Soli Deo Gloria

Feminism, Pt 2 - The Death of Distinction

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 20:14:29 PDT

What are your Thoughts on Free will

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 12:59:40 PST

The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed by Anjela Paje of Spokane, WA, from the tape, GC 1301-Q, titled "Bible Questions and Answers Part 19." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE. ©1980. All Rights Reserved.

Question

I wanted your opinion on a specific doctrine that you hear both teachings. You hear the free-will doctrine verses the election doctrine as far as salvation is concerned. And, I wanted your thoughts on that.

Answer

Everybody in this room believes in predestination if they believe the Bible. Right? How many of you believe the Bible? You believe the Bible? That is good! God help the rest of you. You are either slow or heretics, I do not know which.

All right, everybody believes the Bible, right? Then you believe in predestination. You say, “No, I was raised a Methodist.” I don't care what you were raised, you believe in predestination, if you believe the Bible, because in Ephesians 1, it says, He predestined us before the foundation of the world. It says in Revelation, He has written our names in the Lamb’s Book of Life from before the foundation of the world. It uses the word predestination. Everyone believes in that, who believes the Bible. God predetermined who would be saved. Before they were ever born. That's in the Bible. You believe it. So, just accept that you believe it. Now, was not that easy? Absolutely painless. You believe that.

The Bible also says, “Whosoever will may come. Him who cometh to me I will in no wise cast out? You believe that? Okay. So, you believe that, too. So, you believe in man’s volition. Free will is not a biblical term, because man’s will isn't really free. It is bound by sin.

When you became a Christian, did you say to yourself, “Oh! I am elect! I think, I'll get saved.” No. No, you made a decision, didn’t you? You made a choice.

So, the Bible teaches God’s predestining plan, God’s electing plan. It says that over and over, "elect" according to the foreknowledge of God, "elect" in Him. You know, I have many people in that city, he said, you know, in the book of Acts who weren't even saved, yet, but they were already considered His people because they were elect. So, you believe all of that. Then, you believe in man’s choice as well. So, you believe both of those things.

The problem is not whether you believe those. The problem is how you harmonize them, right? You know how you harmonize them? No, you don't. You don't know how to harmonize them. Because there is no way to harmonize them. And, the way that I like to illustrate it is this, Is Jesus God or man? Both. Is He all man? 100 % man? 100 % God? How can He be 200 %? It is a paradox. Who wrote Romans? Paul wrote Romans? God wrote Romans. They alternated verses? Who wrote Romans? Was it Paul’s words from his vocabulary and his heart? Was every word inspired by the Spirit of God? How could every single word come out of the mind of God, and yet, Paul feel that every single word came out of his own heart? You know what is going to happen if you try to synthesize those things? Okay. You know what happened in the early church councils? They got so confused and said, “Okay, he is half God and half man.” And, you know what you have got when you have half God and half man? Nothing. What is half a man? There is no such thing. What is half a God? A nothing. So they come up with heresy. So, on the one hand they said he is all deity and the idea that he was a physical being is just a phantom. And, they came up with a phantom view. And the others said, “No. He was all man, and he is not deity at all. Because they tried to resolve it, they came up with heresy every time. They either said he is all God and not man, or all man and not God, or half and half, and that is a nothing. You have to leave the paradox.

Now, when you come to the writing of the Bible, some say that it can't be all Paul and all the Holy Spirit, so Paul just wrote what the Holy Spirit told him, and it all really the Holy Spirit. Is that true? You have just eliminated the Pauline authorship. But, on the other hand, if you say, “It is all Paul, like the liberals do and none of the Holy Spirit.” Then, you have eliminated God.

Let me ask you another question. Who lives your Christian life? Who? Do you? Do you? I hope you do. Is it just you out there living it up? "Not I, but," what? "Christ liveth in me. Nevertheless," what? "I live. Yet, not I, but Christ." Well, if it is all Christ, then I become a quietist: "Let go and let God." And, you have that movement. On the other hand, if you say, “It's me,” I become a pietist and a legalist. You just have to handle both and leave them in a paradox.

When it comes down to the whole area of sovereignty and will, you got to leave them where they are. And, as soon as you try to resolve them, you get all of the Calvinists who run over to this end of the seesaw and start screaming, “sovereignty, sovereignty! (bang) And, down goes the scale, right? And, they got God doing everything. One guy came to me one day and said, “God even makes you sin.” That is the ultimate...and, then on the other hand, you have got the Armenians who say, “No, no, no, it is all us, it is all us, it is all us.” And, if it is all us, folks, we are really in trouble. Why don’t you leave it alone?

Then you have the Baptists. Oh, the Baptists. And, the Baptists come together in the middle and they say, “Well, it is a little bit of predestination and a little bit of free will. You see, God looks down the road and He says, “Oh, that is what they are going to do. I see, so that is what I will choose..." No! Just leave it alone.

