tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-50695882706808616222024-03-05T13:30:01.862-08:00Confessional Kingdom (Politics, faith, theology, creation/evolution, theonomy, R2K and everything in between)Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-54997714913638949372014-01-04T19:30:00.000-08:002014-01-04T19:30:08.698-08:00Creation vs. EvolutionThis should be very interesting to watch.<br />
<br />
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/02/science-guy-bill-nye-and-prominent-christian-set-to-battle-it-out-over-evolution-and-creationism/<br />
<br />
<img alt="Evolution vs. Creationism: Science Guy Bill Nye and Ken Ham Set to go Head to Head Next Month" class="size-large wp-image-734947" height="244" itemprop="associatedMedia" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject" src="http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/billnye-620x244.jpg" title="billnye" width="620" />Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-89131005324643963892014-01-04T19:28:00.000-08:002014-01-04T19:28:07.468-08:00The Rise of Calvinism among evangelicals?<br />
I recently came across this article talking about the influence of Calvinism among evangelicals:<br />
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/us/a-calvinist-revival-for-evangelicals.html?ref=us&_r=2<br />
<br />
---- <br />
<a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2014/01/04/us/BELIEFS/BELIEFS-articleLarge.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" border="0" height="213" itemid="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2014/01/04/us/BELIEFS/BELIEFS-articleLarge.jpg" itemprop="url" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2014/01/04/us/BELIEFS/BELIEFS-articleLarge.jpg" width="320" /></a><span data-reactid=".r[55kkg].[1][3][1]{comment10151771985347396_27530287}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2]"> </span><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".r[55kkg].[1][3][1]{comment10151771985347396_27530287}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3]"><span data-reactid=".r[55kkg].[1][3][1]{comment10151771985347396_27530287}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[55kkg].[1][3][1]{comment10151771985347396_27530287}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[0]">I
have mixed feelings about what this article is reporting. While
Calvin/Calvinism of course are instrumental in our reformed soteriology,
there is a lot more to "Calvinism" than soteriology, as important as it
is. And my sense is that is this as far as it will go amongst the
evangelicals. </span><br data-reactid=".r[55kkg].[1][3][1]{comment10151771985347396_27530287}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[1]" /><br data-reactid=".r[55kkg].[1][3][1]{comment10151771985347396_27530287}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[2]" /><span data-reactid=".r[55kkg].[1][3][1]{comment10151771985347396_27530287}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[3]">Just
as importantly, there are raging debates within reformed circles as you
are well aware regarding Calvin's views regarding natural law and
Christendom. Suffice to say for a FB squack box: he was inconsistent in
certain key ways regarding these two issues and this has created immense
confusion in our intra-reformed debates today. </span><br data-reactid=".r[55kkg].[1][3][1]{comment10151771985347396_27530287}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[4]" /><br data-reactid=".r[55kkg].[1][3][1]{comment10151771985347396_27530287}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[5]" /><span data-reactid=".r[55kkg].[1][3][1]{comment10151771985347396_27530287}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[6]">For
instance, in the Institutes, he clearly discusses how the Mosaic law
should not be used while in his sermons on Deut, he speaks like a hard
core theonomist, and of course, Michael Servetus is an inconvenient
historical fact for natural law folks. (Calvin approving his execution
for Servetus' heretical denial of the Trinity). </span><br data-reactid=".r[55kkg].[1][3][1]{comment10151771985347396_27530287}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[7]" /><br data-reactid=".r[55kkg].[1][3][1]{comment10151771985347396_27530287}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[8]" /><span data-reactid=".r[55kkg].[1][3][1]{comment10151771985347396_27530287}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[9]">The
danger that I see from valuing a theologian, even a monumental one like
Calvin (and even having a theology named after him), too much is that
we tend to think of his entire theology as being consistent because that
is what we are being taught/preached to implicitly. </span><br data-reactid=".r[55kkg].[1][3][1]{comment10151771985347396_27530287}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[10]" /><br data-reactid=".r[55kkg].[1][3][1]{comment10151771985347396_27530287}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[11]" /><span data-reactid=".r[55kkg].[1][3][1]{comment10151771985347396_27530287}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[12]">Time
will tell how Calvin's influence will play out in these evangelical
circles, and what will develop regarding the issues of (in)consistency
and conflicting theologies within one man, and whether or not the
calvinist influence will extend beyond soteriology.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".r[55kkg].[1][3][1]{comment10151771985347396_27530287}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3]"><span data-reactid=".r[55kkg].[1][3][1]{comment10151771985347396_27530287}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[55kkg].[1][3][1]{comment10151771985347396_27530287}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[12]"> </span></span></span><span data-reactid=".r[55kkg].[1][3][1]{comment10151771985347396_27530287}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[3]"></span><br />
Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-19946256929312308362013-11-09T05:38:00.003-08:002013-11-09T05:38:28.837-08:00The ENDA agenda <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/gays-admit-enda-game-outlaw-christian-morality/">http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/gays-admit-enda-game-outlaw-christian-morality/</a>Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-91993952632520565012013-11-02T16:19:00.002-07:002013-11-02T16:19:53.400-07:00Description vs prescription I often hear from people commenting on Romans 13, the portion concerning the civil magistrate, that this passage is descriptive and not prescriptive. This thinking is then used to justify that the civil magistrate has no obligation to enforce the (revealed) law of God. Naturally, there are several problems with this interpretation from the vantage points of basic logic, and presuppositional epistemology.<br />
<br />
<b>Definitions First</b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> When people use this argument that Rom 13 is "descriptive", they are using that term <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/descriptive" target="_blank">defined </a>as such: "<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;">factually grounded or informative rather than normative, prescriptive, or emotive."</span> Using this definition of "descriptive" for Rom 13, it can therefore be easy to see how the conclusion can be drawn that the civil magistrate is not under any obligation to enforce the law of God ("revealed" law). If Rom 13 is simply a description without any normative obligation, then the magistrate is under no obligation to enforce the law of God. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> "Prescriptive" on the other hand, is generally <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prescriptive" target="_blank">understood </a>as: "<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;">acquired by, founded on, or determined by </span><a class="formulaic" href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prescription" style="background-color: white; color: #1122cc; line-height: 20px; text-decoration: none;">prescription</a><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"> or by long-standing custom." I think that this definition is generally agreed upon by all Christians. In the specific Christian context, "... determined by biblical mandate...." </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"><b>Grammatical Considerations</b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"> A priori, those who advocate for this usage of "descriptive" automatically are using this definition to denote no normative obligation. By what basis is this usage justified? Regardless of the modern definition of the word "descriptive", the fact that one regards something as "descriptive", this does not ***necessarily*** mean that it does not entail any normative obligation. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"> How is this so? An analogous situation could be: Christians are loved by God. This clearly is a descriptive statement. Would not the fact that Christians are loved by God imply that we are obligated to obey His commands? Of course, it does. This is so because of what is entailed with being loved by God. However, by the "descriptive" logic, the Christian is under no obligation for anything since the "Christians are loved by God" is a descriptive statement. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"> Therefore, one cannot make a logical conclusion about a subject's particular normative obligation/duty on the basis of a grammatical rule. In other words, the justification that the civil magistrate has or has no duty to execute God's law cannot be logically derived by understanding a particular point of grammar concerning a descriptive statement in the Bible. One must look at what is entailed by the descriptive statement. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"> In other words, what must be considered in Rom 13 should be similar to what is being implied about our obligation because of our being loved by God. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"> What is implied by being a minister of God in the civil sense? A minister of God in the ecclesiastical sense has obligations due to his status as a minister. This should be obvious. There is a corresponding obligation for the minister of God in the "civil realm" as well. Why would a man designated as a minister of God in the ecclesiastical sense have obligations but not for a minister of God in the civil sense?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span><b>Presuppositional epistemology</b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"> This usage of "prescriptive" vs. "descriptive" in the context of Rom 13 also breaks down because the axiom being used in this debate is the definition of "descriptive" as opposed to starting from the presupposition of ultimate authority. Taking the logic train down further, ultimately of course, the issue of authority ends up dealing with the presupposition of the (moral, logical, ultimate, epistemological, metaphysical) truth of God and its expression as revealed in Scripture.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"> What are the implications of the axiomatic point being a particular definition as opposed to starting with the presupposition of God? </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"> One of the implications is that an axiom (usage of the term "descriptive") that does not properly start with God can easily be manipulated, artificially parsed to make it whatever you want it to be, because you are now **functionally** no longer referencing any subsequent premise in accordance with the standard of God's truth, but simply using that axiom as the (ultimate) basis for your subsequent arguments concerning the obligation (or lack thereof) of the civil magistrate. In other words, when Christians use this idea that Rom 13 is "descriptive", this is their automatic starting point, taking as "fact" without proof or exegesis. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"> While this seems like an esoteric point, it actually has enormous implications for the structural framework of this debate and it flies in the face of a consistent presuppositional epistemology</span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;">. Whenever we are dealing with issues of what one is morally obligated or not obligated to do (in this case of the civil magistrate's duty), this issue ultimately must be a discussion based ultimate truth and authority, not based on a grammatical construct. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"> One cannot have ultimate certainty of what is (or isnt) a moral obligation or what (civil) authority exactly means when the starting point is a grammar rule and not on the presupposition of God. Therefore, when one starts with a "definition" as a presupposition, this can never provide any sort of real conclusion of what the civil magistrate's obligation is or any real conclusion on the issue of authority and moral obligation. Only when one starts with the presupposition of God can an argument have a conclusion that can be certain.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span>
<b>Basic Logic</b><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"> Whenever an argument is made, the entire English language is reduced to only 4 different propositions.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"> (1) All "A" is "B"</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"> (2) No "A" is "B"</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"> (3) Some "A" is "B"</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"> (4) Some "A" is not "B".</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;">There is a general recognition that there is a literary/grammatical form of a sentence vs. the philosophical/logical form of a sentence. For instance, the grammatical form of a proposition would be: There are no smokers. A possible logical form would be: No smokers are instantiated. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"> Another one could be: I doubt. The logical form would be: doubt is instantiated, or perhaps: doubt is occurring. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"> The point behind this is that formal logic necessitates the use of these 4 forms and these 4 forms only, when making arguments. Regardless of whether the proposition is in a grammatical or logical form, in a sense, either form can be thought of as "descriptive". The problem is that the fact that a premise is descriptive (which is what it can only be in any of the 4 forms above) this has no bearing on the actual meaning (proposition) of the premise itself. In other words, simply because something is thought to be descriptive, this in no way dictates a particular conclusion because that is not the nature of how logical argumentation actually works. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"> The form of the premise (one of the 4 forms) is needed in order for an argument to be valid (premise logically leading towards conclusion), but that is not what makes the argument sound (true or false). In other words, the premise in the proper format helps ensure that the mechanics and the structure of the argument are correct, but this actually has no bearing on whether the conclusion is actually **true**. Whether a conclusion is true or not is based on the truth of the premise. If you have false premises in the proper form, you will get false conclusions in the proper form. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"> In the Rom 13 case, the truth of whether the civil magistrate is obligated to follow the law of God cannot be based on whether the premise is "descriptive" or not (since all premises are "descriptive" when put in one of the 4 forms). The reliance on this issue of "description" does not logically entail a true conclusion, only a premise based on truth leads to a true conclusion, not on grammatical construct. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"><b>Fallacy considerations</b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;">This issue of "descriptive" generally is used by those in the R2K camp when discussing Rom 13. R2K advocates will say that this Scriptural description (and to a certain extent, their general observations of what the civil magistrate is) entails absolutely no obligation (or prescription).. "Rom 13 is descriptive, and not prescriptive". </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"> This line of reasoning is also very curious and ultimately, very arbitrary when one considers that one of the central tenets of R2K is insisting upon drawing together obligations (or oughtness) from the what is. For example, </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><b><span style="line-height: 20px;">Rom 13:1-7: </span><span class="text Rom-13-1" style="background-color: white;">Let every person <span class="crossreference" style="vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-ESV-28252A" title="See cross-reference A">A</a>)"></span>be subject to the governing authorities. For <span class="crossreference" style="vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-ESV-28252B" title="See cross-reference B">B</a>)"></span>there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span><span class="text Rom-13-2" id="en-ESV-28253" style="background-color: white;"><span class="versenum" style="vertical-align: top;">2 </span>Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span><span class="text Rom-13-3" id="en-ESV-28254" style="background-color: white;"><span class="versenum" style="vertical-align: top;">3 </span>For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you <span class="crossreference" style="vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-ESV-28254C" title="See cross-reference C">C</a>)"></span>will receive his approval,</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span><span class="text Rom-13-4" id="en-ESV-28255" style="background-color: white;"><span class="versenum" style="vertical-align: top;">4 </span>for <span class="crossreference" style="vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-ESV-28255D" title="See cross-reference D">D</a>)"></span>he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, <span class="crossreference" style="vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-ESV-28255E" title="See cross-reference E">E</a>)"></span>an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span><span class="text Rom-13-5" id="en-ESV-28256" style="background-color: white;"><span class="versenum" style="vertical-align: top;">5 </span>Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also <span class="crossreference" style="vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-ESV-28256F" title="See cross-reference F">F</a>)"></span>for the sake of conscience.</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span><span class="text Rom-13-6" id="en-ESV-28257" style="background-color: white;"><span class="versenum" style="vertical-align: top;">6 </span>For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span><span class="text Rom-13-7" id="en-ESV-28258" style="background-color: white;"><span class="versenum" style="vertical-align: top;">7 </span><span class="crossreference" style="vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-ESV-28258G" title="See cross-reference G">G</a>)"></span>Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.</span></b></i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"> From this passage above, we can see that the descriptions made of the civil magistrate: </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"> (1) Rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"> (2) He is God's servant (ministers of God) for your good.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"> (3) He is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"> It is these descriptions that are touted simply as.... descriptions, and not prescriptions. This is rather curious since they insist that functionally we can appeal to the non-Christian to say that we can appeal to their reasoning about the world around them without referencing God. If what R2K is saying is true, then, we can derive moral obligation from simply what "is" without using the Bible... Example, R2K will say that you have a mother and father. Through "nature" they have obligation to take care of us and we as children have obligation to obey them. As far as this goes, this is true. But, epistemologically, if we dont use the Bible to them, we have no consistent basis for telling them that parents have an obligation to take care of their kids. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"> Yet in a blindingly obvious (yet somehow unnoticed) about-face, they are willing to say that Rom 13 is descriptive, and has no prescriptive elements.... How much sense does this make? This is rather arbitrary. They insist that these statements from Rom 13 are descriptive and carry no obligation, and yet they will describe what is in "nature" to say that there are things in the natural order that indicates what "ought" to be (obligation). </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"><b>Natural law considerations</b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"> If the magistrate is obligated to enforce "natural law" and not revealed law, what exactly is the content of that natural law? Where can we have the non-Christian find it if we cannot show them the Bible? What can we use to tell us whether it is fair to let a murderer go and execute someone who steals a loaf of bread? If we cannot reference an eternal standard, how can we tell the person that is executing the bread stealer that he is wrong???</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"> How can we bind the heart of the magistrate to let him know the content of natural law? How can we describe to him what true justice is if not for the revealed law of God? What basis do we have if not the Bible to disagree with his standard of justice? </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"> What is the point behind all of this? </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"> The point is that this kind of analysis of determining moral obligations can only be based on the argument and presupposition of authority given to us from God. Any other starting point can be twisted and massaged and manipulated to however we see fit. How can we derive any sense of obligation for the civil magistrate from a rule of grammar?</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span>
