time, we should expect that the natural man won't understand our worldview, but at least we will have taken the first step to get him to question his. That may create conflict, but it is a kind act towards preparing others for the Gospel.
Always, when doing apologetics, use the Railroad Sign" approach; stop, look and listen. Stop before you barge right in. Look and listen to see if this is a good time to do this. Will your making your point humiliate your friend in front of others? Is he so angry that he won't hear what you say? Can you plan a follow up conversation?
Finally, don't be surprised by conflict. Spiritual conflict is what Jesus promised us. It is what He uses to reach others through you--the seed.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Sadly, He's Right
Illinois just elected a Representative to replace retired Rep. Dennis Hastert. His name is Bill Foster. Aside from having a successful career in science and business, he is a classic American pragmatist. Here's what he said:
People on both sides should take the message that we want people who are less divisive, less ideological and more problem-solving.
Rightly, he senses that people don't care if you have beliefs or principles. The issue is, can you work for them. All the great people abusers in history have understood this. Foster does, although I don't mean that he is automatically a people abuser. He is just an average American pragmatist. The ends justify whatever means. We don't have to think about it. It works, or it doesn't.
He wants to be there to fix the war, social security, poverty, etc., without a thought on why--just that it works. Sadly.
People on both sides should take the message that we want people who are less divisive, less ideological and more problem-solving.
Rightly, he senses that people don't care if you have beliefs or principles. The issue is, can you work for them. All the great people abusers in history have understood this. Foster does, although I don't mean that he is automatically a people abuser. He is just an average American pragmatist. The ends justify whatever means. We don't have to think about it. It works, or it doesn't.
He wants to be there to fix the war, social security, poverty, etc., without a thought on why--just that it works. Sadly.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Post-modernism, pluralism and Roman Catholicism
I have noticed an interesting trend among twenty-something post-moderns who also claim an evangelical heritage. They flirt with (Roman) Catholicism.
I guess you can explain this by reviewing something that R.C. Sproul said once. He said that pluralism was not a real worldview. Instead, it is an "ism" that exists between the dominance of a new "ism" over a former "ism." People land adrift in pluralism after rejecting a worldview. Then, that pluralism gives way to adopting a new "ism."
In many ways, post-modernism is a form of pluralism--all views are okay and equal. With the post-moderns rejection of modernism often comes the rejection of Reformation theology, which they see as modernistic. (Actually, I see it as a biblical correction to scholasticism, but that is another story.) This leads them to seek refuge in the time before Reformed theology hit, and that is medieval Catholicism.
This is "strange" for two reasons. First, what we call Reformed Theology is older than medieval times. It is a rediscovery of Augustinian thought, which springs straight from Paul the Apostle. The post-modern wheel stops too soon!
Secondly, with the post-modern rejection of the meta narrative, it is strange that the wheel would stop in a period of low scholastic standards, where authority took the place of thinking. Since post-moderns reject authority, it seems strange that they would rest in the bosum of the most authoritarian form of church government that is around.
This is sort of like someone who rejects the current style of automobile because it was influenced by the last style. In reaching back to the style before that, he fails to observe that his chosen style actually followed a style that is much like the current style. So, know history, know knowledge--no history, no knowledge!
I guess you can explain this by reviewing something that R.C. Sproul said once. He said that pluralism was not a real worldview. Instead, it is an "ism" that exists between the dominance of a new "ism" over a former "ism." People land adrift in pluralism after rejecting a worldview. Then, that pluralism gives way to adopting a new "ism."
In many ways, post-modernism is a form of pluralism--all views are okay and equal. With the post-moderns rejection of modernism often comes the rejection of Reformation theology, which they see as modernistic. (Actually, I see it as a biblical correction to scholasticism, but that is another story.) This leads them to seek refuge in the time before Reformed theology hit, and that is medieval Catholicism.
This is "strange" for two reasons. First, what we call Reformed Theology is older than medieval times. It is a rediscovery of Augustinian thought, which springs straight from Paul the Apostle. The post-modern wheel stops too soon!
Secondly, with the post-modern rejection of the meta narrative, it is strange that the wheel would stop in a period of low scholastic standards, where authority took the place of thinking. Since post-moderns reject authority, it seems strange that they would rest in the bosum of the most authoritarian form of church government that is around.
This is sort of like someone who rejects the current style of automobile because it was influenced by the last style. In reaching back to the style before that, he fails to observe that his chosen style actually followed a style that is much like the current style. So, know history, know knowledge--no history, no knowledge!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)