So, the best way to solve that problem is to believe both and let God resolve it. Now, if you could resolve all those problems, you would be God. And, then there would be other problems we have to deal with.

Now, let me tell you something. One of the greatest marks of the inspiration of the scripture is the fact that it has those incomprehensible paradoxes. Because, if a man or men had written that book, they never would have, number one, conceived them; number two, they never would have left them there. They would have resolved them. The fact that they are there and they stand all over the place in the Bible is one of the truest proofs that God of an infinite mind far beyond our own wrote those things. And, the very fact that there are those irreconcilable apparent paradoxes in scripture speaks of divine authorship. God understands how they harmonize. We don’t. And, that means God has a greater mind than we do. Aren’t you glad about that?

SRC

What Is Free Will?

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 18:54:11 PST

The 3 Most Disturbing Words on TV

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:33:21 PST

Not long ago, Justin Taylor linked an excerpt from a sermon by John Piper. The clip was about Piper’s fears that certain cultural attachments could cause this whole gospel-centered movement to unravel. Here are a few quotes:

“There’s the giving of zeal for truth in biblical doctrine back and forth among young people, and I’m concerned that there are some loose wires dangling between the majesty of God that is sung about in the services that causes people to soar with the kind of emotional euphoria about the greatness of God and the wires of our daily, practical, detailed lives.” (2:08)
“They dangle disconnected between big thoughts about God and big appetites for beer.” (2:40)
“They dangle disconnected between infinite purity of God and the lure of pornography.” (2:46)
“They dangle disconnected between the majesty of Christ and the carelessly attended default weekend movie, no questions asked, it’s just a thing to do.” (2:53)
“They dangle disconnected between white-hot, all-satisfying divine holiness and hip-huggers and plunging necklines.” (3:06)

Several friends sent me the clip wondering what I thought. My initial reaction was concern over the collection of issues. There are differing degrees of moral ambiguity between “hip-huggers” and pornography. Other comments could be made regarding movies and beer, but Piper is too wise to simply throw these at us as blanket statements. The modifying phrases, such “big appetites” and “carelessly attended,” should be what catch our attention.

It got me thinking about the concept of “art facing the church” (how we as Christians respond to the culture of creativity around us). Much of our media consumption could be called “careless” or “mindless,” and the effect it has on our souls is little noticed. It reminded me, too, of the three most disturbing words on television.

Good Art Tells the Truth

As I’ve admitted here before, I grew up kind of a TV junkie, and remain to this day an avid apologist for television. I love TV for its ability to tell a complex, many-layered story, likeLost or Mad Men do, or like The X-Files did when I was a kid. Even formulaic shows likeThe Mentalist, which essentially repeat their premise week after week, are telling a larger story about a man haunted by his wife’s murder, wracked with guilt, and in spite of his charming exterior, seething with vengeance.

To me, the problem with our television viewing, like our movie viewing, has less to do with content than it does with our hearts. In our tribe of evangelicals, the conversations tend to focus on lust and sexuality. But there’s far more than sex happening in our hearts when we watch TV and movies.

Let’s take a fairly friendly show like The Amazing Race. I’m not a huge fan but watched a few episodes several seasons back, and I catch glimpses of it now and then. I remember when it dawned on me that the casting directors on the show are the true geniuses. Like any good story, they give you sympathetic characters, underdogs, and villains. It’s with the villains that we need to examine our hearts. There’s almost always a verbally abusive alpha-male, dominating his poor wife or girlfriend throughout the show. It brings out the bile in us, and we hate him. In fact, this sort of slimy weasel character shows up on a lot of reality television.

Now why would casting directors consistently put people on TV for us to hate? You’d think our tendency would be to change the channel when they were on TV. On the contrary, we love the villains. We love to hate them. Having a villain, an enemy, a monster to watch puts us as the viewer on the judgment seat. We’re empowered to stare down our noses at these villains, and the contempt feels great.

The villain role was so successful in reality TV that it gave birth to this whole second-generation of shows like Rock of Love, I Love New York, and Jersey Shore—houses full of contemptible people doing dehumanizing things for a moment of fame. The phrase, “I’m not here to make friends” has become a mainstay of all reality TV shows, indicating the moment when the villain is revealed, the contempt pours out, and things get ugly.

Why do we watch them? Why do we have “big appetites” for contempt? Because it fans the flames of our self-righteousness. The fall has left our souls without gravity, adrift, looking for any indication they can find of their security. Reality TV’s villains present us with the minimal assurance that, no matter how bad things may be, at least we aren’t eating animal entrails for a chance to date a washed-up rock star.

Other Terrors Lurk

There are other terrors that lurk in primetime slots of our national networks. Few Christians would openly defend viewing a show like Rock of Love, but who doesn’t get teary-eyed watching the final moments of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition? Never mind that it’s a spinoff of a show about radical plastic surgery, EMHE pulls together a whole community to give a deserving family a new, grandiose home. Who could argue with that?