Being salt of the earth is a descriptive statement. However, it will take mental gymnastics of the highest order to willfully refuse to understand that there is no obligation to follow the law of God in order to be that salt of the earth. Let's be consistent in understanding Rom 13 must be understood in the same way, and that we must bring to it to bear upon the magistrate to enforce true justice based on the Bible.Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-63864834930501857672013-10-14T09:49:00.001-07:002013-10-14T09:49:43.330-07:00Religious Exemption for Obamacare.<br />
<div style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;">
<img alt="Obamacare-symbol" class="featured-full-width-top wp-post-image" height="113" src="http://americanvision.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Obamacare-symbol-620x350.jpg" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 30px;" width="200" /></div>
<br />
<a href="http://americanvision.org/9564/get-obamacare/#sthash.eT4r2ANb.dpbs">http://americanvision.org/9564/get-obamacare/#sthash.eT4r2ANb.dpbs</a><br />
<br />
Article below by Dr Joel McDurmon:<br />
<br />
<div style="color: #888888; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 20px;">
During a radio interview recently, the host was shocked when I told him that Christians, generally, can get out of ObamaCare right now if they so choose. Really? How?</div>
<div style="color: #888888; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 20px;">
Many people are still not aware that health care sharing ministries like the one run by my friends at <a href="http://samaritanministries.org/" style="-webkit-transition: 0.8s ease-in-out; color: #444444; text-decoration: none; transition: 0.8s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">Samaritan Ministries</a> lobbied and debated with Congress hard during the 2009 fight over ObamaCare. As a result of their efforts, and the nature and track record of the ministry, they earned an exemption from the individual mandate in ObamaCare for members of the sharing ministry.</div>
<div style="color: #888888; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 20px;">
Long story short, join <a href="http://samaritanministries.org/" style="-webkit-transition: 0.8s ease-in-out; color: #444444; text-decoration: none; transition: 0.8s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">Samaritan Ministries</a> and you are exempt from ObamaCare’s individual mandate.</div>
<div style="color: #888888; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 20px;">
And this comes among the many other advantages of <a href="http://samaritanministries.org/" style="-webkit-transition: 0.8s ease-in-out; color: #444444; text-decoration: none; transition: 0.8s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">Samaritan</a>, including the facts that sharing costs are in most cases much lower than insurance premiums, and that no money whatsoever ever funds or helps fund abortions, other planned-parenthood activities, or a variety of other sinful lifestyle consequences.</div>
<div style="color: #888888; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 20px;">
I am surprised that more Christians do not seem to be aware of this exemption. It has even received fairly <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/6/obamacare-alternative-exemptions-offer-way-out/?page=all" style="-webkit-transition: 0.8s ease-in-out; color: #444444; text-decoration: none; transition: 0.8s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">mainstream news</a> coverage, reports from <a href="http://christiannews.net/2013/10/12/obamacare-insurance-exemption-for-christians-provides-opportunity-to-grow-kingdom-of-god/" style="-webkit-transition: 0.8s ease-in-out; color: #444444; text-decoration: none; transition: 0.8s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">Christian News</a>, and others.</div>
<div style="color: #888888; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 20px;">
I was mildly amused a few days back to read an article from Reason.com called “<a href="http://reason.com/archives/2013/10/01/the-real-problem-with-obamacare-a-case-s/print" style="-webkit-transition: 0.8s ease-in-out; color: #444444; text-decoration: none; transition: 0.8s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">Obamacare vs. Samaritan Health-Care Ministry: A Case Study</a>.” The article is quite good in relating details and good case examples of Samaritan. But it carries what seems to me to be a pessimistic bias against the ministry. It says, “Samaritan may soon become a casualty of new incentives created by Obamacare,” because, “Under Obamacare, most Samaritan members will be able to purchase health insurance policies that offer richer benefits for lower prices, thanks to significant taxpayer subsidies.”</div>
<div style="color: #888888; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 20px;">
Samaritan’s vice president, James Lansberry, notes the obvious: Samaritan members join because of religious convictions, not merely financial benefits, especially government subsidies. But, the Reason author then argues, even just a tiny drop in membership can damage the ministry. It seems to me the guy <i>wants</i> the ministry to fail because of ObamaCare.</div>
<div style="color: #888888; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 20px;">
This amuses me somewhat because it shows an inherent tension of humanistic libertarianism. Note: Reason.com is not “liberal” like Slate or HuffPost. It is not pro-big-government. But it is not conservative or Christian, either. Rather, it is humanistic libertarian, as I said. It looks with scientistic, enlightened disdain upon faith and devout people of faith. In our God-gullibility and blind faith crutchism, we represent so much of what is holding back humanity.</div>
<div style="color: #888888; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 20px;">
So, Reason wants small government and liberty, but it does not know the Christ of liberty. It does not understand the sacrificial life necessary to reclaim liberty in a tyrannical world, nor does it understand the Christian faith necessary for such a sacrificial lifestyle to be viable among a group of people. Thus, it cannot believe that Christians will truly remain devout enough to maintain liberty when just a few hundred dollars of government subsidies are tossed their way.</div>
<div style="color: #888888; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 20px;">
What this article unwittingly shows is just that: maintaining freedom and liberty absolutely requires a devotion that transcends mere monetary incentives. Personal responsibility means personal effort and personal sacrifice, and without this, tyranny will inevitably grow. It also shows that despite all talk of enlightenment and scientific progress, Reason’s view of man is quite pessimistic: he can be herded instinctively under tyranny with mere economic incentive; he will not sacrifice to stand on principles of faith.</div>
<div style="color: #888888; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 20px;">
Sacrificing for liberty is, of course, one of the main themes of <i>Restoring America One County at a Time</i>, including the chapter on welfare and health care in which I first prescribed Samaritan Ministries as the Christian vaccination against ObamaCare. Read my relevant articles in chapter two, <a href="file:///C:/Users/Joel/Documents/Samaritan%20may%20soon%20become%20a%20casualty%20of%20new%20incentives%20created%20by%20Obamacare,%20which%20does%20virtually%20nothing%20to%20reduce%20third-party%20payments%20in%20delivering%20health%20care.%20When%20their%20bills%20are%20mostly%20covered%20by%20insurance%20companies%20or%20the%20government%E2%80%94which%20may%20also%20be%20heavily%20subsidizing%20their%20premiums%20as%20well%E2%80%94patients%20aren't%20discerning%20shoppers." style="-webkit-transition: 0.8s ease-in-out; color: #444444; text-decoration: none; transition: 0.8s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">Welfare</a>.</div>
<div style="color: #888888; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 20px;">
If you’d like to read the actual exemption for yourself, check out Section 1501(d)(2)(B) of the <a href="http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf" style="-webkit-transition: 0.8s ease-in-out; color: #444444; text-decoration: none; transition: 0.8s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act</a> where “Religious Exemptions” for “Health Care Sharing Ministry” are encoded. The same law is repeated as Section 5000A(d)(2)(B) of the <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5000A" style="-webkit-transition: 0.8s ease-in-out; color: #444444; text-decoration: none; transition: 0.8s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">IRS Code</a>.</div>
<div style="color: #888888; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 20px;">
Or you can just call <a href="http://samaritanministries.org/" style="-webkit-transition: 0.8s ease-in-out; color: #444444; text-decoration: none; transition: 0.8s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">Samaritan </a>now and let them explain it to you. They will help you with any other questions as well.</div>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">- See more at: http://americanvision.org/9564/get-obamacare/#sthash.eT4r2ANb.dpuf</span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-50050497951204727302013-10-12T10:48:00.000-07:002013-10-12T10:48:09.879-07:00Religious FreedomDr Denny Burk wrote a very insightful article. Regardless of what the future holds, the Church (yes, the church) needs to stand against the tide and be that prophetic voice calling upon all to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.dennyburk.com/time-is-running-out-on-religious-liberty-roddreher/">http://www.dennyburk.com/time-is-running-out-on-religious-liberty-roddreher/</a>Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-2274781986574572352013-10-10T19:46:00.000-07:002013-10-10T19:46:00.219-07:00If there were any doubt that Van Til was a transformationalist.... Van Til was not a theonomist in the Bahnsen (American Reconstruction) sense of the word. This much is actually pretty clear. However, this is not to say that he was not a transformationalist.<br />
<br />
<i><span style="color: blue;"> "Is it not true that Christianity was meant to conquer the whole world for Christ? <u>Yes it is</u>. We have already said that we think of Christian theism, when we think of Christianity. <u>That covers the whole earth.</u> If we can successfully defend the fortress of Christian theism <u>we have the whole world to ourselves. There is then no standing room left for the enemy.</u> We wage offensive as well as defensive warfare. The two cannot be separated. But we need not leave the fort in order to wage offensive warfare."</span></i><br />
<br />
Ref: <i>Apologetics </i>by CVT.<br />
<br />
Reformed folks who claim to abide by Van Tillian presuppositionalism either clearly do not understand the dominion mindset that is a ***logical*** result of his apologetic, or they refuse to see it.<br />
<br />Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-7081935213454311992013-10-08T18:42:00.000-07:002013-10-08T18:42:03.431-07:00Conference with Doug Wilson, David Vandrunen, and Peter LIllback Check this out. If you were going to go, what questions would you ask, and to whom? I have very specific questions that I would want to ask DVD. I would be curious to know what yours would be. <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For instance: </div>
<div>
(1) please exegetically prove that the Noahic covenant actually is the formal delineation of the common and redemptive kingdom. (I have read both DVD and Kline on this, and surprisingly, this is merely assumed, and never actually proven.)</div>
<div>
(2) If you are saying that we are not to use the Bible in terms of ethical discussions because the non-believer does not submit to the Bible, how does this not logically preclude us from using the Bible for evangelism purposes? Are we not allowed to convict people of their sin in order to lead them to Jesus Christ? How can this conviction of sin be done without using the Bible? </div>
<div>
(3) Please explain using R2K arguments (ie: without the Bible) to an atheist with an evolutionary worldview how the institution of marriage is in fact something that is natural. </div>
<div>
(4) When you say that love, marriage, diligence, morality etc... are not distinctively Christian, how is this consistent with presuppositional epistemology/apologetics, when presupp apologetics outright says that all of these things cannot be accounted for unless the Christian worldview is presupposed? Does that not make those things "distinctively" Christian?<br /><div>
<div>
<br /><div>
<img alt="Conference Details" border="0" height="300" src="http://www.cpcvandalia.com/ref-conf13-2.png" width="400" /><br /><br /><br /><img alt="Conference Details" border="0" height="300" src="http://www.cpcvandalia.com/ref-conf13.png" width="400" /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.cpcvandalia.com/refconf_2013.html">http://www.cpcvandalia.com/refconf_2013.html</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-24420364843572316662013-10-01T20:21:00.000-07:002013-10-01T20:21:09.232-07:00Clarification on govt shutdown and healthcareI wrote this to my family and friends. Please pass this along:<br />
<br />
<div id="yui_3_7_2_1_1380683801368_2192" style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
Family and Friends,<br /><br />As you all are probably aware, the federal govt has "shut down".<br /><br />I have been listening to the news and perusing various news articles on-line, and there is a lot of rubbish, half-truths, and general "the-sky-is-falling" rhetoric that can cloud the real issues and the real situation. </div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_1_1380683801368_2292" style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
Needless to say, it is quite irritating..<br /><br />So, here is a summary of the facts to counter what you may be hearing on the media. Some of you are more well informed than others, so, this message is intended as a blanket message to cover all bases.. those who are political junkies, and those who are not.<br /><br />1) That term "shut-down" is a rather disingenuous to the actual situation. Sometimes, you will also hear the term "partial shut-down." </div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
What does that exactly mean?</div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_1_1380683801368_2294" style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br />Yes, there will be many federal workers that will be on furlough (~800,000).. And yes, that is quite a distressing thing for those federal workers. However, if one is to look at the entirety of the situation, on an aggregate scale, what this "shut down" or "partial shut down" actually means is that 70% of the federal govt (entire civilian fed govt workforce is ~2.5M govt workers, part time and full time) will still be in operation.<br /><br />TSA will still be around, military will be fully paid (the only bill so far that was 100% approved by both houses, and signed by POTUS), and USDA inspectors will still be around. (while FDA inspectors will not be).<br /><br />-So, is it quite distressing that we have people not going to work for the fed? </div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_1_1380683801368_2293" style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
Yes.. of course, as it should be since they are earning a living through the fed govt.<br />However, let's put it in context and understand that the country is not going to implode because the federal govt is "shutting down" partially as some politicians are saying that it will.<br /><br />-Additionally, while it is distressing that these federal workers are not going to be working until this budget issue is resolved, let's not forget that the entire country is struggling with finding quality work to do.. And while the unemployment rate is touted as ~7.3%, the actual figure is closer to ~15%-20% because the 7.3% number does not take into account people who have stopped looking for work or who have been out of a job for a certain length of time..<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
Example: If I lost my job, and I stopped looking, say, after 1 year of searching, does that mean I am no longer unemployed? No, of course not.. But by the definition of "unemployed" by the fed govt, I am no longer "unemployed."<br /><br />With this 7.3%, this translates to 11.3M people.. So, yes, while 800,000 is a big deal, the country itself has been struggling for many years now.. But, the kicker is, once this budget issue is resolved (in about 1-2 months, most likely), all 800,000 people will be able to go back to work, get a paycheck, and get backpay for the months that they were not working.<br /><br />Can we say that about the (actual) 15%-20% that are not working right now?<br />Once Congress passes something, these people will still be out of a job.<br /><br />2) As a house keeping note, please be aware that the fiscal year for the federal govt starts on Oct 1 2013. So, even though it is calendar year 2013, we are technically in the **fiscal year*** 2014 now.<br />So, this is why you are hearing about this stuff now, and this is why it is a big deal around Sep/Oct timeframe every year because this is when Congress is supposed to pass a budget.. </div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