Which brings me to the three most disturbing words on television: “Move that bus.”

Again, there’s no arguing with the warmth and altruistic sentiments of the show. The families who have been profiled always seem to be wonderful people, I don’t impugn them or the show’s creators with secret evil intentions. But a disturbing thing happens in the final moments of the show. After profiling the family’s suffering, after talking about hardship and perseverance, after recruiting an army of volunteers, the family is brought in front of the new home, which is hidden from view by a large touring bus. They count down and call out those three words, and the reaction can only be described as worship. There are tears and shouting while people fall to their knees, hands raised in the air.

Here it is on bold display: the ultimate hope of most Americans. It’s as though a phantom voice is responding to their suffering with the words, Well done, good and faithful servant. Here is your reward: dreamy bedrooms, big-screen TVs, privacy fencing, and wireless internet. We watch. We weep. And we hope for ourselves. It’s yet another gospel alternative, this one packaged as a heart-warming vision of the way life is “supposed to be.”

Instead of just asking yourself about lust when you watch a film, ask yourself about hope. What’s the hope being proclaimed? What other desires are being stirred? Does it feed your sense of self-righteousness? Does it give you cause for contempt? Or does it give you a call to worship at the feet of the American dream?

Good art tells the truth, and sometimes the truth is ugly. Sometimes people who suffer don’t receive a reward. Sometimes the truth involves sinful people doing sinful things, and in telling a story (even a redemptive story) it’s necessary to talk about that darkness. Sometimes what appears to be good for the heart and the family is actually an idol in disguise. At all points in the spectrum, individual tolerance for media should be constrained by a Scripture-soaked and gospel-informed conscience and by the input and feedback of our community in the church.

Mike Cosper is pastor of worship and arts at Sojourn Community Church in Louisville, Kentucky. He writes on the gospel and the arts for The Gospel Coalition.

Sexual Sin

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 21:25:28 PST

Don't Play Games - Tim Conway

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:22:23 PDT

The Myth of Neutrality

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 07:08:41 PDT

Christopher Hitchens is dying of cancer. You know Hitchens, of course, as one of our era’s most infamous atheists. He is the author of God Is Not Great and makes frequent appearances in the pages of Vanity Fair and Atlantic Monthly. Hitchens was recently interviewed by CNN’s Anderson Cooper about his battle with cancer. He told Cooper that despite facing death, he still doesn’t pray and he will not pray. So, he said, we shouldn’t believe any reports about a deathbed conversion; he is secure in his nonbelief. When asked about the reports of groups of Christians who are praying for his health, Hitchens expressed gratitude for their kind thoughts but said that they shouldn’t waste their breath praying to a God who does not exist.

Hitchens, a former socialist turned conservative commentator, has spent the better part of the last ten years as an advocate for what has become known as the “New Atheism.” The so-called “New Atheists” are not just blandly agnostic or politely atheistic. They are militantly atheistic, relentlessly in-your-face with their rejection not just of Christianity but any form of theism. They present a special challenge to American Christians who have long enjoyed a place of privilege: even where Christianity was rejected, it has been given a place of honor among competing religious philosophies. It has had a sort of first among equals approach that has lifted Christianity above the fray and removed it from the kind of criticism that it must now bear.

With the rise of the New Atheism and the willingness of writers like Christopher Hitchens to actively and relentlessly criticize Christianity, we have entered into a new era. I, for one, welcome it: not least because the New Atheists have done us all a significant favor by deconstructing the myth of neutrality. By the myth of neutrality I mean that belief that asserts religion is a personal matter, that it doesn’t matter if you are religious or not, and that being religious or nonreligious makes no real difference in one’s life. The New Atheists have not been satisfied with saying that religion is banal or meaningless. They believe that religion is a menace. Because of this belief, it is not enough for them to not be religious themselves. They work hard to convince others not just of the foolishness of religion but also of its danger.

Unfortunately as our interview with Kenda Creasy Dean revealed, the church is facing an epidemic of unbelief and apostasy among its teens and young adults. As a pastor, I see evidence of this trend first hand: teens flirting with unbelief, thinking about rejecting Christianity because they wonder if it really matters what they believe. When I ask, “why are you considering walking away from what you once professed?”, the response is usually an apathetic shrug. “It just doesn’t matter,” people say. “It doesn’t matter if Christianity is true. I just want to live my life my way without reference to God.”

And this is why we must be forever grateful to the New Atheists. They say, it does matter: it’s a matter of life and death. According to writers like Christopher Hitchens, religion (Christianity, even) is hateful, violent, and dangerous. It is not enough in their view to be apathetic toward it, you must actively resist and reject it; you cannot be neutral.