As you can probably understand, this has rarely been the case that proper appropriations and/or a budget have been passed on time.<br /><br />3) What is actually being fought over is what is called the "continuing resolution"... this is a "stop-gap" measure that Congress is supposed to pass to fund the govt for a certain length of time (say, several months).. You may hear that term, or the term "CR"..<br />The purpose of a CR is to fund the govt when there is no formal budget..<br /><br />So, with this budget battle, it was not even a battle for a formalized budget for the entire federal govt, but it was a battle over the CR that is to fund the govt until Thanksgiving... ?????? (I dont know the timeframe, so, please dont hold me to it).<br /><br />4) Even with the whole govt "shutdown", this actually in no way affects the start of the health care implementation. It is still going on as scheduled, and the democrats anticipated that a situation like this would happen.. and so, in the event of a budget fight like this, they made the law in such a way that the law would still be funded, even without a Fiscal Year 2014 appropriated budget... (or FY14 appropriated CR more specifically in this case).<br /><br />Any delay in implementation has to do with technical glitches or overall lack of competence in attempting to implement a program properly and on time...<br /><br />It has nothing to do with the budget battle going on in Capitol Hill, absolutely nothing...<br /><br />5) Initially, the issue for the CR was the House put in a measure to completely defund Obamacare. This obviously crashed and burned in the Senate.<br /><br />6) Before the Senate voted on this first iteration of the House bill, Sen Cruz went on his 21 hour (with help from others) marathon speech.. It was NOT technically a filibuster because whether he did that speech or not, the Senate vote was still going to happen as planned. In Sen Cruz's speech, he mentioned numerous instances of how Obamacare has forced small businesses to cut back their hours and lay off employees, and also to drop their health plans.<br /><br />Please make no mistake, it is because of the health care law that these businesses are suffering these consequences. For instance, UPS has dropped their spouse coverage. You can look it up online...<br /><br />7) Just as importantly, in different ways though, if you listened to Sen Cruz's speech (at least part of it), you will realize that the entire intent behind the health care law is to ultimately go to a single-payer system. Sen Reid has emphatically stated this from the beginning as has Rep Pelosi..<br />Look it up, dont take my word for it.<br /><br />For those who are not familiar with what a single-payer system is, in the end, the federal govt will be who is in charge of running health care.. No private insurance.<br />Do we really want a govt bureaucrat to make decisions about your healthcare, when it should be between you, your doctor and your insurance company?<br /><br />If the federal govt cant even execute building construction properly (and no, they cannot), how could they possibly implement health care properly, when it is infinitely more complex?<br /><br />8) The second, third and fourth iterations that the House passed, which the Senate immediately rejected was over the individual mandate and eliminating the exemption for congress and the president from the health care law.. which of course, the senate summarily rejected generally along party lines.</div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br />In other words, while we regular citizens will be subject to this law, Congress (and staffers) and the President (and his family) will not be...<br /><br />-Please understand that the House did try their earnest to "compromise" while the Senate immediately rejected all attempts, and refused to "negotiate" at all because of the anti-Obamacare legislation.<br />Contrary to what you may be hearing, it isnt the House that is attempting to shut down the govt. Each CR bill that was sent to the Senate included fully funding the entire govt while maintaining an exemption from the individual mandate and eliminating the exemption of the POTUS and congress.. </div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
Now currently, the House is attempting to send separate CR bills to fund separate aspects of the govt piecemeal, and every time, it is expected that Sen Reid will reject these attempts, even though these attempts have nothing to do with the healthcare issue.<br /><br />9) If you think that this is a pro-republican message, you are completely wrong. We are in this mess because of both the mealy-mouthed Republicans and the liberal democrats.<br /><br />10) In the end, if we are to understand that Obamacare is designed to fail so that we can go to a single payer system (which has been flat out admitted by Sen Reid, and Pelosi, among others..) this entire health care debate is about control..<br /><br />It has never been about health care.<br /><br />Control of your life and your health.<br /><br />Prior to Obamacare, 90% of Americans were getting some sort of healthcare. And of that group, 90% liked their healthcare. If this issue was really about healthcare for all, the bill should have only focused on the 10%... not forcing the entire nation to be on some healthcare, while exempting big business, labor unions, and themselves. <br /><br />If the govt funds insurance, they can control whether you get a hip replacement when you are 75 yrs old. For instance, in the military healthcare system, it is already a quasi-Obamacare healthcare. A good friend that I know can tell you about it when she was pregnant with her daughter. Because their experience was so bad, she refused to give birth at Camp Pendleton, and they went all the way to Los Angeles to give birth.<br /><br />And guess who pays for all 300M-350M people's insurance??? You do.. the taxpayer..<br /><br />What right does the govt have to have this kind of control over you?<br />By what moral authority does the govt have to control you in this way?<br /><br />The answer is, they have no authority to control you in this way.. Only through a proper understanding of the authority that Jesus Christ gave to the civil magistrate can we truly and properly understand that govt is to avenge evil, not to control your life by deciding whether you live or die based on whether a medical procedure is too expensive.. <br /><br />In our family worship in the evenings, my family and I pray that God's justice will be done and that God would raise up godly leaders and call upon the church to use its prophetic voice to command all people everywhere (including the govt) to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.<br /><br />So, in conclusion, please consider what I have written above whenever you hear anything about this issue, and I hope that I am helping so that we all can be better informed citizens. Please also call your representatives and let your voice be heard.<br /><br />It is difficult at this time to know how things will play out in terms of these multiple CR bills that will keep getting rejected, but please let your voice be heard. Please urge your representatives to stop controlling us and let us decide what is best for our health and well-being. </div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
Though this current effort in the House does not completely stop Obamacare (partly because the CR's keep getting rejected), it is a step in the right direction.. </div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
A) Please call your congressman, and tell him/her to do what it takes to do away with this law, step by step.. Your reps need to hear from you... Call both repub and democrat... </div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
B) There is an online petition that you can sign: <a href="http://www.dontfundobamacare.com/" rel="nofollow" style="color: #2862c5; outline: 0px;" target="_blank">http://www.dontfundobamacare.com/</a> Over 2M people have already signed. </div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br />C) Knowledge and information is power... These are some good websites for news that actually give you the information you need to make an informed decision.. </div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
www.michaelsavage.com</div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
www.theblaze.com</div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
www.americanvision.org</div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
D) Inform your friends and others you know. You can forward this message. </div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
E) Lastly, let's ask God to execute his justice in this land and that all will repent and believe in Jesus. Let us repent of our sins that have contributed to this mess. </div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_1_1380683801368_2295" style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br />Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your time. </div>
Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-6030617445060870862013-08-31T16:35:00.000-07:002013-08-31T16:45:25.500-07:00All Christians should be transformationalists. A lot of times within the reformed polemical debates concerning the law of God, I think that sometimes, things get lost within the carpet bombing about the logical implications regarding the respective viewpoints or what the logical implications should be.<br />
<br />
Typically, theonomists tend to be the most obvious example of Christian activism along with Neo-Calvinists/Kuyperians. Also, typically, but not exclusively, (R)2K advocates tend to be very neutered in their approach, or even have a refusal or general reluctance at all to be an activist. And then you have folks who are presuppositional, not really theonomists, not Kuyperian, and not really (R)2K, and these folks are all over the map when it comes to activism. John Frame would be an example of this fourth category in that he seems generally pretty vocal (at least in his "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Doctrine-Christian-Life-Theology-Lordship/dp/0875527965/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1377976280&sr=1-3&keywords=John+Frame" target="_blank">Doctrine of the Christian Life</a>"), while some others who are generally in this fourth camp tend to let their "pessimistic" eschatology justify their refusal to be involved, even through their presuppositionalism should belie this attitude of refusal. <br />
<br />
All this to say that even if you are a presuppositionalist (as in the fourth category), this does not necessarily mean that you are a (reformed) transformationalist as a theonomist or a neo-calvinist/kuyperian is.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAwXGDvQwdcbiSv10EJMCYOEp4ZvtnNNL6l8xjMUGxZEsj2E3rDTzqkGl5L259Py2muA8N1QC_-9jA4JuAVwaHMxZHjf-kBc1WY3ezzz_jvCV1mgmn_0zHEedu1zxhLMUKRuU1226RtEw/s1600/Transformer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAwXGDvQwdcbiSv10EJMCYOEp4ZvtnNNL6l8xjMUGxZEsj2E3rDTzqkGl5L259Py2muA8N1QC_-9jA4JuAVwaHMxZHjf-kBc1WY3ezzz_jvCV1mgmn_0zHEedu1zxhLMUKRuU1226RtEw/s1600/Transformer.jpg" /></a> Transformationalism in this sense means as the gospel goes forth, people will be changed in their hearts and minds, and thus culture, politics, economics etc... will gradually conform the moral standards of law of Christ. Transformationalism can (and should) be used to focus externals such as changing legislation. However, it must properly be understood that changing legislation or changing culture isn't an ends to itself but those changes are for the purpose of reflecting God's law publicly as a context to call people to repentance and believe and have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. <br />
It bears repeating: it is important for transformationalists to understand that true transformation comes from the gospel changing hearts. Changed legislation or changed culture can be one of the means by which this is done (law driving to the gospel), but it can also be a result of the gospel changing hearts and behavior (gospel driving people to the law). Additionally, it should again be mentioned that any attempts to change culture or legislation are not the ends to themselves.<br />
<br />
With this definition of transformationalism in mind, it is difficult for me to understand why all Christians are not transformationalist. Some Christians who are anti-transformationalist will say that there is an over-emphasis on worldviews, as if that somehow properly provides a rebuttal against a theonomic or neo-calvinist transformational methodology.<br />
<br />
An overemphasis on worldviews? This is an absolutely strange statement that is being made given what the Bible says concerning the differences between those who belong in Christ and those of the world. A simple reading of 1, 2, 3 John will clearly reveal that John clearly understood that this spiritual conflict between Christians and pagans is reflected by a difference in their respective masters, worldviews (among other things) and subsequent behaviors.<br />
<br />
First, at what point does an emphasis on worldviews become an over-emphasis? And how can we assume that that anti-transformationalist standard for over-emphasis is correct, while the theonomists' isn't? Clearly, this involves a lot of question begging and is logically absurd.<br />
<br />
3 John 7:<span style="color: blue;"><span class="text 3John-1-7" id="en-NIV-30666"><sup class="versenum"> </sup><i>"It was for the sake of the Name that they went out, receiving no help from the pagans.</i></span></span><i><span style="color: blue;">"</span> </i><br />
3 John 11: <span style="color: blue;"><i>"<span class="text 3John-1-11" id="en-NIV-30670">Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God."</span></i></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><i><span class="text 3John-1-11" id="en-NIV-30670"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span></i><span class="text 3John-1-11" id="en-NIV-30670"><span style="color: black;">2 John 7-9: </span></span><i><span class="text 3John-1-11" id="en-NIV-30670"><span class="text 3John-1-11" id="en-NIV-30670">Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. -Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God.</span></span><span class="text 3John-1-11" id="en-NIV-30670"> </span></i></span><br />
1 John 2:9-11:<i> <span style="color: blue;">"<span class="text 1John-2-9" id="en-NIV-30560">Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness.</span> <span class="text 1John-2-10" id="en-NIV-30561">Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble.</span> <span class="text 1John-2-11" id="en-NIV-30562">But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them."</span></span></i><br />
<span class="text 1John-2-15"> 1 John 2: 15-17: <i><span style="color: blue;">"Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them.</span></i></span><i><span style="color: blue;"><span class="text 1John-2-16" id="en-NIV-30567"><sup class="versenum"> </sup>For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world.</span><span class="text 1John-2-17" id="en-NIV-30568"> The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever."</span></span></i><br />
<span class="text 1John-2-17" id="en-NIV-30568"> 1 John 3: 9, 10: <i><span style="color: blue;">"</span></i></span><i><span style="color: blue;"><span class="text 1John-3-9" id="en-NIV-30589">No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.</span><span class="text 1John-3-10" id="en-NIV-30590"><sup class="versenum"> </sup>This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister."</span></span></i><br />
<span class="text 1John-3-10" id="en-NIV-30590"> 1 John 4: 2,3: </span><span style="color: blue;"><i><span class="text 1John-4-2" id="en-NIV-30606">"This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,</span> <span class="text 1John-4-3" id="en-NIV-30607">but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world."</span></i></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><i><span class="text 1John-4-3" id="en-NIV-30607"> </span></i></span><span class="text 1John-4-3" id="en-NIV-30607"><span style="color: black;">1 John 5:18, 19</span>: <i>"</i></span></span><span style="color: blue;"><i><span class="text 1John-4-3" id="en-NIV-30607"><span class="text 1John-5-18" id="en-NIV-30643"><sup class="versenum"></sup>We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them.</span> <span class="text 1John-5-19" id="en-NIV-30644">We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.</span></span><span class="text 1John-4-3" id="en-NIV-30607"></span><span class="text 1John-4-3" id="en-NIV-30607">" </span></i></span><br />
<span class="text 1John-2-11" id="en-NIV-30562"> </span><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8i7RRk_6hJzbDUlH21rn6vND6KTfVKiZK4hJ9oV0j1_RFDfguxzFz7HR861HLqnRpJwkEGYKgZRsnODdq94aUayjiaD-WBcEuUVT_992fzysNUiJNEdRBRn6KalMCf6sXZ7WWuz2l1F4/s1600/wv.jg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8i7RRk_6hJzbDUlH21rn6vND6KTfVKiZK4hJ9oV0j1_RFDfguxzFz7HR861HLqnRpJwkEGYKgZRsnODdq94aUayjiaD-WBcEuUVT_992fzysNUiJNEdRBRn6KalMCf6sXZ7WWuz2l1F4/s200/wv.jg.jpg" width="198" /></a> Even just a cursory glance should show that John labors to tell his audience that there is in fact a distinct contrast between those who are in Christ, and those who are in the world. This difference is due to our union with Christ, while those in the world do what is evil and has not seen God (2 John 9), are still in darkness (1 John 2: 9-11) etc... All of these verses that I quoted can be thought of as differences in worldview and one's subsequent actions/behavior based on his worldview. So, to disparage someone for an "over-emphasis" on contrasting the Christian worldview to the secular worldview should be really be seen as quite inconsistent with the sharp contrasts that John works hard to delineate.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhB0TGMORugqFzkSuMp3-6XVJy7R1v10Wh0by907T3Vyl9ceHjkNqiBvxu4XDp_26XAvsM23wpua3cF4t7UZuU6PRirkeMKBKgNkznA6UtYaUNw4pnB5W6h7ynjFQvaGIiraNUcGAinAbs/s1600/trin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhB0TGMORugqFzkSuMp3-6XVJy7R1v10Wh0by907T3Vyl9ceHjkNqiBvxu4XDp_26XAvsM23wpua3cF4t7UZuU6PRirkeMKBKgNkznA6UtYaUNw4pnB5W6h7ynjFQvaGIiraNUcGAinAbs/s1600/trin.jpg" /></a> Of course, as you pull the logic train backwards and forwards, this delves into other issues involving the ontological Trinity as the true theological axiom of presuppositionalism, and the derivative concept (yet still foundational in certain ways) of the worldview.<br />
<br />
Different situations call for different emphasis in your apologetical methodology. In John's letters, the ontological Trinity is of course assumed but not directly dealt with, and so what is emphasized in the letters is the derivative contrast between a man who has union with Christ (1 John 4:2,3), his resulting worldview based on Christ (1 John 5:19) and his subsequent actions that he commits based that worldview (1 John 3:9, 10) vs. a man who is not of God. <br />
<br />
What does this have to do with (reformed) transformationalism?<br />
<br />
We clearly can see from this that there is a sharp spiritual (1 John 3:9, 10), moral (1 John 5:18, 19), and ethical (1 John 2:15-17) antithesis between the Christian and the non-Christian.<br />
<br />
We clearly can see that the God-hating (Rom 1:30) presuppositions of natural man lead him to sin. We know that sin is breaking of the law of God (1 John 3:4).<br />
<br />
We know that it is the law that provides the proper context for the gospel (and vice versa). We are saved from the curse of the law and God commands us to repent of our disobedience to Him and the law and to submit to him (Acts 2:38). By implication, when in Christ, we submit to his law for our sanctification (Jas 2:8). <br />
We also know that God commands his people to believe in His Son. 1 John 3:23: <i><span style="color: blue;">"<span class="text 1John-3-23" id="en-NIV-30603">And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us."</span></span></i><br />
<br />
<span class="text 1John-3-23" id="en-NIV-30603"> Now then, does God call only on Christians to believe in Him and to repent of their sins (law-breaking)? Or by extension, is He calling on the entire world to believe and repent? </span><br />
<span class="text 1John-3-23" id="en-NIV-30603"><br /></span>
<span class="text 1John-3-23" id="en-NIV-30603"> We should clearly understand that it is the latter. If He is commanding the church to believe in Jesus, He is also commanding the rest of humanity to believe in Christ as well. </span><br />
<span class="text 1John-3-23" id="en-NIV-30603"> </span><br />
<span class="text 1John-3-23" id="en-NIV-30603"> So, as we Christians go out and evangelize, we not only tell people about Christ, but we also tell them about the need to repent of their sins (1 John 3:4) because they have broken His law and to sin no more. On a large scale, as more and more people become converted, they would repent of their sins and change their behavior personally, and their extended behavior as it delves into other areas such as the legislative process and through the arts and general culture. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="text 1John-3-23" id="en-NIV-30603"> This is what true gopsel centered transformationalism should entail and one that every Christian, no matter what polemical stripe he is, should be praying for.</span> Sadly, we know that this isn't the case. But even through this, I know that God will accomplish His will, even with the obstinate and ignorant sheep that we all are.<br />
<br />
Jesus, may your will be done and please come back soon! Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-70065234926670342942013-08-27T15:51:00.002-07:002013-08-27T15:51:15.232-07:00The low information American citizen. What has concerned me for quite some time now is the utter lack of information being purposely left out by such radical leftist "news" organizations such as CNN, and MSNBC. It really bothers me that I have friends and relatives who actually think that these organizations are actually worth their salt in terms of being reputable journalistic organizations.<br />
<br />