This is what the Bible says, too. There is no neutrality when it comes to God.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23)

According to the Bible everyone, everywhere has an innate knowledge of God. Everyone knows something about God (specifically, his eternal power and divine nature). That knowledge, however, is suppressed. Humankind attempts to bury that knowledge beneath a sea of false worship. This means that apathetic agnostics and atheists old and new are not merely ignorant of God, they are actively resisting and defying what they know to be true.

I’ve been thinking about this as I work through the Book of Exodus with my congregation. Specifically, I think that this truth gives us insight to how Pharaoh answers Moses in Exodus 5:2. In Exodus 5, Moses and Aaron are making their first appearance before Pharaoh, requesting time for Israel to travel into the wilderness to worship the Lord. In response, Pharaoh asks, “Who is the Lord?” What sort of question is this? Is it a reflection of Pharaoh’s ignorance of his Hebrew slaves’ religion? No, this isn’t ignorance. Pharaoh is defiantly rejecting God. He not only claims to not know the Lord, he refuses to obey his voice and asserts his own authority in response to the prophet’s message from God. Although the original Hebrew lacks emoticons, it’s not too difficult for us to hear Pharaoh sneer as he asks, “Who is the Lord?”

Pharaoh is a clear example for us of those who not only refuse to acknowledge God but actively resist him. Pharaoh’s unbelief is an expression of rebellion against the God that he innately knows. But Pharaoh doesn’t just reject the natural revelation that he can observe in the creation and that is written on his conscience. Pharaoh is also rejecting special revelation from Moses and Aaron. The prophet of God has spoken, giving Pharaoh a direct and personal message. But Pharaoh compounds his guilt by rejecting not just the shadow of knowledge he has of God, but even the clear knowledge.

This defiance of God leads to the brutal oppression that Pharaoh unleashes against Israel. It isn’t enough for Pharaoh to dismiss two crazed prophets of a deity he doesn’t know. He must also persecute and torment the people who did profess to know this God. In so doing, Pharaoh shows us how the “myth of neutrality” gives way to the tragic trajectory of unbelief: Unbelief cannot stop at a mere intellectual rejection of God. Since such intellectual rejection isn’t neutral, you must fill in the vacuum with something to worship. In Pharaoh’s case, he had plenty of idols to worship, but more than anything was his own enthronement of self-determination: rejecting God’s voice and directive he asserts his own authority, and he unleashes his power in defiance of God. That final act of aggression is the end result of intellectual rejection.

If you are toying with belief in God, thinking about rejecting him in order to determine your own life, know that in the end you will not be mildly opposed to Christianity or even apathetic toward it. The path of rejection leads to oppression and persecution. Unable to quiet the persistent testimony of nature and conscience, those who reject God must unleash their rage against God and his people. This is why Christians are persecuted around the world. This is why you are mocked and made fun of by your nonChristian friends. Those who lash out against God and his people are demonstrating how Exodus 5 is still relevant to us today: there is no neutrality with God.

"I Don't Know if I'm Saved; There's this Certain Sin."

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 15:26:33 PDT

Judgment Day is Real - Tim Conway

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 15:11:30 PDT

Cut Off Goliath's Head

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:14:14 PDT

God is love

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:04:19 PDT

by:Bill Hier

God is love - this has been made a travesty of what it truly means, as one of the glorious attributes of the most holy, uncreated, infinite Creator of all there is.

When this is said in our current religious community – which often goes by the name of the Lord, but in the same sense that the Pharisees professed God as theirs (Matthew 15:1-9) – the phrase is turned inside out, as the Creator is given that fleshly love by which the unregenerate world of men judge things - they take the base word of the Greek, which is transliterated as “agape,” and without even understanding that this word does not mean the very same thing, in every context where it is used in the Scriptures, try to force the one meaning of men they have given it into its every use.

In Mark 10:17-27, in v. 21, Jesus “loved” the rich young ruler, and the word there is ἠγάπησεν (agapasen), which is definitely a form of agape - a verb form - but is this the love that saves? Was God "unable" to "draw" this young man the rest of the way into His "offer" of salvation?

The answer is no, of course, because the context is showing the impossibility of man to save himself - one might argue that it is only speaking of the rich: why, then, the reaction of the disciples ("Who, then, can be saved?")?

The disciples reacted thus because they recognized the plain speech that Jesus was using. Jesus was telling them - and by extension, us - that man values possessions more than he does God to the extent that he will not come to God - it is part and parcel with man's evil nature to value other things, whether concrete “material” possessions, or the insubstantial substance of his own world-view and philosophies, over He who is not merely the most valuable of all, but beyond that; He who owns all there is, is beyond ascribing a price too, and owns all else that might be considered a “treasure;” all that is created by Him, even upholding all these things, and the very being of those who value them above Him (John 1:1-4; Colossians 1:15-17; 2:8-9; Hebrews 1:1-3).