<a href="" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" class="rg_i" data-sz="f" height="252" name="MJMtq3jVzKmoRM:" src="" style="border: 0px; display: block; height: 183px; margin-top: -6px; width: 233px;" width="320" /></a> Even if one were to primarily get his news from these sources, if he were a thinking man, he would eventually see that what is not being reported and what is being reported is very noteworthy, which should cause him to search the Internet for other sources of news. There is almost too much information out there on the web, and there are many excellent politically conservative news sources <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/" target="_blank">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.michaelsavage.com/" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://www.wnd.com/" target="_blank">here</a> and even better, <a href="http://www.americanvision.org/" target="_blank">Christian</a> ones as well. There really is no excuse for a person not be informed.<br />
<br />
For example, this whole ridiculous debacle with the George Zimmerman trial, in which the main point behind this was that trial was about race. This is the mantra that the main stream media was pushing, and like docile sheep, so many Americans simply believed it, thereby revealing their intellectual laziness to dig deeper and actually look at the facts of the case. There is a problem in that if you actually looked at the trial and the arguments that the prosecution and the defense were using, neither side used race during the trial, and even the jurors agreed that this trial was not about race. Look it up. Dont take my word for it.<br />
<br />
My point behind this is that a large part of why our country is the way that it is, and a large part of why our Christians have such a weak practice of a strong Christian ethic is that they are constantly being bombarded by mediocre journalism that touts itself as the gold standard. Many Christians don't realize that they are falling into the exact same trap as the pagan, which is using the media as their authority. They may not realize it, but their Christian worldview is so weak and their doctrine so poor, that they simply replace God with the pagan media.<br />
<br />
For example, a Christian man that I know kept telling me how it would be a good idea to enact stricter gun control legislation after the Sandy Hook murders. Reducing the number of rounds in a magazine, and eliminating semi-automatic weapons and only keeping non-semi-automatic weapons. It was obvious to me that he was simply regurgitating the liberal viewpoints without realizing how foolish he was sounding.<br />
<br />
First of all, he has never handled a gun in his entire life, and he speaks as if he is the authority on weapons.. I have handled weapons in the past, so I know what I am talking about. I hope I dont have to belabor the point in terms of the absurdity of what I was dealing with. For those that dont know, whether it is 10 rounds in a magazine or 30 rounds, the amount of damage done with a 10 round magazine is the same as a 30 round magazine as long as the shooter reloads fast enough, and in the Sandy Hook case, the shooter would have been able to reload fast enough. The delay would only have been less than 1 second if he only had 10 round magazines.<br />
<br />
Second, automatic weapons are outright illegal everywhere in the US, and if you have one, even if it is in your home, in your basement, you will go to jail. By definition, if your weapon is not automatic, it is semi-automatic. One pull of the trigger for one firing of a round. To want to ban semi-automatic weapons and only have non semi-automatic weapons is clearly an absurd and grossly uninformed statement.<br />
<br />
Third, the shooter was breaking about just about every gun law on the books.. He wasnt old enough to have a gun, he was bringing guns into a gun-free zone, he took the guns from his mother, he didnt register the guns that he stole from his mom, he concealed the guns in his clothes before the shooting etc... We already have laws in place and my friend simply could not understand that enacting more laws would not have prevented Sandy Hook because the shooter was already breaking so many laws to begin with... laws that were supposedly designed to prevent gun violence.<br />
<br />
Fourth, his entire premise for why we need more gun control is based on the fallacy of cause. It is a basic philosophical/logical concept that items or things do not cause events, it is people who causes these events. By his logic, we should ban certain types of cars and alcohol because DUI's kill pedestrians. Or perhaps ban forks because we ate too much spaghetti and it made us gain so much weight.<br />
<br />
Fifth, this is where the whole idea of media comes in. He was so uninformed and so willing to make the media his God that he didn't know that on that very same day as Sandy Hook, a man in China murdered about the same number of kids with a knife. To be consistent, we should start banning kitchen knives as well. At this point, people would say, that it was the person's fault, not the knife's fault. What is the difference for a gun? Nothing...<br />
<br />
And I havent even begun to talk about the philsophical, theological and constitutional arguments for proper self defense in relation to guns.<br />
<br />
It is amazing how much control the media has on people, and how people have made the media their God, and they will absolutely refuse to listen to other viewpoints because of their authority, the liberal media, is saying something completely opposite to the proper Biblical response.. and this includes low information Christians as well.<br />
<br />
Another example is here. Take a look at the video, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p4Bw9SOQVw&feature=c4-overview&list=UUA8sK_Bba0Eb-k33bD0ldhw" target="_blank">here</a>. You will notice how grossly uninformed these college students are. It concerns me because these people are the ones who will eventually make the decisions in our country as voters and as government officials and whatever other vocation you can think of. These people make decisions based on the narrative of what is being fed to them, not because they ever actually gave the situation any critical thought.<br />
<br />
This should scare you and motivate you to do what you can in your current station in life.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;"> Dont be stupid sheep. </span></b>Be informed so that you can make the most biblically consistent decision possible based on ALL the information that you got from searching and analyzing, not by being intellectually lazy and having things spoon fed for you by the liberal media.<br />
<br />
In theology, it is critical to understand all sides of an issue before making a decision on what particular theological viewpoint you are going to hold.. Calvinism, Arminiasm, Paedobaptism, creedobaptism etc... It should be easy to see why one needs to do this.<br />
Why is this any different for political and cultural issues? The point is that it isnt any different at all.<br />
<br />
<div class="rg_di rg_dii" data-ri="2" i1527="97" i3588="96" style="background-color: #f1f1f1; color: #222222; display: inline-block; font-family: arial, sans-serif; height: 177px; line-height: 15.199999809265137px; margin: 0px 12px 12px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; width: 233px; z-index: 1;">
<a class="rg_l" href="http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&sa=N&biw=1092&bih=524&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbnid=MJMtq3jVzKmoRM:&imgrefurl=http://shiroboi.deviantart.com/art/Stupid-Sheep-97208030&docid=8FLab81PHk_4PM&imgurl=http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs36/i/2008/250/e/f/Stupid_Sheep_by_shiroboi.jpg&w=600&h=473&ei=NCsdUtOYBcy7sATkiYCwAg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:2,s:0,i:96" style="background-color: #cccccc; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #660099; cursor: pointer; display: inline-block; height: 177px; left: 0px; position: absolute; text-decoration: none; width: 233px;"><div class="rg_ilm rg_ilsm" style="bottom: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: white; font-size: 11px; line-height: 11.199999809265137px; right: 0px; white-space: nowrap; width: 233px;">
<div class="rg_ilmbg" style="background-color: rgba(51, 51, 51, 0.8); bottom: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 11px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 2px 4px; position: absolute; right: 0px; width: 233px;">
<span class="rg_ilmn" style="bottom: 0px; display: block; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis;">600 × 473 - shiroboi.deviantart.com</span></div>
</div>
</a></div>
<div class="rg_hv" data-initialized="1" id="rg_h" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 4px 16px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 4px 16px; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 15.199999809265137px; margin: -8px; orphans: auto; padding: 8px; position: fixed; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; visibility: hidden; white-space: normal; widows: auto; width: 233px; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div class="rg_hc uh_hc" id="rg_hc" style="height: 54.599998474121094px; overflow: hidden; width: 233px;">
<div style="position: relative;">
<div class="std" id="rg_hx" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin-top: 3px; width: 233px;">
<div class="rg_hr uh_hs kv" style="color: #009933; display: block; margin: 0px 1px 1px; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 1px; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: normal;">
<span id="rg_hr"></span><span class="pplsrsli" data-docid="MJMtq3jVzKmoRM:" data-imgurl="https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTjcU688AsFS8e0WBbIGRHoNzWh-jvRCen5r66sztse_pw1bhM-sA" data-title="Stupid_Sheep_by_shiroboi.jpg" data-url="http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&sa=N&biw=1092&bih=524&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbnid=MJMtq3jVzKmoRM:&imgrefurl=http://shiroboi.deviantart.com/art/Stupid-Sheep-97208030&docid=8FLab81PHk_4PM&imgurl=http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs36/i/2008/250/e/f/Stupid_Sheep_by_shiroboi.jpg&w=600&h=473&ei=NCsdUtOYBcy7sATkiYCwAg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:2,s:0,i:96" data-ved="1t:3674,r:2,s:0" id="srsl_MJMtq3jVzKmoRM:" jsaction="srl.si" style="color: #aaaaaa; cursor: pointer; display: inline; margin-left: 5px; text-decoration: none;"></span></div>
<div class="rg_hn uh_hn st" id="rg_hn" style="line-height: 1.24; margin: 0px 1px -1px; max-height: 2.4em; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 1px;">
</div>
<div class="rg_ha uh_ha osl" id="rg_ha_osl" style="color: #777777; margin: 4px 1px -1px; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 1px; white-space: nowrap;">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-41615600184700209942013-08-25T15:09:00.000-07:002013-08-31T11:49:14.003-07:00Is murder a crime against man or against God? One of the common arguments against having civil government enforce the first table of the decalogue, in addition to the second table is that the first table involves our duty towards God while the second table involves duty towards man. The idea is that govt was made for man and that it isn't the govt's place to "enforce" religion by enforcing the first table of the law. <br />
The reasoning goes that civil government is obligated to enforce the second table of the Decalogue because this is what is reflected in nature and "common" to all man.<br />
Predictably, this type of reasoning is full of flaws and sloppy reasoning. I will focus on a few points.<br />
<br />
Most people would recognize that murder is wrong, whether Christian or non-Christian., it is "common" among both. The reasoning then goes on to say that therefore, this is an acceptable crime for the government to address, and it certainly isn't a "religious" crime, since it is a "common" crime. Before I go on, unfortunately, it is not as "common" as people think to say that murder is wrong.. Why do we still have abortion then? And we have top abortion advocates finally admitting that the "fetus" is a human being and yet they still advocate abortion!<br />
<br />
While we can certainly understand that killing without justifiable provocation (murder) is wrong, the ultimate normative b<span style="font-family: inherit;">asis behind why murder is wrong is that it is an assault on the image of God. In Gen 9:6, we read: <span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: blue;"><b>“Whoever sheds human blood, </b></span></span></span><span style="color: blue;"><b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">by humans shall their blood be shed; </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">for in the image of God </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">has God made mankind."</span></b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><b>
The entire reason that death penalty for murder is instituted is that murder is wrong because that man was made in the image of God, and that image is being destroyed when one is being murdered. </b><br />
<br />
This point is an important one that seems to be overlooked so often. This is exactly why there is a fundamental difference between killing an ant when it is eating our food versus killing a human being because he looked at you in a grumpy way.<br />
<br />
Atheists will say that murder is wrong because it is wrong to harm another person. This is certainly true. But ***why*** is it wrong to harm another person? The atheist at this point has no answer. If it were wrong to kill another person simply because it is wrong, that is question begging and it's his word against another atheist's. Who is to say that Atheist A is correct while Atheist B is not? Without the normative standard of God's law as revealed to us in the Bible, we would never properly know.<br />
<br />
At this point, many R2K-ers will also say that we don't need the Bible to tell us that murder is wrong because of Gen 9:6 and how this is something that was naturally placed in our hearts to understand and know. This line of reasoning is fallacious.<br />
It seems ironic to me that an R2K-er will tell me that we cannot use the Bible to say that murder is wrong to the non-Christian and he will cite justification for doing so ***using the Bible***. How can one use the Bible to justify not using the Bible? That is like trying to prove that I dont know how to speak English by using all of my reasoning in the English language.<br />
Secondly, I wrote above that the ultimate reason that murder is wrong is because of Gen 9:6 (the image of God). R2K arguments, which refuse to actually use the Bible in the public square, would have a hard time informing the atheist that murder is wrong when they refuse to actually give the non-Christian the primary and ultimate reason as to why it is wrong in the first place.<br />
Thirdly, how would the R2K-er have even known the proper concept that there actually is such a thing as things being revealed in nature if it weren't for the Bible? Consistent atheism does not understand that anything is revealed in nature. All they see is that nature is what it is.. Christians do understand that things are revealed in nature, because of what they read in the Bible (Rom 1). R2K attempts to prove revelation in nature without using the Bible when the only way that we could possibly know that there is revelation in nature is because the Bible says so! And yet, R2K refuses to acknowledge the very reason for the very concept of revelation in nature. <br />
<br />
It concerns me that R2K refuses to understand the utter incoherence of its theological methodology.<br />
<br />
Remember when Saul was murdering Christians in Acts. From a "purely civil" perspective, this would generally be seen as a crime against another human. However, if you notice in Acts 9:4, when Jesus is talking to Saul, the first thing that Jesus says isnt, "Why are you persecuting my people?", the first and actually the only thing that Jesus says is: "<span style="color: blue;">Why are you persecuting ME</span>?". Jesus reiterates this when he responds to Saul's question about who He is. Jesus repeats his assertion that Saul was persecuting him by responding "<span style="color: blue;">I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.</span>".<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note that Jesus is implying that every time Saul had killed Christians, he was actually and ultimately persecuting Jesus. Of course, Jesus understood that Saul was directly hurting His followers, and yet, it is noteworthy that Jesus never mentions to Saul about persecuting his followers, but that Saul was persecuting Him!<br />
<br />
This is noteworthy because although murder and persecution are commonly seen today as crimes primarily against the individual from a temporal perspective, we see that the Bible doesnt view these crimes first and foremost from the temporal perspective.<br />
<br />
We see that the Bible views the sins of murder and persecution FIRST AND FOREMOST as heinous acts against the Triune God. Notice how in Gen 9:6, and in Acts 9:4, what is mentioned is that these sins are against God (image of God: Gen, and Jesus: Acts), and there is no justification mentioned for these crimes being wrong because of their effect on man.<br />
<br />
In other words, when we are talking about murder, the standard as to why it is wrong is that it is an assault on the image of God. Through the secondary means of murdering a fellow man, this assault on the image of God is brought to bear. God clearly understands that murder is an assault on a fellow human, but He doesnt mention that as the reason for why murder is wrong in Gen 9:6. Yes, murdering someone is wrong.. (secondary means)... But why is it wrong? Because it destroys the image of God (primary).<br />
If man were the first and foremost reason as to why murder is wrong, Gen 9:6 would have been stated differently and focused on the harm done to man, and not the harm done to God.<br />
<br />
And more specifically, when talking about the state or any person persecuting Christians, they are in fact persecuting Jesus, through the secondary means of harming his followers.<br />
<br />
I am hoping that through this example of murder, we can see that it isn't simply a "civil" crime that has no religious significance, but in fact has as much religious significance as idol worship or blasphemy. (I also seem to remember certain non-Israelite nations (who did not directly have the law of Moses) being blotted out for their idolatry even though they were not specifically told that idolatry is wrong.........).. We can see implications of this on not just murder in general, but on other issues such as abortion. With this in mind, we should never grow cold towards abortion.<br />
<br />
Finally, for the persecution example, we see that there is murder or other hateful actions being done towards Christians, but our Lord looks at this persecution FIRST AND FOREMOST not as an assault on his followers, but on HIM.<br />
<br />
It really does concern me, and to be honest, it angers me, when I see Christians and church leaders refusing to speak out and take practical steps towards fighting against this persecution through prayer, and loving Christian action towards calling people to repent and believe in the Lord.. and other non-traditional things such as blogging and other forms of information transmission through various other media.<br />
<br />
In effect, the message that is being said when churches refuse to speak out and take action is: We find it acceptable for you the state, other people etc.. to continue to persecute Jesus by passing laws and bullying Christians to be silent, compromise our faith, and ultimately make us sin against our Lord.<br />
<br />
It is unfortunate that people don't see that the implications of refusing to speak out is that we are allowing the persecution not just Jesus' followers but persecution of JESUS himself to be accepted.<br />
<br />
How is it that a Christian is now somehow regarded as being orthodox (R2K) by refusing to speak out and ultimately therefore allowing Jesus to be persecuted as opposed to not allowing him to be persecuted but honored and feared (theonomic, or at least Kuiperian)?<br />
<br />
When did Christendom and supposed bastions of the reformed faith become so terribly backwards?Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-24981160140801368452013-08-15T16:58:00.001-07:002013-08-16T15:08:50.978-07:00A fraud of the worst kind. <span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">If you have been keeping any sort of passive watch on the whole homosexuals in the military issue, you probably have come across the name of Lt. Dan Choi. Here is a picture of him.</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px; text-align: center;">
<a data-ved="0CAUQjRw" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/09/dadt-repeal-activist-lt-d_n_455366.html" id="irc_mil" style="border: 0px; color: #6699cc; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img height="150" id="irc_mi" src="http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/139722/original.jpg" style="-webkit-background-size: 21px; -webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098) 0px 5px 35px; background-image: linear-gradient(45deg, rgb(239, 239, 239) 25%, transparent 25%, transparent 75%, rgb(239, 239, 239) 75%, rgb(239, 239, 239)), linear-gradient(45deg, rgb(239, 239, 239) 25%, transparent 25%, transparent 75%, rgb(239, 239, 239) 75%, rgb(239, 239, 239)); background-position: 0px 0px, 10px 10px; background-size: 21px; border: 0px; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098) 0px 5px 35px; margin-top: 59px; position: relative;" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
He is a West Point graduate, fluent in Arabic, an infantry officer, an Iraq war veteran, and homosexual. He made a big deal about it by announcing his homosexuality on the Rachel Maddow show, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiWSPdRGvC0" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">here</a>. And he is a very eloquent and powerful orator. </div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
He is probably one of the most outspoken and passionate supporters of homosexual rights and for the repeal of DADT. </div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
Anyone who has not been in the military would be easily impressed by his seemingly solid educational, professional and military qualifications. And of course, he milks it for all its worth, detailing his troubles for being homosexual and in the military. Of course, this is to highlight the unfairness of DADT and how outstanding officers like him live in the shadows because of DADT. </div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
And through the Rachel Maddow show (herself a lesbian), he announces who he really is and subsequently, he gets kicked out of the military. To any average person, this would seem like an immense travesty of obscenely epic proportions. </div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
How can such <b>outstanding warrior</b> possibly kicked out for something as minor as his sexual preference!?!?!?!?!?</div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
This post is not about the direct issue of DADT or homosexuals in the military, although it can easily be about that. And really, this particular post should resonate with those that were for the repeal of DADT. </div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
Lt. Dan Choi is the perfect example of utter media bias, and totally slanting the scales to his favor to make his position seem noble and righteous. I will attempt to show you that he is nothing but a big fraud and that this should be a warning to anyone from whatever side of DADT you come down on. </div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
1) You will notice that Dan Choi's rank is 1st Lt. As you come out of West Point, you are commissioned as a 2nd Lt. (Paygrade of Officer 1, O1). Therefore, his paygrade at the time that he went on Maddow's show is O2 (1st Lt).<br />While most people wouldn't think anything of this, I caught on to this immediately. </div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
If you notice, he graduated West Point in 2003, and he went on to the Maddow show in 2009. In the area of military promotions, if you are an O1, in almost exactly 2 years, you will make O2.. And, unless you serious were extremely poor in your performance or got a DUI or accidentally killed someone, you will make O3 (Army Captain) two years after you made O2. </div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
So, by May 2007, Dan Choi should have been Captain Dan Choi, and not Lt Dan Choi. </div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
It is convenient that no one ever has brought this up. How could such a super soldier like Choi have gotten passed over for O3? Remember, he didnt announce his homosexuality until 2009, well after 2007 when he should have made O3. </div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
Again, the only way that he could not have made O3 is if he had some of really really egregious performance problems, got a DUI or killed someone accidentally. </div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
2) You would also hear that he is a "combat veteran" from the Iraq war. Really? How could one possibly tell whether a soldier has been in combat? In the military, you can tell by the particular decorations that that person is wearing on his uniform. In the Navy and Marine Corps, it is simply a ribbon called the Combat Action ribbon. </div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
<a href="https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR3ECF0F8eW3kowAHeIAHDOcTzoCAjCVqTv9sXlPEPJeW1CFgjABQ" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; color: #6699cc; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img border="0" class="rg_i" data-src="https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR3ECF0F8eW3kowAHeIAHDOcTzoCAjCVqTv9sXlPEPJeW1CFgjABQ" data-sz="f" name="wNTueUyZq-DI1M:" src="https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR3ECF0F8eW3kowAHeIAHDOcTzoCAjCVqTv9sXlPEPJeW1CFgjABQ" style="border: 0px; display: block; height: 214px; margin-top: -2px; position: relative; width: 160px;" /></a>In the Army, it is an actual badge, either the Combat Action badge (for non-infantry soldiers) or the Combat Infantryman badge (infantry).. Basically, you must have been actually engaging the enemy (taking fire and returning fire) in order to rate the CIB. What does Dan Choi have on his uniform? </div>
<div class="rg_ilm rg_ilsm" style="background-color: white; bottom: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: white; display: inline !important; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 11px; right: 0px; white-space: nowrap; width: 160px;">
<div class="rg_ilmbg" style="background-color: rgba(51, 51, 51, 0.8); bottom: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline !important; font-size: 11px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 2px 4px; position: absolute; right: 0px; width: 160px;">
<span class="rg_ilmn" style="bottom: 0px; display: inline !important; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis;">435 × 580 - benbakerphoto.com</span></div>
</div>
<div class="rg_hv" data-initialized="1" id="rg_h" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 4px 16px; background-color: white; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 4px 16px; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 19px; margin: -8px; padding: 8px; position: fixed; visibility: hidden; width: 160px;">
<div class="rg_hc uh_hc" id="rg_hc" style="height: 55.1875px; overflow: hidden; width: 160px;">
<div style="position: relative;">
<div class="std" id="rg_hx" style="font-size: small; margin-top: 3px; width: 160px;">
<div class="rg_hr uh_hs kv" style="color: #009933; margin: 0px 1px 1px; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 1px; text-overflow: ellipsis;">
<span id="rg_hr"></span><span class="pplsrsli" data-docid="wNTueUyZq-DI1M:" data-imgurl="https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR3ECF0F8eW3kowAHeIAHDOcTzoCAjCVqTv9sXlPEPJeW1CFgjABQ" data-title="Dan Choi.jpeg" data-url="http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=701&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbnid=wNTueUyZq-DI1M:&imgrefurl=http://www.benbakerphoto.com/news.php&docid=EJ2gHkYW-d4OSM&imgurl=http://benbakerphoto.com/assets/images/Dan%252520Choi.jpeg&w=435&h=580&ei=AGgNUpj_F4Wi4APu3IG4Ag&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:28,s:0,i:183" data-ved="1t:3674,r:28,s:0" id="srsl_wNTueUyZq-DI1M:" jsaction="srl.si" style="color: #aaaaaa; cursor: pointer; display: inline; margin-left: 5px;"></span></div>
<div class="rg_hn uh_hn st" id="rg_hn" style="line-height: 1.24; margin: 0px 1px -1px; max-height: 2.4em; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 1px;">
</div>
<div class="rg_ha uh_ha osl" id="rg_ha_osl" style="color: #777777; margin: 4px 1px -1px; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 1px; white-space: nowrap;">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
You will notice that he does NOT have the CIB on his uniform. It would be the top badge above his rectangle ribbons on his left breast. </div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
3) Typically, when you attend a service academy, you incur a ~5 year obligation for all of the money that they spent on you. He transferred in 2008 to the reserves. But what is strange is that he STILL is a 1st Lt in the reserves and has not been promoted after O2. Usually, when you go into the reserves after having been passed over, you usually promote to the next rank in the reserves. </div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
So, while I don't doubt his ability in speaking Arabic (he is actually very good), a little digging into his military history would yield a person who has never been in combat, and performed so poorly or did something so stupid that he couldnt get promoted to O3, and couldnt even get promoted in the reserves.. Keep in mind also that he came in during the height of the Iraq war when infantry officers were in high demand, and promotions to O3 were very robust.. (~over 90% selection)... </div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
Funny how the media doesn't mention any of this. Again, regardless of your position on DADT, Dan Choi, while seeming to be the poster child warrior victim of DADT, was nothing but a big fraud who couldnt get promoted during a time of over 90% promotion rate, and has never been in combat while touting himself as a combat veteran. </div>
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.199999809265137px; line-height: 16px;">
That's like having Michael Horton doing all of this White Horse Inn ministry stuff and then we all find out later that he never actually got a PhD, all the while touting his academic and theological credentials.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-55877587310607513022013-08-15T15:20:00.000-07:002013-08-15T15:20:25.666-07:00Investigation into R2K. The RCUS is a small continental reformed denomination. When I was visiting Nebraska, I visited a RCUS church, and I somehow got to talking with the pastor about R2K. <div>
He generally told me that the RCUS is a "1K" denomination (and more kuyperian, as opposed to theonomic), although he suspected that there may be some closeted "R2K-ers". He also said that most ministers in the RCUS tend to be amill, while he specifically was post-mil. As a matter of fact, he got his MDIV from Bahnsen Theological Seminary, and studied under Bahnsen himself. </div>
<div>
One of the classis (presbytery-equivalent) of the RCUS wrote a report on the doctrine of R2K, and it lays out a pretty good summary of the R2K doctrine as held by Meredith Kline (arguably the forefather of the R2K movement), and Van Drunen and Horton. I am a little surprised that RS Clark was not mentioned at all but I think that the essence of this erroneous doctrine was captured quite clearly by examining the other three men. </div>
<div>
Pastor McAtee posted the relevant portion of the classis report on his blog, and the gist of the RCUS viewpoint is that the doctrine is quite a concern for its various theological points, and further study by the classis was recommended. </div>
<div>
I find this to be step in the right direction. Although the RCUS is not as big as, say, the PCA, I still think that it should have enough influence that other presbyterian / reformed denominations would be able to take notice that this effort is going on (such as the URC). I doubt that the PCA will ever produce a report like this, given the fact that they can't even properly denounce aberrant doctrines of creationism (i.e. theistic evolution), or even something just as obvious as federal vision. \</div>
<div>
May the RCUS continue in this bold way and denounce it for the dangerous and cowardly doctrine that it is, while the PCA and sadly, even the OPC, have not only tolerated it but have fully accepted it in certain presbyteries. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://ironink.org/2013/08/rcus-classis-west-reports-on-r2k-is-the-noose-tightening-on-r2k/">http://ironink.org/2013/08/rcus-classis-west-reports-on-r2k-is-the-noose-tightening-on-r2k/</a></div>
Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-7188093620882106752013-08-04T13:43:00.000-07:002013-08-31T11:49:26.240-07:00Baptism, Church membership and Communion If you have been in a reformed/presbyterian church for any length of time, you may have noticed a fairly wide range of practices (unfortunately) of the administration of the Lord's supper.<br />
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyPpEsEFDlM54Hu_yXcgAIc8uzInrqC-ve3ckMoRKUPt5PYS4kYlaQpdGc_tdplCygwTWcZvXfraSmf3_pTXbZ59qzkwKU6JeY1D4Pfrpg09KtSophLl9tlh4PaF_HVk99SAX-FBNibzhn/s1600/baptism_communion.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyPpEsEFDlM54Hu_yXcgAIc8uzInrqC-ve3ckMoRKUPt5PYS4kYlaQpdGc_tdplCygwTWcZvXfraSmf3_pTXbZ59qzkwKU6JeY1D4Pfrpg09KtSophLl9tlh4PaF_HVk99SAX-FBNibzhn/s320/baptism_communion.jpg" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.498039) 1px 1px 5px; background-color: white; border: none; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.498039) 1px 1px 5px; color: #ffeecc; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; padding: 8px; position: relative;" width="320" /></a> (1) Some reformed churches will require an interview from you (if you are a visitor) and then they hand you some sort of token coin so that you can show it and then you can then take communion during the service. </div>
<div>
(2) Some churches will "fence" the table by declaring a solemn warning to those who partake by quoting 1 Cor 11:29 to ensure that those who take communion understand its significance lest they simply eat and drink judgment upon themselves. Along with this warning from 1 Cor 11:29, the minister will typically say something like... "if you have been baptized and are a member in good standing of a reformed or evangelical church, you may participate etc...".</div>
<div>
(3) And other reformed churches will simply say something like this: "If you are a Christian, this table is for you. There is nothing more required to come to the table."</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
View (3) is probably the loosest and most careless approach to administering communion. There are absolutely no restrictions and the "requirements" are so broad that it can easy to fall into the trap of what Paul warns in 1 Cor 11:29. </div>
<div>
View (1) is probably the strictest and **seemingly** the most biblically consistent, yet has great practical danger of preventing those to come to the table, say, for people who happened to come a little bit late to service at a reformed church and didnt get a chance to interview with the elders. And so it could possibly be argued that that church has now denied communion when it had no authority to do so. </div>
<div>
View (2) attempts to strike a "middle ground" in that it gives the solemn warning of who can take communion, but for the most part, leaves it up to the individual. While the middle ground seems to be a good balance, this can be especially problematic for visitors who have not been baptized and are not members of any church, and yet willfully ignore the minister's warning and take communion. I have seen this happen before. I have even brought this up to the members themselves, and my admonishments were ignored. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
View (3) does not make any attempt to do justice whatsoever to 1 Cor 11:29, and because of that, is clearly a practice that needs to be abandoned. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
While view (1) and view (2) both have the same understanding of the theological reasons for communion and the requirements by the believer to come to the table, both have lent themselves to different practices that in certain situations can lead to certain practical difficulties. Those practical difficulties in and of themselves are not reasons for the validity of that particular practice, but it is something to be conscious of when attempting to administer communion. I personally would be comfortable worshipping at a church that holds to either view. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Regarding the outward practice of view (1) and view (2), they both presuppose that the member (or visitor) **must** be baptized and a member in good standing at a church before partaking in communion. Why is this significant? Why is this even necessary?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We understand that baptism is now the New Covenant sign and seal of the covenant believer (replacing circumcision), and membership in the visible and local church is a natural extension and visible representation of your membership in the invisible church. Baptism is something that is implicitly understood as being required. </div>
<div>
Membership is presupposed when the NT letters talk about submitting to your church leaders, and praying for them, and when Paul talks about church correction/discipline issues in other parts of 1 Cor. One cannot be corrected by the church leadership if he has not formally acknowledged and submitted to that leadership through the process that we now recognize as the church membership process. A session (or consistory) would not start the discipline process on a one-time church visitor. If that visitor simply started attending the church for the next several months, is there anything inherently different regarding his status in relation to the church session compared to him visiting that first time? No.. There is no difference. Hence, this is why the attender would need to formally take that step in acknowledging the session's leadership in his spiritual walk and through this acknowledgement, he is now a member of that church. </div>
<div>
It is important to realize that the way that the NT understands baptism and membership is that both are presupposed for every Christian to undergo. Those two things are so basic that it is unthinkable for the NT to consider a Christian not to have undergone baptism or formally submitted to a body of presbyters at a local church. For a Christian to not have done these two things is in fact a grave sin. It is amazing to me that the wonderful sign and seal that God gives us today is willfully ignored by many evangelicals and its significance and the seriousness of being physically set apart is not properly understood. </div>
<div>
This is a big reason as to why the warning is given before communion for the partaker to be baptized and member in good standing. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