Yet man has created a god in his own image that must come to him, to seek his willing consent, in order to save him; there is no such God in the Scriptures of the one true God, but man is not willing to take the meaning of those Scriptures, so takes one meaning that is used in the context of our Lord and Savior showing us the love which means sacrifice for the benefit of others (Mark 10:45) – and notice, that love is shown in this passage without even the use of any form of agape – as well as the humility of the Creator in the form of the created He made, and took the form of, to perform this service of a magnitude that dwarfs any concept of service man can seek to define – and forces that meaning into every context where the word is used.

Not only that, man limits God to being of that self-sacrificial love which He alone defines, as He created not only those who defy Him, at His will, but the very language they use to convey their perverse ideology of who and what God is and must do, as if He were enslaved to His attributes in any sense, instead of the fact of the matter: Every one of His attributes – EVERY ONE – is to express His glory. His hatred is pure, unadulterated, holy hatred, but do we hear about that (Psalms 11:5-6; Hosea 9:15)?

No, away from us, we cannot have a God who tells us He hates sinners continuously!

Getting back to the context of our passage in Mark 10, it is important to note in what manner Jesus loved this man – this young man who held the commandments towards men from his youth, as he said.

Jesus loved him from a point in time – the tense and mood are plain – and that point is when Jesus looked upon him; however, this was not that sacrificial love of Jesus that surely saves, but the same compassion He had on the multitude of 5000 when He saw that they were hungry, and needed feeding, and healing (John 6:5; Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17); no, this was simply what it is mentioned as in the verse: a love that sprang up for the young man, in whom, boastful as he was about keeping the commandments regarding human relations, was yet without anger, and seeking as he might, yet unable to keep the greatest commandment – he could have given all his goods away, but without taking up his cross and following Jesus, he could have no reward in heaven, and without recognizing he was seeing God, the Son, he could not even want to do that – without a new nature imparted, he was yet a natural man, unable to understand how to worship God in spirit and truth (John 3:3-8; 4:23-24; 1 Corinthians 2:14).

No amount of religious observation can yield eternal life; God has reserved the right for Himself to give such everlasting life as He wills (with God all things are possible!). Placing possessions of any sort above God, regardless of their substance, shows that not only have we failed to truly observe the second great commandment, which is encompassed and springs forth from the first, but that we are unable to do either, for we have not the changed nature that is led and empowered by the Spirit to do these “works prepared beforehand” (Ephesians 2:10).

God’s love – as His hatred, mercy, humility, wrath, righteousness, patience, and all His attributes – can only be understood when we stop trying to humanize what and who He is: Our hallowed Father in heaven, our Lord and King, the uncreated Creator and owner of the universe and all else that is created. Once we understand how far above our thoughts and ways His are – to the extent that we are given to do so by the enlightenment of His Spirit in our new minds, being renewed through the prayerful reading and study of His Word, and in this way, as He designed and equipped us, seeking His wisdom and knowledge – we will begin to comprehend His grace and love as they are: unmerited, given while we were yet His enemies, to those He wills. This is true grace – the pardon for killing His Son, and the new life from that nature of death that would do so again, even as He makes us come forth from the tomb, as Lazarus answered Jesus.

Are All Doctrines Essential for Salvation? (Romans 10)

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 20:47:21 PDT

History of the Modern "Gospel" (Part 1) [Real Truth Matters]

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 05:02:07 PDT

The Crucifixion | A Medical Perspective

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:51:24 PDT

Christians and the 10 Commandments

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 19:23:13 PDT

by: Jeff Lacine

How are Christians supposed to relate to the 10 commandments? John Piper gives his answer in today's Ask Pastor John.

The following is an edited transcript of the audio.

Are Christians under the 10 commandments?

No. The Bible says we're not under the law.

I love Romans 7:4-6. By way of analogy, it says that you are married to the law. And you better stay married because if you leave this husband and go marry another you are going to be called an adulterer. But if your husband dies, then you can go and remarry.

And then Paul draws the analogy out—a little complex the way he does it—saying that you died to the law. You aren't married anymore, you can have another husband, namely Christ. He's raised from the dead.

So, our approach towards ethics is different. We don't ask the question, "Am I under the law?" We are under grace. The law is already fulfilled perfectly by Jesus. We are in Jesus and as far justification goes, God sees it as completed for you, one-hundred percent. He says, "You've trusted my Son. You've been grafted in him. You are in Christ Jesus and he fulfilled the law perfectly. He covered all your sins." God sees you in and through Christ, therefore, as far as final judgment goes God is 100% for you. That is settled and nothing is going to change it.

Now, shall we sin that grace may abound? Paul says, "Dead men don't sin." If you've died to sin, how can you still live in it? The new birth is the writing of the law on our heart so that we are not under it, it is under us. It is just coming out.

The way we strive towards being obedient, holy and loving people is not by getting up in the morning and pulling the list out of our pocket. No! We get on our knees and we open ourselves to the whole counsel of God in the Bible. We saturate and shape ourselves by everything he has done, he is doing and he will do. We stake our lives in the gospel and then instead of serving the law, we serve one another in love.