While all of this above is correct, is there anything analogous from the OT that we can draw to support from? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In fact, yes, there is. If we look at Exodus 12:48, the Lord gave Passover restrictions to Israel, here in particular talking about foreigners. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: blue;"> <span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> <b> "<span class="text Exod-12-48" id="en-NIV-1865" style="background-color: white;">A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span>’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land.<span class="crossreference" style="vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-NIV-1865CC" title="See cross-reference CC">CC</a>)"></span> No uncircumcised<span class="crossreference" style="vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-NIV-1865CD" title="See cross-reference CD">CD</a>)"></span> male may eat it.</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span><span class="text Exod-12-49" id="en-NIV-1866" style="background-color: white;">The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner<span class="crossreference" style="vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-NIV-1866CE" title="See cross-reference CE">CE</a>)"></span> residing among you.”</span></b></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span class="text Exod-12-49" style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> For various theological reasons, I don't hold to the fact that the Passover is the OT "version" of the Lord's supper, although there are some parallels in terms of the foreshadowing of Christ in Passover and how Christ is fully revealed and celebrated in the supper. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> However, what is clear is that the Passover was a religious ordinance that was commanded and the Supper is a religious ordinance that is commanded. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> What was the requirement for one to participate in the Passover? If you notice in the passage, he must first be circumcised. And we understand that circumcision, in addition to being a sign and seal, also then meant visible entrance into the covenant community of Israel. This was a requirement for Passover for the native born as well as the foreigner who was not originally from the land. Notice that a foreigner was allowed to stay and participate in the cultural (civil) dimension and realm of Israel, and yet was not allowed to participate in the cultic (religious) dimension of Israel if he was not circumcised. (Among other things, this contradicts the false notion that "church" and "state" in Israel were merged.)</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> I think that it should become clear as to the parallels between the requirements for Passover, and how this carries over into the NT as it applies to the Lord's supper. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> For those who were from the land (and eventually those who came as foreigners), it was presupposed that they would all be circumcised. Therefore, they would have received the sign and seal, and by default, the physical reflection of their receiving the sign and seal and therefore being set apart is to be (a member) in the covenant community (visible). Passover was a cultic meal that was meant only for the (visible) covenant community to set Israel apart from the Egyptians (at the time) that they belonged to God (among other things). Those foreigners who were not circumcised did not perform this ceremony in order to enter into the (visible) covenant community, and therefore, were not privy to enter into the covenant meal ceremony for those in the covenant. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> In the same way, we should see that this concept of entrance into the visible covenant community (local church) is through the ceremony of baptism initially, and declaration of membership (say, if someone moves somewhere else but is already baptized), exactly the same intent as circumcision was in the OT. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span class="text Exod-12-49" style="background-color: white;"> Therefore, the foreigner in Israel who was not circumcised did not have the sign and seal, and was not physically set apart. Because of his non-participation in circumcision, he is not part of the covenant community (visible) and therefore was not a member of the covenant community, and was not allowed to participate in the covenant meal of Passover. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span class="text Exod-12-49" style="background-color: white;">In the same way, a Christian who is not baptized does not have the sign and seal, and is not physically set apart. Because of his non-participation in baptism, he is not part of the covenant community (visible) and therefore, **should not** be a member of the covenant community (local church). So, he is not allowed to participate in the covenant meal of communion. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span class="text Exod-12-49" style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span class="text Exod-12-49" style="background-color: white;"> This understanding of the relation between baptism, church membership and communion is sadly not properly understood in light of what baptism and membership really mean, and more fundamentally, its OT basis. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span class="text Exod-12-49" style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span class="text Exod-12-49" style="background-color: white;"> Also just as sadly, there are many churches today who have no concept of baptism and have a weak view and sometimes flat out wrong understanding of what the requirements (faith AND baptism) are for membership. This leads to other practical, yet gravely theological at the same time, difficulties in which a Christian is a "member in good standing" at a church but has not actually been baptized. In this situation, the membership, while ***temporally*** valid with regards to that local church's membership requirements (simply a declaration of faith), is not ***theologically*** valid with regards to the biblical requirements of faith plus baptism. This Christian then moves to another city and starts taking communion at a church simply because he thinks that his membership is truly valid, when all this time, he is committing the sins in 1 Cor 11:29 that Paul so strongly warns us about. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span class="text Exod-12-49" style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span class="text Exod-12-49" style="background-color: white;"> May God continue to raise up godly churches that cherish and teach our sacraments and what exactly sacred church membership really requires. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span class="text Exod-12-49" style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
</div>
Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-40650086817393382992013-07-12T15:49:00.000-07:002013-07-12T15:49:41.417-07:00Before you plunk down $5 for a box of Girl Scout cookies...<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjljjh0uEI7D8XgBPhCSgkXvQQxwwWbCK8JL2KX-f9D4F1NGYwe4-Xtof-i_JzW0RR27_pALW_kIOEPJ5kc4U6_ZqyD_HS3fXm-Zy-y-SjW4hNrZSJMwRZEoomtV01hAsUSWCYo5q6M9XA/s1600/GSA+cookies.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjljjh0uEI7D8XgBPhCSgkXvQQxwwWbCK8JL2KX-f9D4F1NGYwe4-Xtof-i_JzW0RR27_pALW_kIOEPJ5kc4U6_ZqyD_HS3fXm-Zy-y-SjW4hNrZSJMwRZEoomtV01hAsUSWCYo5q6M9XA/s200/GSA+cookies.jpg" width="186" /></a> No doubt the blogosphere has lit up like a Christmas tree concerning the Boy Scouts acceptance of sodomy... What shouldn't go un-noticed is the Girl Scouts as well. Think about what is happening to the Girl Scouts before you buy a box of their fat pills...<br />
You will notice that in the article, once again, the authority of the parent is being undermined... all in the name of disgusting free sex for teenage girls. If you have daughters in Girl Scouts, get them out of that organization.<br />
After I found out about what the Girl Scouts are so willing to do to<br />
our daughters, I made a strict stance against buying and eating any of their cookies.<br />
No way will my daughter ever be joining the Girl Scouts. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/18/girl-scout-sex-guide/">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/18/girl-scout-sex-guide/</a><br />
<br />
<br />Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-49764612859926357532013-07-10T15:07:00.003-07:002013-07-10T15:07:41.412-07:00Signing a petition.This is very chilling. This should serve as a reminder for what we as Christians must do to educate ourselves and our children to be thinking members of society. This also serves to remind us how we should be reaching out to those around us. <br /><br />
<a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/09/watch-and-weep-heres-a-video-of-people-signing-a-petition-to-repeal-the-bill-of-rights/">http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/09/watch-and-weep-heres-a-video-of-people-signing-a-petition-to-repeal-the-bill-of-rights/</a>Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-47719620169985292472013-07-08T05:56:00.001-07:002013-07-08T05:56:47.178-07:00The thought policeThe church has nothing to say about this issue to the police or in the public square. We must willingly let the state run over Christians and their faith. We must intentionally be cowardly and not bold, and not speak out for justice. The church cannot speak out against these kinds of acts against preachers. <br />
<br />
Christianity has not authority over politics. It is entirely acceptable for atheists to tell us how to think, yet it is entirely rude and unloving for Christians to tell others how to think, even though we have normative truth and a fully epistemologically consistent worldview while the atheists cannot account for their knowledge or ethics. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10159420/Christian-arrested-for-calling-homosexuality-a-sin-warns-of-real-life-thought-police.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10159420/Christian-arrested-for-calling-homosexuality-a-sin-warns-of-real-life-thought-police.html</a><span id="goog_389320839"></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/"></a><span id="goog_389320840"></span>Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-8568790622230435032013-07-03T19:50:00.000-07:002013-07-03T19:50:57.486-07:00Fourth of July<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIMiPm7UXzInQBaA9k34AJVLsJPbAB8dhcJMTsZAyjk-TKB2gogu_-Yw4PoVdOa4GXnnthxtIP7MohZCjXVawwVxg2qmEtznf0b89qt9MLqzrhDOhA8sDKUJ4Qh3SlP45tyAeuLrA7VWM/s249/170px-Thomas_Jefferson_rev.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIMiPm7UXzInQBaA9k34AJVLsJPbAB8dhcJMTsZAyjk-TKB2gogu_-Yw4PoVdOa4GXnnthxtIP7MohZCjXVawwVxg2qmEtznf0b89qt9MLqzrhDOhA8sDKUJ4Qh3SlP45tyAeuLrA7VWM/s249/170px-Thomas_Jefferson_rev.jpg" /></a>This is a letter that I sent to my family. Hopefully, for the readers out there, you can do this as well:<br />
------------------------------------------------ <br />
Hello Family, <br /><br />As we go into the Fourth of July holiday, I hope that everyone has some good rest and relaxation. <br /><br />A family tradition that my family will be starting this year is to read the Declaration of Independence on 4th of July. <br />It didn't work out so well last year for various logistical reasons. <br /><br />http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/<br /><br />I decided that this would be appropriate, obviously given the nature of the holiday. <br />But
more than that, it will remind my family just what exactly were the
issues that brought about the revolution that started our country
officially as the united States (plural)... (as opposed to what we now
call the United States (singular)). <br />
<div id="yui_3_7_2_1_1372905000095_4166">
<br /></div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_1_1372905000095_4167" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal;">
As we read through the
Declaration, we will be reminded of the strains and stresses that the
British empire was putting on the colonies and how the role of something
as seemingly mundane as taxes had played such a foundational motivation
for our revolution. The colonists understood that the issue was not
about taxes in and of itself, but the issue was about control, and what
authority the British had over the colonists. </div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_1_1372905000095_4168" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_1_1372905000095_4169" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal;">
Even
in Presbyterian churches of that day, there was debate on whether it
was exactly biblical to be rebelling against the British government,
when this issue is understood in light of Romans Ch 13,
in which Paul calls the civil magistrate a minister of God.. (Hence,
this is why for instance, in the British govt today, we still refer to
top officials as ministers... or for instance, the prime minister. It is
the borrowed Christian capital that Britain is still using...)</div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_1_1372905000095_4170" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_1_1372905000095_4171" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal;">
Ultimately,
the presbyterians decided that it was, in this exceptional
circumstance, appropriate to rebel given the fact that the magistrate
rejected his implied obligation in accordance to Rom 13. </div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_1_1372905000095_4176" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_1_1372905000095_4175" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal;">
I understand that there is some debate on whether the Declaration was
actually signed on July 4 etc... But, for simplicity's sake, it seems
easy to do it on July 4, since that is what is generally recognized
today. </div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_1_1372905000095_4174" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_1_1372905000095_4173" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal;">
In
any event, as citizens, and for those who are Christian on this list,
may I encourage you to take this same practice of reading the
Declaration of Independence on July 4? And through this reading, you can
understand just how much of a principled stand our forefathers took,
and it should hopefully help us examine our own current political
context and how the war that happened several hundred years ago is
relevant to us today.</div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_1_1372905000095_4173" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_1_1372905000095_4173" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal;">
Chris Lee</div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_1_1372905000095_4173" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal;">
</div>
Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-26694523658147861992013-07-01T22:15:00.001-07:002013-07-01T22:15:43.789-07:00Being salt and light.<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> In Matthew 5, our Lord commanded his disciples (and of course, by extension, us) to be salt and light of the world. In Matt. 5:13-16 --></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><b> <i><span style="color: blue;"> "<span class="versenum" style="background-color: white; vertical-align: top;">13 </span><span style="background-color: white;">“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.</span></span></i></b></span><br />
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><b><span class="text Matt-5-14" id="en-NIV-23249"><span class="versenum" style="vertical-align: top;">14 </span>“You are the light of the world.<span class="crossreference" style="vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-NIV-23249R" title="See cross-reference R">R</a>)"></span> A town built on a hill cannot be hidden.</span> <span class="text Matt-5-15" id="en-NIV-23250"><span class="versenum" style="vertical-align: top;">15 </span>Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.<span class="crossreference" style="vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-NIV-23250S" title="See cross-reference S">S</a>)"></span></span> <span class="text Matt-5-16" id="en-NIV-23251"><span class="versenum" style="vertical-align: top;">16 </span>In the same way, let your light shine before others,<span class="crossreference" style="vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-NIV-23251T" title="See cross-reference T">T</a>)"></span> that they may see your good deeds<span class="crossreference" style="vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-NIV-23251U" title="See cross-reference U">U</a>)"></span> and glorify<span class="crossreference" style="vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-NIV-23251V" title="See cross-reference V">V</a>)"></span> your Father in heaven"</span></b></i></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><span class="text Matt-5-16"><br /></span></i></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span class="text Matt-5-16"><i style="color: blue;"> </i>Notice how Jesus says that we are to be the salt of the earth. Salt, before the days of refrigerators, was used as a preservative. In this case, we can see that Jesus was commanding his sheep to be a preservative, but this time, of a moral nature. </span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<i style="color: blue; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></i></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<i style="color: blue; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">He goes on further to command us to be light. Light so that those around them (non-Christians) and they can turn and believe in God. This light was meant to be an example to others... An example in terms of moral uprightness and how through the gospel, we have that power to follow God. </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> This command to be light harkens back to Deut 4:5-8, in which God told Moses:</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><b><span class="text Deut-4-6" id="en-NIV-5011"><span class="versenum" style="vertical-align: top;">6 </span>Observe<span class="crossreference" style="vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-NIV-5011M" title="See cross-reference M">M</a>)"></span> them carefully, for this will show your wisdom<span class="crossreference" style="vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-NIV-5011N" title="See cross-reference N">N</a>)"></span> and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.”<span class="crossreference" style="vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-NIV-5011O" title="See cross-reference O">O</a>)"></span></span> <span class="text Deut-4-7" id="en-NIV-5012"><span class="versenum" style="vertical-align: top;">7 </span>What other nation is so great<span class="crossreference" style="vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-NIV-5012P" title="See cross-reference P">P</a>)"></span> as to have their gods near<span class="crossreference" style="vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-NIV-5012Q" title="See cross-reference Q">Q</a>)"></span> them the way the <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> our God is near us whenever we pray to him?</span> <span class="text Deut-4-8" id="en-NIV-5013"><span class="versenum" style="vertical-align: top;">8 </span>And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws<span class="crossreference" style="vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-NIV-5013R" title="See cross-reference R">R</a>)"></span> as this body of laws I am setting before you today?</span></b></i></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><span class="text Deut-4-8"><br /></span></i></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> Notice that God is commanding Israel to observe all the laws and statutes that they were given. And that Israel's loving obedience to the law of God is to be an example to other nations, so that they can marvel at Israel's faithfulness through the grace of God, and that through this marveling, those nations would come to repentance. The connection between Deut 4 and Matt 5 seems pretty obvious to me. </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> I have often wondered how those who refuse to act as salt and light in this world (individual Christians and churches) think of when they come to verses like this. And I have often wondered whether these Christians ever actually think of the implications (theological and practical) of their refusal (whether cowardice, "deep" theological convictions to not "confuse" the kingdoms, or just plain ignorance) to engage with culture. </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> For instance, because of the increasing decay of our society, and the church's inability and refusal to speak out in a loving yet bold manner, and to engage the culture in a meaningful and heartfelt way (media, evangelism, education of our kids, you name it etc...), we end up coming up with situation such as homosexual marriage being accepted, and in fact celebrated.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> For the church to continue to refuse to engage, we will eventually see more and more Christians actually thinking that homosexuality is acceptable. This will become even more of a problem also when we start having more and more Christians who think that it is OK and entering into churches that are "conservative" (I'm not talking about the PCUSA, they have been dead for many years now). Homosexuality, due to the SCOTUS decisions, will most likely be even more "commonplace".. How will those Christians who feel that homosexuality is acceptable properly evangelize to those that happen to be homosexual? How is telling someone that his homosexuality is acceptable pleasing to the Lord? If a homosexual happens to attend a church, and is denied membership, I could easily see situations in which his Christian friend (who thinks it is OK) would leave the church...</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">What will the session or the church leadership do then? </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> This is already happening in a similar way. At a PCA church in Southern California, the pastor started talking about the sinfulness of homosexuality, and a good portion of the congregation simply got up and left! </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> Because of our lack of epistemogically consistent engagement in larger society, I could even foresee situations in which a homosexual could become "converted", through say, evidential apologetics (which is actually how I came to believe in Christ) but still has no concept that homosexuality is wrong. He then goes to a church, or perhaps the church that has been working with him has never mentioned this issue to him because they dont want to "offend" him, and now, there is a really big problem on the leadership's hands... He is still a practicing homosexual and yet claims to be a Christian, and now is asking to be a member of the church..... </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> Another example, with the PCA being so big, you have a wide range of churches.. Some that are super conservative that you almost feel that the women should wear head coverings, and some that you are embarrased to tell you that they are in the PCA.. I could even foresee an issue in which a young man who is a ministerial candidate who has been so indoctrinated into the American culture, that he feels that homosexuality is completely acceptable.. What does the presbytery do then? Well, of course they would't pass him... But, this really speaks to the larger issue of how this candidate could have even gotten that far and his socio-political views go unchecked.. I know a PCA pastor who listens to Eminem on a regular basis. Having a candidate think that homosexuality is acceptable is not that far of a stretch... Even Lee Irons' wife (current elder in the PCA, former pastor in the OPC) is such a big homosexual marriage advocate, and yet he has never told her to take her website down, and in fact, most likely endorses it.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> I have seen a similar thing like this in several PCA churches that I have been a member of in the past. The member(s) was in a relationship with a non-Christian, and in two of those cases, the Lord was exceedingly gracious and the non-Christian love interests were converted. Yet, through out this "courtship", there was no attempt made by the ministers to lovingly rebuke the members' for their dangerous pursuit of that non-Christian love interest. I even brought this issue up one time, and ***I*** was the one that was being rebuked for not "understanding" that person's situation, and he simply doesnt't understand what he is doing is wrong, and that shouldnt be enough to bar him from communion. (!!!)</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> Why do these churches let this happen? Because, those churches have been so bought into the culture of having a "boyfriend/girlfriend" and that having a boyfriend or girlfriend in the secular American sense is acceptable, when at best, it is highly unwise, and at worst, it is downright destructive to the Christian (and I am only referring to two Christians becoming "boyfriend/girlfriend.").. Or perhaps, it could be simply fear of offending the member because that member wouldnt "understand".. All the more reason to correct the member, if he doesnt understand!</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> The point behind my bringing this up is that if we have churches failing to correct church members for something as obvious as those members being involved romantically with a non-Christian, and even still letting a member take communion (!!), if a minister cannot even bring up the issue of a non-Christian and a Christian being involved, it is only a matter of time before you will start hearing PCA churches start accepting openly and practicing homosexual people as members of the church... The PCUSA did it... Who is to say that the PCA is immune (or any other reformed denomination, for that matter)?</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> This is what happens when we as the church fail to engage and have that mindset of being salt and light in the world. This is what happens when we don't confront people with the law of God (week in and week out) because we are so focused on this ridiculous hyper-grace redemptive historical preaching that is completely devoid of application for fear of being "moralistic" or "fundamentalist." If that were really true of preaching application, then 1 Cor, Proverbs and a good portion of James should never have been written. When we dont confront with the law of God in preaching, we dont do it in various situations for fear of offending or perhaps we are so used to not doing it, that it simply doesnt enter the mind. </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> May God continue to raise up strong men and women who understand the importance of law and gospel both. </span></div>
Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-45679476905500354282013-06-21T00:15:00.005-07:002013-06-21T19:51:55.690-07:00Morning twilight and evening twilight. No, this is not a post about the "Twilight" vampire series.<br />
<br />
I was driving along the highway, when I happened to notice the scenery. It was evening twilight, and the observation was made that at a certain point, one cannot really tell whether it is morning or evening twilight.<br />
<br />
Here is a picture of (supposedly) morning twilight, from the internet.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQ8jcOX2hQke92kJ1vV6Mn8fMFDQlg2DiQwojF-Yda7typcl-W0u-3TLQoNBXOfAdughTRA13346DlDBachqhFyAumq2ML-IAOE1jeVe1QXmyfwFflv2q865WS7oalLJT7QLe3Mr9RpVk/s1600/morning.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQ8jcOX2hQke92kJ1vV6Mn8fMFDQlg2DiQwojF-Yda7typcl-W0u-3TLQoNBXOfAdughTRA13346DlDBachqhFyAumq2ML-IAOE1jeVe1QXmyfwFflv2q865WS7oalLJT7QLe3Mr9RpVk/s200/morning.jpg" width="200" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Ok.. Now here is a picture of (supposed) evening twilight, from the internet. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguASbKkhNr-KICXj6euMq2ireclhWZ-WvN-mpkyn32zyIVFRTXrawGZXeTic_aINtRwFSFCSP2e90TvgblVd5pedzMFRgkKt2B6J93x9y1UJbQUuVtk5BDxC6WGo1jDpWHXG7ZI9mBky0/s1600/evening.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="125" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguASbKkhNr-KICXj6euMq2ireclhWZ-WvN-mpkyn32zyIVFRTXrawGZXeTic_aINtRwFSFCSP2e90TvgblVd5pedzMFRgkKt2B6J93x9y1UJbQUuVtk5BDxC6WGo1jDpWHXG7ZI9mBky0/s200/evening.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Both pictures are pretty much the same. If I were to ask you whether you could tell which is which without giving you any other information and only those pictures, you wouldn't be able to do it with any **degree of confidence**. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
How does this mundane example relate to presuppositional apologetics and also in discussions about ethics? </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
We know that one cannot understand truth (any kind, moral or ultimate etc...), especially truth about God's existence, by simply going off one's senses. In the "How to Answer a Fool" apologetics DVD, Sye Ten Bruggencate laser focuses in on this assertion when it is made by atheists. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
"From my observations from the natural world, I conclude that God does not exist!" (typical atheist response). </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
How does this relate to the evening and morning twilight? Simply just looking at the morning and evening twilight, without any additional information.... or a standard being given (revealed) to you, you cannot know for certainty whether or not what you are observing with your eyes (using your senses) is the morning or evening. In this mundane example, it is easy to see how your senses cannot ever tell you this information, on something as simple as determining whether you are seeing a morning or evening twilight picture.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
You ***know*** that it is an evening twilight because you have a watch that tells you the time (or at least, you have been informed on what time the pictures were taken). You have clear "revelation" (the information from the watch) that informs you and makes *sense* of what your senses are giving you. Based on what you know (from your watch), then that knowledge then enables you to interpret what your sensing (seeing). </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
From those two pictures above, there is no other way for you to know whether the twilight is morning or evening without that information, or standard. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The same goes for ethical truths. We cannot simply "sense" or feel that something is wrong or right. While this deals with the motivational aspect of ethics, this is never the foundational reason why a particular action is wrong. It is wrong because of a normative standard. This normative standard has to be revealed to you (which it has been, through nature and ultimately through Scripture, Rom 1) so that you can know based off the normative standard. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
If we cannot even determine something as simple as the truth of which twilight is which from our own senses (visual perception in this case), how can atheists possibly make the bold assertion that through their observations about the natural world (senses) that they can **for certainty** determine and **know** that there is no God? </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
You can't. You can **never** determine the truth of a knowledge claim based on your senses.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
It's crazy, but we know why they make this claim: because of the total depravity that has infected their mind and their heart. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I think that this twilight example is a very easy and yet very effective way of helping atheists to see how their senses cannot determine truth at all and cannot be used to make knowledge claims, and that the truth has to be revealed to them, and it has been.. again, according to Romans 1. </div>
Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-22439401476446314952013-06-12T22:58:00.001-07:002013-06-18T01:50:22.381-07:00Is our republic at stake?Please read this. In the next day, I am going to attempt to provide some sort of boiler plate template to reach out to your representatives for this issue. <br />
<br />
Original article <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/the-republic-is-at-stake/" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
----------------------<br />
<br />
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helmet, Freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<b style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">By Garth Kant</b></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helmet, Freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
WASHINGTON — Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., has two dire warnings for America in an exclusive interview with WND.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helmet, Freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
* Don’t count on the House to stop amnesty.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helmet, Freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
* And, if amnesty passes it will end our constitutional republic as we know it.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helmet, Freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Bachmann says she doesn’t want to sound alarmist but when you boil it down, that is what is really at stake.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helmet, Freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
She says there is one solution — only a grassroots effort can stop President Obama’s plan to fundamentally transform America.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helmet, Freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
So, she is issuing a call to arms to all WND readers and all Americans, contact your representatives in Congress to stop amnesty before it is too late.</div>
<div class="ooyala-video-wrapper" id="ooyala-video-p2ddnkyzocapakenpqgrz6l6efugr5xd" style="border: 0px; font-family: Helmet, Freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div id="ooyalaPlayer7186161_thtin2iou7OoyalaPlayerOutterWrapper" style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; height: 337px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 600px;">
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Bachmann explained, step by step, how a bill she believes conservatives should naturally oppose easily could be approved by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.</span></div>
<div id="ooyalaPlayer7186161_thtin2iou7OoyalaPlayerOutterWrapper" style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; height: 337px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 600px;">
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Bachmann explained, step by step, how a bill she believes conservatives should naturally oppose easily could be approved by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
“The Senate is going to pass a very bad bill. The House will pass what will sound like a pretty good bill. But I’m just here to tell you, it’s a Trojan horse.”</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The lawmaker said the bill will say “We’re going to secure the borders,” so all the Republicans will vote for this bill. Then the bill will go to a conference committee where it will undergo a dramatic change.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
“The good guts of the Trojan horse bill will be pulled out. The very bad amnesty provisions will be put in the bill. The bill will go to the House floor and it won’t be Republicans that pass it.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
“It’ll be Nancy Pelosi leading all the House Democrats to vote for it, and just enough Republicans will vote for the bill and you’ll have amnesty,” predicted Bachmann.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
She said that’s been the strategy behind the scenes all along.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
“I think the master plan of the ruling class that runs Washington, D.C., is to ram this bill through before the American people know what has hit them, and before members of Congress even know what has hit them.”</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Bachamnn said there is only one person who can stop the master plan and that person is “you.”</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
“I’m just telling WND viewers that if you sit this one out and you don’t start hitting the phone lines and email, calling and visiting your representatives now and saying, ‘No amnesty now, no amnesty ever,’ we’re going to have perpetual amnesty for illegal immigration.”</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
She predicted if amnesty becomes the law “the whole political system will change.”</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
“This is President Obama’s number one political agenda item because he knows we will never again have a Republican president, ever, if amnesty goes into effect. We will perpetually have a progressive, liberal president, probably a Democrat, and we will probably see the House of Representatives go into Democrat hands and the Senate will stay in Democrat hands.”</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The lawmaker said that would create a permanent progressive class and the country would never return to its constitutional foundations.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
“That’s what’s at risk right now. It may sound melodramatic, I don’t mean it that way, but this is that big and that important.”</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Bachmann said as much harm as Obamacare is doing to the country, amnesty could be even worse.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
“It could bankrupt us even faster. That’s why we need the WND audience to weigh in now and hard. Let your member of Congress know. We need to hear from you.”</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
She called this “a total call to arms. Don’t count on politicians to stop it. They won’t.”</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The congresswoman said the political class in Washington, both on the right and on the left, made a decision to have what it calls immigration reform, but it really will be nothing more than amnesty and a disaster for our economy and our country.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
“It’s going to lower wages, lower benefits, bankrupt the United States and take away job opportunities for our kids. This will change our nation forever and the future of our nation. And I think it could very likely mean that we will never again have an opportunity to reclaim our constitutional republic.”</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Bachmann feels we owe more than that to our ancestors who died to give us this country, and to our children and future generations.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
“We will not successfully pass the torch of liberty if we have perpetual amnesty. It won’t happen.”</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
That’s why she is issuing a call to arms, one more time.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
“I hate to tell people once again you’ve got to rise up, but this is the most important bill we are going to deal with in the next two years, and so, if people are going to weigh in at all, now’s the time.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
“The Republic is at stake.”</div>
<span style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br />Read more at <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/the-republic-is-at-stake/#3ygU0kqS7yioAly4.99" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(252, 215, 0); color: #003399; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/the-republic-is-at-stake/#3ygU0kqS7yioAly4.99</a> </span></div>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-67638965547745078402013-06-12T22:10:00.005-07:002013-06-18T02:01:24.563-07:00Speaking boldly from the pulpit. Over the years, even before I became a theonomist, I have occasionally asked my pastors at the various churches that I have attended to pray about certain issues... (So, I guess I wasn't always a consistent (R)2K advocate but I was still <i><b>positive</b></i> that theonomy was "clearly" wrong... How did that one turn out?).<br />
<br />
In the past 10 years, due to job moves and not whimsical moves such as I didn't like the new carpet at church, I have attended 6 different churches. In three of them, I have asked the pastors to pray issues that I felt were very pressing. I didn't even ask them to preach on them, just to do some sort of supplicational congregrational prayer. And I didnt even ask that often: I asked one time each at two separate churches, and two times at another. Given the number of months that I attended each church, that amounts to less than 1% of the time.<br />
<br />
-Right as my business trip to Kuwait ended, I asked one of the local chaplains to befriend a local Bengladeshi dry cleaner guy that I had befriended in hopes that the chaplain could share Christ with him. Over email, he told me that he would not share Christ with my dry cleaner friend because of the regional policy on no proseltyzing in the region.<br />
Would my dry cleaner friend really have reported him to the law enforcement if the chaplain shared Christ with him?<br />
<br />
-I once asked a pastor to pray against a particular legislation that was being generated that would ***make it illegal*** to bring up any future legislation against abortion in any way, restrict it, make it more difficult to get one etc...<br />
Legislation that would make murdering babies legal all the time without opposition??? Surely this was something that would garner an important and specific prayer topic for congregation prayer. The response I got was that he wouldn't pray against this specific legislation, but he would pray for abortion generally. When I asked him about it afterwards, he told me that he didn't want to lose his tax exempt status, and that it was a "political" matter and it wasn't appropriate to bring up politics from the pulpit, even if that meant talking about forever allowing "doctors" and mothers to be able to murder babies without any fear of further legislation to prevent them from exercising their "right".<br />
<br />
-I once asked another pastor to pray for the German family that is currently potentially going to be deported back to Germany. They left Germany because they were going to be arrested for taking their kids out of public school and attempting to homeschool them. He never prayed about them specifically, but to be fair, he at least prayed a very general prayer about govt persecution and control. Another time, I asked the same pastor to pray for the DOD move that would attempt to court-martial military members for "prosiletyzing" to others. Same response. A general prayer, and no specifics.<br />
<br />
As I reflect back on these requests being either ignored, shot down, or answered in a very vague way, this seems to be a large swath of the church that is either afraid, or unwilling to preach God's law to every area of life, even in the face of seemingly strict government restrictions.<br />
<br />