Love is the fruit of faith in Jesus—faith working through love. And if you ask, "What does love look like?" First John says, "It keeps the commandments." That brings us back to the question, which commandments? I would say, the ones that are loving.

Love God and do as you please is not bad advice, if you're bent on holiness. If you're bent on love the ten commandments are really important. You should hang them on your wall and you should measure your life by them, but in a very different way than when you were under them, because they have been kept for you.

You are now married to the risen Christ. You are not married to the law and the oldness of the letter, but to the newness of the Spirit. Our whole approach towards transformation, love and life is different than list keeping.

Masturbation: Is it sin?

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 19:52:16 PDT

Written by: Chris Stump | July 27th, 2010

About seven years ago I attended my first Exodus conference. As I was looking at the multitude of workshops offered during the week I came across one entitled “Something, something…MASTURBATION”. I can’t remember the whole title, because I just saw that “m” word. I knew I had to go to that one. But of course when the time came to go I was filled with so much trepidation and shame. Would I be the only one in the workshop? I got up enough courage to go, and to my amazement, the room was so full, there was barely any standing room. It was such a relief to know that I was no longer the only person, or one of the select few, who dealt with this issue.

Something that is so common, a problem for so many Christians, is one of the few things ever discussed in church. So what is the answer to the question, ‘Is masturbation a sin?’ Is there really anything wrong with it? I mean, what’s the harm? What does the Bible say?

The Bible doesn’t specifically address the issue of masturbation. Out of the entire scriptures, not one verse mentions masturbation. The closest one that is used most often in relation to masturbation is Genesis 38:9 -

But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.

Tamar was Onan’s sister-in-law. Her husband, Er, was wicked and recently died. So Judah, Onan’s father told him to lie with Tamar to produce children that Er couldn’t do. But Onan, spills his seed to prevent himself from impregnating Tamar. The Lord is angry and ultimately kills him. So, because he spills his seed, many equate that with masturbation. But, if you look at the context, it isn’t masturbation the Lord is displeased with, it is the fact that Onan deliberately prevents himself from passing his seed on to Tamar. He disrespects God’s perfect design by wasting his seed. The purpose he was to fulfill was thwarted by his own selfish desires. So this verse we can’t use to defend or condemn masturbation.

But I believe the issue of lust is important to discuss in relation to masturbation. In my many years of battling with this issue, I’ve heard the arguments that masturbation is alright as long as it doesn’t become an addictive behavior and it’s used as a tool for relaxation and not lust. But I have not found one time when lust could be suppressed from the act of masturbation. The two are closely associated. Masturbation is an artificial expression of sex, and in God’s perfect design, sex is to be a relational, deeply intimate expression between one man and one woman of their sacrificial love for one another. So how could one be able to masturbate without bringing a relational dynamic into it – most often in the form of fantasy or pornography?

Christopher West, in Theology of the Body for Beginners, shares insights from Pope John Paul II. He discusses an interesting perspective on lust. Pope John Paul’s belief is that love and sex ultimately is self-donation. It is the body’s capacity of expressing love. A man’s body doesn’t make sense by itself and a woman’s body doesn’t make sense by itself. Sexual difference reveals the unmistakable plan of God that man and woman are meant to be a “gift” to one another. This is a whole other subject for a different post. But this sets the backdrop for what he later brings up about lust:

Lust “passes on the ruins” of the nuptial (marital) meaning of the body and aims directly to satisfy only the “sexual need” of the body. It seeks “the sensation of sexuality” apart from a true gift of self and a true communion of persons … In reality, lust is a reduction of the original fullness God intended for sexual desire.

Lust is the difference between self-gratification and self-donation, taking versus giving. You see, sex is a very relational thing. It was never intended to be enjoyed by oneself. Regardless of whether you claim you can masturbate without fantasizing or not, it doesn’t matter. Sex and orgasms were meant for the marriage bed, to unite two individuals in self-giving.

An orgasm was not originally designed for relaxation or for self-indulgence. I remember hearing a talk one time by Sy Rogers. I’m paraphrasing and perhaps even restructuring his thought here, but this is the gist of it. An orgasm, originally, serves as a seal between two individuals. In a world without pornography and void of masturbation, a man is to meet a woman, fall in love, marry, and unite in the joyous act of sexual intercourse. When both partners experience orgasm, their other partner is imprinted in their minds, stamped, sealed, and delivered to their brain as the person of their dreams…in essence. Of course I’m merely paraphrasing.

The dangers of masturbating is imprinting your mind with many different people that were never supposed to be linked to this most intimate act. A rewiring in your brain happens. That’s why, at least for me, when I began indulging in pornography I could never masturbate without the fantasy. Because that was imprinted in my mind.

Can you imagine what it would be like, men, to never have masturbated, never looked at pornography, resisted the temptation to lust, and once you marry and enter the marriage bed for the first time, your wife is the only one imprinted on your mind in the most intimate moment? That was God’s original intent.