Esp. now with homosexual marriage having the great potential to be "upheld", our churches will have to deal with this and there will be a lot of legal maneuvering and suing going on. The church is being actively persecuted and yet no one is able to speak out against these things, and in fact is unwilling to face the facts that the church is being persecuted by outside forces. <br />
<br />
Where are our ministers boldly preaching the law and driving people to the gospel? Why is it that Glenn Beck, a conservative talk show host and a Mormon, is rebuking pastors for something that Christians should understand better than a Mormon does?<br />
<br />
This has been going on for years, and not just pastors, but Christians in general refuse to become involved. Greg Bahnsen said in a lecture about 25 years ago that the church is being punished for its cowardice and apathy. I mentioned my feelings to my friend that I felt that with all of these things going on in our society today (abortion, marriage, marginalization of the church in the public square etc...) that the church was being punished and judged by God. He then told me about the Bahnsen lecture which I was unaware of until he told me.<br />
<br />
I don't know how long it is going to take before we wake from our slumber, and I don't know if our country will be able to last the next 50 years, given the moral decay in our society in general.<br />
<br />
Please continue to pray for boldness and loving action in your own life and for the church and her officers. If our country isnt around in the next 50 years because of our unwillingness to speak out and become involved, there won't be any more church to pray for and that will be further (temporal) judgement from God that we rightfully deserve. Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-48065809899536300322013-06-11T01:05:00.001-07:002013-06-18T01:59:37.212-07:00Political conservatism is not enough. I have been a Christian since Dec1996. During the first ~3-4 years of my Christian life, I really had no real concept or clue about the the debates concerning the law of God (theonomy, (R)2K, Kuyperianism etc...). I was eventually exposed to <a href="http://upper-register.typepad.com/" target="_blank">Lee Irons</a>' teaching. As I continued to study more and more of Lee Irons' stuff, I got more and more immersed into the whole "Klinean" way of looking at redemptive history and the law of God. The more I studied, the more I became convinced that his view of the law was correct. This was before the (R)2K movement really crystallized at WSCAL, but of course, with Kline on the faculty, (R)2K was there at the school. After several years of reading a bunch of WSCAL and Lee Irons' material, I was probably (R)2K in the same vein as <a href="http://heidelblog.net/" target="_blank">Dr Clark</a> or <a href="https://matthewtuininga.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Matt Tuininga</a>. I drank deep from the (R)2K fountain and was probably just as anti-theonomic as Dr Clark and Matt Tuininga. <br />
Around the time of about 2008, I started listening to conservative talk radio in my car. Before this time, I was very politically very ignorant and grossly uninformed. As I started listening to conservative radio, I began to really see just how uninformed I was and just what exactly was going on in the political realm.<br />
I continued to listen to conservative radio, and during this time, I continued to attend (R)2K churches. During the times that I listened to conservative radio, I would always feel very upset at some story about how the liberals were doing something ridiculous, or republicans were doing something dumb or this or that happening etc... But, during all this time, I never made the connection between how the things that I hear on the radio should be influenced by my Christian beliefs in that how I as a ***Christian*** should respond, not simply how I as a ***citizen*** should respond. And at every (R)2K church that I attended, there was never any mention of cultural or social issues, no mention of anything outside the four corners of the church building... So, this continued to contribute to my lack of logical connection of my political conservatism with my Christian convictions.<br />
In early 2012, I picked up and finished reading Van Til's <i>Defense of the Faith</i>. Embarrassingly, this was really the first time that I had read anything about presuppositional apologetics and its relation to the Christian faith and the gospel. I honestly think that it was at that time that my theonomic beliefs really started to form. My eyes were opened when it came to all facts, knowledge, logic, ethics, etc... came from God, and that we must presuppose God in order to make sense of anything etc...<br />
I started to think about how my political beliefs were to merge with my Christian convictions, but it was still a little foggy, to be honest. In the middle of 2012, I began to read<i> Theonomy in Christian Ethics</i>, which I had actually bought back in 2004, but really hadn't gone past the first 50 pages. I finally finished that book in late 2012, and during the next month or two of various readings on-line and reflection, I came to be a full fledged theonomist in the Bahnsen tradition.<br />
As I look back on my previous beliefs, I am struck by how I never thought through the logical implications of my (R)2K beliefs, and how it was only through a careful examination of presuppositionalism and <i>Theonomy</i>, that I come to understand that what I previously believed about (R)2K was inconsistent with the logical conclusions of presuppositionalism. Additionally, through <i><u>Theonomy</u></i>, I came to see how other nations were still under the Mosaic law, and how we as NT Christians are to obey the Mosaic law as fulfilled/confirmed/completed etc... by Christ.<br />
All of this boring biographical background as context, the point behind this is that I came to realize that the political conservatism of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Glenn Beck etc.. to fight against liberalism and the ridiculous things going on in our society is not enough. Political conservatism is not enough, and never will be enough to help bring about the change that our society needs (politically speaking). These talk show hosts think that it is enough. <br />
Yes, conservatism has many values that overlap with the (theonomic) Christian worldview, and yet the (theonomic) Christian worldview goes much deeper than political conservatism ever could. In the end, political conservatism is simply another idea that is "equal" in the marketplace of multiple ideas because it ultimately does not consistently rely upon the revealed standard of God. There are many atheists who are politically conservative, and may be Christian or Jewish friendly, but ultimately, they are still sinners in a depraved state who are just as lost and without hope as the non Christian politically liberal. <br />
Only through the (theonomic) Christian worldview can we ever really hope to provide any sort of real and fundamental and lasting change in our society as Christ commanded in the Great Commission. Conservatives come with very good principles (which in some cases is identical to the law of God, and this can be expected due to natural law) that they try to pass into law etc... However, in the end, that is all they are.. "Good" principles... with no real power behind them because those principles are not fully recognized as the law of God and not backed up and supported by the gospel.<br />
It is only when we as Christians stand up as Christians (not merely as citizens), proclaim the law of God through our neighborhoods, churches and the public square and the legislative process that we can ever hope to be real salt and light as Christ commanded. Not through some talk show host. But through the Word of God.<br />
And as we proclaim the law of God, we drive people to the gospel as well to repent of their sins, just as Jonah did to Ninevah and as Daniel did to Belshazzar.<br />
Conservatism has brought about many great benefits, and I still am a big fan of conservative talk radio. However, with a very firm and crystallized theonomic conviction, I now realize that conservatism has never been enough, and can never bring about the "dominion" that God commands of us. I never understood or even made these kinds of connections when I was (R)2K... I never realized and never saw by not having a Christ centered view of EVERYTHING (instead of having only a "conservative" view of things, such as politics), that I was not putting my Lord in his proper place. When I was R2K, I never realized just how disobedient our churches have been to the Great Commission when they actively refused to discuss anything cultural or "political" at the pulpit through a Christ centered way. <br />
I do now. And with my renewed and corrected conviction, I have better clarity to encourage my pastors to speak the entire counsel of God and to encourage my fellow members to take action for Christ through his gospel and law. Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-17193356581946541642013-06-09T15:40:00.000-07:002013-06-09T15:40:09.739-07:00People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnzMubzBPFFlcrOCM5PXp6FngZToupKtUmtRR5hsodO4RNuX5zyBWRSTNpojhyphenhyphen5n5TR3Ye2oFL4NyPmxmcDR07dsNgl32aARrMD8jRvtCTEBnZ1rsmsN1uwtgT4I4JKv0eznLOY85MbeY/s1600/glasshouse3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnzMubzBPFFlcrOCM5PXp6FngZToupKtUmtRR5hsodO4RNuX5zyBWRSTNpojhyphenhyphen5n5TR3Ye2oFL4NyPmxmcDR07dsNgl32aARrMD8jRvtCTEBnZ1rsmsN1uwtgT4I4JKv0eznLOY85MbeY/s320/glasshouse3.jpg" width="320" yya="true" /></a> I have been watching with some interest concerning the debate that has been becoming very charged within the URC about the (R)2K doctrine. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Matthew Tuininga (PhD student at Emory) has posted about this issue, <a href="http://matthewtuininga.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/under-attack-in-the-united-reformed-churches-two-kingdoms-theology-and-its-critics/" target="_blank">here</a>, and <a href="http://matthewtuininga.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/please-dont-distort-the-urcs-confession-of-faith/" target="_blank">here</a>. This was started in part by some posts by Mark Van Der Molen (elder in the URC), <a href="http://theaquilareport.com/revised-belgic-confession-article-36-the-magistrate-is-subject-to-both-tables-of-the-law-the-authority-of-gods-word-and-serves-to-advance-christs-kingdom/" target="_blank">here,</a> PDF version <a href="http://www.worldviewresourcesinternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BC-36-by-MVDM1.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> and there are some additional articles by Dr Kloosterman (former prof at Mid America Seminary), <a href="http://www.worldviewresourcesinternational.com/bc-36-proverbs-1817-and-the-status-of-a-footnote/" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://www.worldviewresourcesinternational.com/bc-36-the-historical-literal-sense-of-the-text/" target="_blank">here</a>. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
And of course, other folks have jumped in. Bayly bros, <a href="http://baylyblog.com/blog/2013/06/can-you-see-real-me-me-me-me-me" target="_blank">here</a>. And Pastor McAtee (CRC pastor) <a href="http://ironink.org/2013/06/tuininga-on-barnes-mcatee-on-tuininga/" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
And, if there is any doubt on where WSCAL lies in this debate, you can find it <a href="http://wscal.edu/blog/entry/two-kingdoms-and-the-urc" target="_blank">here</a>. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Both in Matt Tuininga's blog and in the advertisement of that particular blog post on the WSCAL site, the main point behind this is about properly representing your "opponent", you must be responsible in presenting him accurately: <em><span style="color: blue;">"It is time for serious Reformed people to step up and demand that whatever concerns people may have about two kingdoms theology, they raise them in a responsible way." (Tuininga blog)</span></em></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: blue;"><em> </em></span><span style="color: black;">On the WSCAL site, it says </span><span style="color: blue;"><em>"(1) when we critique another position, how accurate is our representation? And, (2) how accurate is our theological engagement of the issues?'</em></span></div>
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><em> </em></span><span style="color: black;">In and of themselves, I appreciate the statements that both Mr. Tuininga and WSCAL are making regarding the need to be academically and intellecually honest when looking at another's position. </span><br />
<br />
I simply wish that they actually realized that they not only need to be preaching this to others who do not agree with them, but they need to apply it to themselves as well. <br />
<br />
To say that WSCAL is anti-theonomic is probably an understatement, but part of the problem that the school has is that they are not understanding theonomy correctly, and so what they are attempting to refute has nothing to do with the actual theonomic position. <br />
<br />
For instance, Dr Clark has recently wrote a blog series on "We Are Not Polishing Brass On A Sinking Ship" in several parts. In part 2, <a href="http://heidelblog.net/2013/05/we-are-not-polishing-brass-on-a-sinking-ship-2/" target="_blank">here</a>, he goes on to talk about the so-called errors associated with the theonomic movement. It seems that Dr Clark is not listening to his employer's own advice when attempting accurately represent opposing views:<br />
<br />
-RSC: <span style="color: blue;"><em>"Supported by their postmillennialism, theonomy/reconstructionism looked forward to a future Christian “dominion“ through the gradual leavening of the culture by Christian cultural and political influence"</em></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><em> -</em></span><span style="color: black;">CSL: </span><span style="color: black;">This particular quote is very subtle and most people will miss the fallacy of association here. It is no secret that WSCAL is militantly amillenial. The problem comes about because Dr Clark as well as Dr Gaffin (former prof at WTS PA) have both associated theonomy with postmilleniliasm in a fallacious manner. One of their many anti-theonomic contentions is that since postmillenialism is wrong (and amil is correct), and since theonomy means postmillenialism or theonomy is associated with postmillenialism, therefore, theonomy is wrong. </span><br />
This is fallacious reasoning. While certainly many theonomists are postmillenial, theonomy itself does not **automatically equate** to postmillenilaism. Theonomy is what <strong>should</strong> be. Postmillenialism states what <strong>will</strong> be. People can agree on what should be without actually agreeing on what will be. And by intentionally and subtly (and fallaciously) associating postmil with theonomy, Dr Clark seeks to discredit theonomy in this sentence on that fallacious basis. <br />
<br />
You can't prove your conclusion true by using a fallacious argument, which he attempts to do here. <br />
<br />
Dr Clark assumes that his readers will see the connection between post mil and theonomy and make the fallacious association as he does that therefore theonomy is wrong (since his premise is that amil is true). <br />
<br />
-RSC: <em><span style="color: blue;">"Even the true believers, the theonomists/reconstructionists seem to have given up their original program of cultural transformation through direct political action (</span></em><a href="http://heidelblog.net/2012/09/the-world-is-watching-cal-alumni-mag-on-rushdoony/" target="_blank"><em><span style="color: blue;">Rushdoony’s followers</span></em></a><em><span style="color: blue;">). Instead, they’ve turned to a program of cultural transformation through sacerdotalism, via their theology of baptismal election-union-justification etc ostentatiously self-glossed as “</span></em><a href="http://heidelblog.net/2007/12/for-those-just-tuning-in-what-is-the-federal-vision/" target="_blank"><em><span style="color: blue;">The Federal Vision</span></em></a><em><span style="color: blue;">.”</span></em><br />
-CSL: It is amazing to me how uninformed, misleading and/or misinformed, and not clear Dr Clark is being when he writes statements like these. Again notice the fallacy of association and now also the fallacy of misrepresentation that he brings to bear when attempting to connect theonomy with federal vision. Any person who is not extremely familiar with this on-going debate will then conclude from Dr Clark's post that theonomy now (by definition) equals federal vision. <br />
To be fair, there are many well known theonomists who have gone the federal vision route such as Doug Wilson and James Jordan. However, I could also easily conclude that (R)2K leads to Roman Catholicism due to Jason Stellman's defection to Rome after having prosecuted the cases against Peter Leithart (FV advocate in the PCA). And Mr Stellman was a hard core (R)2K advocate, even writing a book about it, <em>Dual Citizens</em>. Even the church that he planted has a (R)2K name: Exile Presbysterian Church. I have read enough of the (R)2K position to know that while there are blatant and gross inconsistencies in this doctrine, if it is faithfully followed in accordance to how Dr Van Drunen espouses it in such books as <em>Living in God's Two Kingdoms</em>, (R)2K will NOT lead to Roman Catholicism. <br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Dr Clark's statements commit the fallacy of association by linking theonomy with FV in such a way that is similar to theonomy and postmil. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
He commits the fallacy of misrepresentation also because he is representing theonomy as if it logically means FV, which a faithful adherence to theonomy will not. The RPCUS, which is a proudly theonomic presbysterian denomination, recently generated an open letter to those who are FV to publicly repent <a href="http://theonomyresources.blogspot.com/2012/07/a-call-to-repentance-rpcus-to-federal.html" target="_blank">here</a>. And the website <a href="http://theonomyresources.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Theonomy Resources</a> is a theonomic webiste that calls FV a heresy. Both the RPCUS and Theonomy Resources logically and faithfully adhere to theonomy. For Dr Clark to say that theonomy automatically logically equals FV or that all theonomists (as he seems to suggest in his post) are FV is wrong and goes against reality. If he doesn't mean that all theonomists are FV, he certainly didn't make that very clear in his blog post. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
In other blog posts of his, Dr Clark has claimed to read theonomic literature such as Bahnsen's <em>Theonomy in Christian Ethics</em>, and has claimed to think very deeply about theonomy in years past, but either he read it such a long time ago that he forgot what Bahnsen's book says, or he didn't read it carefully enough because even a cursory glance at any theonomic literature by Bahsnen will clearly reveal that he understood that law and gospel are clearly separate in that the law can never save. </div>
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
From these two points above, it should be obvious that WSCAL needs to be very careful to follow its own advice on properly representing those who disagree with them. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br />It really concerns me that legions of students and laymen are so heavily influenced by WSCAL, and while a good portion of what WSCAL does is godly (focusing on Christ centered preaching etc..), it is also mixed in with flat out wrong and grossly misrepresented views on what exactly theonomy is. And since many people are so influenced by WSCAL, they will take anything that the school says as "gospel"... even gross misreprentations of theonomy because other things that WSCAL espouses is godly. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
I remember my friend having a discussion with a WSCAL student about 10 years ago about theonomy, and the WSCAL student said that theonomy was bad and wrong. When my friend pressed him, the student couldn't come up with any real reason other than saying "Well, because Dr Van Drunen said so in class." (a wonderfully fallacious appeal to authority). </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Everyone has disagreements, and that is simply a fact of life. But, to simply disagree based on a gross caricature of theonomy or simply because WSCAL says so, or because a certain professor says so is the height of theological, academic and intelletcual dishonesty. It is deeply concerning to me that this kind of thing is coming out of a seminary that is highly regarded and very influential in the reformed world. </div>
Christopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.com0