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. Galatians 5:16-17

So, if you are still battling with this whole notion of whether it is sin or not start asking yourself these questions, “Do you feel guilty after you do it?” If the answer is yes, then most likely you are feeling conviction, which means it is sin. Is this something habitual for you? Has it become an idol? Then masturbation is not a good or beneficial thing. Do you use it as a form of medication? Then masturbation is a substitution for God, and therefore sin.

For those who do truly believe masturbation is possible without lust, then I should ask, what’s the benefit? Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10:23 that, “everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial.” So, if you believe masturbation is permissible, what’s the benefit that it brings other than self-gratification and pleasure? We are called to be living sacrifices, not living self-indulgers.

Ultimately masturbation is a counterfeit form of intimacy and leads to self-focused gratification. Therefore, how do we deal with it?

First, acknowledge God’s grace and love for you. If you are trapped in a repetitive, addictive, unbreakable cycle of masturbating, you probably feel a lot of shame and guilt. If so, embrace God’s love, and rest in His grace for you. He sees you, not your sin. Begin to dive deeper into relationship with Him. Once He supplies your relational needs, then the counterfeit of masturbation loses it’s appeal. If you are fulfilled in His love, you no longer need the self-gratification or indulgence of pornography or masturbation.

We also must daily deny ourselves, our fleshly desires, and self-focused motivations to Christ. The longer we starve an addiction, the easier it becomes to resist. Our bodies are not our own. “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own” 1 Corinthians 6:19. As a temple of the Holy Spirit, we should not defile our bodies in acts of self-gratification of any kind.

We must submit our sexuality, sexual appetites, and impulses to God. He, by His Holy Spirit, will give us the grace and power to resist and fight the temptation to masturbate. This is something that can be extremely hard to break. So walk under the grace of our Lord, and not under condemnation. The more you feel accused, the easier it is to stay stuck in this sin. God neither accuses or condemns you, because Christ took on all of that for us. If you are stuck in the repetitive cycle of sin, then I encourage you to truly embrace who you are in Christ. You are beloved, a dearly loved child of the King. To learn more about helpful tools and ways to handle temptation read Hope for Resisting Temptation.

If you are using masturbation to medicate pain, loneliness, or brokenness, then acknowledge it and begin to understand what triggers you and how you handle certain issues. Your brain has been conditioned to respond to hard life situations through masturbation. It will take some time to retrain your brain and respond to these same situations by turning to Christ who is THE absolute medicator and healer. Masturbation only medicates for a few minutes. Christ heals for a lifetime.

This is indeed a reality that so many men struggle with. It is now becoming a prevalent struggle for women as well. Don’t keep this in the dark. Gather around your brothers, men or sisters, women and begin to fight this struggle together. It is when we bring our dark secrets into the light that freedom comes. Darkness only perpetuates more bondage. The more we talk about this in a real, honest, and humble way, the more shame and guilt will relinquish its power to the healing of the community of faith and Christ Himself.

Via: ExodusYouth.net

Freewillism is a False Gospel!

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 08:33:21 PDT

*Removed out of Respect*

Which Jesus?

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:49:47 PDT

By Lee Smith (Pastoral Ponderings of an Energetic Exegete)

Jesus has become a popular figure in American culture. Few people in America today could claim that they never have heard of the man named Jesus. Writers write about him, singers sing about him, and many profess to follow him. He even makes appearances on television shows and movies. He serves as the center of the liturgy in just about every Protestant and Catholic church. However, in my own study of the Gospels which document the life and work of Jesus, it appears that the common perception of Jesus is much different than the Jesus described in God's Word. Many churches and denominations that place Jesus as the center in their worship services and life are not worshiping the same Jesus that we discover in the Bible.

Not Merely A Great Moral Teacher
A popular view of Jesus is to regulate Him to a great moral teacher who provides instructions for how man should live his life. While it is true that much wisdom can be gleaned from Jesus' teachings, the Bible goes so much further in its description of him. The Jesus found in the Bible is so much more than merely a "great moral teacher." He is the Messiah, the "Anointed One, the "Son of God." Anyone who reads the Gospels cannot deny this. Matthew opens up his gospel highlighting Jesus' supernatural birth. He indicates that Jesus was the son of Mary but not Joseph by using the feminine singular pronoun, hes (whom in English) (Matthew 1:16). Had he intended to acknowledge Joseph as Jesus' biological father, he would have used a plural pronoun that would possibly be masculine in gender since the rules of Greek grammar demand that a pronoun match the noun it replaces in both gender and number. He explicitly states that it was before they came together that she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18). The angel informed Joseph that the Child who has been conceived in her [Mary] is of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20). Matthew identifies Jesus' birth to be the fulfillment of the prophet in Isaiah of a virgin having a son that would be referred to as Immanuel (Matthew 1:22-23) and that he was not knowing her (a euphemism for sexual intercourse) until after Jesus was born (Matthew 1:25). This was no mere man but the Son of God.

The recurring theme in John's Gospel is that Jesus is God. In his opening prologue, he states that the Word was God (John 1:1). Throughout the book, he emphasizes the many "I Am" statements of Jesus (John 4:26; 6:20, 35, 41, 48, 51; 8:12, 18, 24, 28, 58; 10:7, 9, 11, 14; 11:25; 13:19; 14:6; 15:1, 5; 18:5, 6, 8). The phrase ego eimi (I Am in English) spoken often by Jesus was more than just Him describing Himself. In uttering this phrase, He was indicating that He was God, the great I Am Who revealed Himself to Moses in Exodus 3:14. God said to Moses, "I Am Who I Am" ('ehyeh 'eser 'ehyeh); and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I Am ('ehyeh) has sent me to you.' " God's name in Hebrew, Yahweh (identified in English translations as LORD), is similar to the verb, hayah (to be), used in this verse. The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, translates 'ehyeh (I Am) as ego eimi. The Jews of Jesus' day certainly understood this connection as they picked up stones to throw at Him for blasphemy after He declared Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am (ego eimi) (John 8:58-59). When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus in the garden, they fall prostrate when He states I am (ego eimi) (John 18:4-6). This falling was a common occurrence in the Old Testament when anyone found himself in the presence of God. John clearly desires for his readers to walk away from reading his gospel with the knowledge that Jesus is God in the flesh. He even stated that this was his purpose for writing about Jesus. but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:31). Someone who follows a Jesus who is only a moral teacher does not follow the true Jesus of the Bible Who is the Son of God.

Not A Crusader for Physical Peace
Another popular conception of Jesus is that He is a pacifist that opposes all war. Followers of this Jesus heavily protest any and every war and demand that they all cease. They become militant and "fight" for the end of war at all cost. However, the Jesus of the Bible does not discuss war much at all and in the few times that He does, He gives a neutral judgment of it. He only tells His disciples the reality that there will be wars and rumors of wars before the time of tribulation that is to come (Matthew 24:6). The only instruction that He gave to His disciples pertaining to this truth is to See that you are not frightened, for these things must take place, but that is not yet the end. He also used war as an example for considering the cost of discipleship and the necessity of giving up oneself to follow Christ (Luke 14:31-33). Again, He makes no judgment call pertaining to war at all. Nowhere does Jesus explicitly state or imply that "all war is sin." Had He done so, He would have called His Father a sinner as the Old Testament portrays God as ordaining (Isaiah 10:5-12), commanding (Numbers 31:1-2; 1 Samuel 15:3), and even fighting wars (Joshua 10:10-11; Judges 7:22). Instead, Jesus' focus was on His Kingdom which He introduced during His first advent and which will be a physical reality when He establishes it upon His return. He told Pilate that My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not from here (John 18:36). He instructed His disciples to pray that God's kingdom would come (Matthew 6:10) and for them to seek first His kingdom and His righteousness (Matthew 6:33). The focus Jesus had and the focus He commands His followers to have is on the Kingdom of God and not the Kingdom of Man. A follower of the Jesus found in the Bible, while living in the Kingdom of Man, will be focused on spreading the gospel which serves as the means God uses to bring people into the Kingdom of God. Those who are laboring endlessly to transform society and create a peaceful government in Jesus' name have crafted a Jesus who is focused on the Kingdom of Man and not the Kingdom of God as the biblical Jesus.

Not Tolerant and Accepting
Many people view Jesus as being tolerant of any lifestyle and accepting of any path one may take. This conception of Jesus pictures a man holding his arms wide open to welcome any and everyone. The only problem he ever has is with those who are not as tolerant and accepting as he is. These are the ones who are classified as "judgmental." However, such a Jesus cannot be found anywhere in the Gospels. The Jesus described in the Gospel accounts did not tolerate sin but called for everyone to repent of their sin. According to Mark, the first statement that Jesus made in the beginning of His official ministry was The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15). Even with the woman caught in adultery, Jesus did not forget about her sin. He did not condemn her for her sin but certainly did not condone it either. Instead, He commanded her to Go. From now on sin no more (John 8:11). Jesus also was not tolerant with the self-righteousness and hypocrisy of the Pharisees but constantly pointed it out about them (Matthew 6:5; 23:1-33; Luke 5:29-32; 12:1; 15:1-32; 16:14-15; 18:9-14). This was a group He did not welcome with open arms but instead chastised.

The Jesus found in Scripture is nowhere near as accepting as the more popular Jesus heard around every street corner. He did not accept half-hearted allegiance but demanded that those who would follow Him must deny himself, and take up his cross (Matthew 16:24). He did not accept the rich young man who inquired about how to acquire eternal life because the man would not let go of the wealth that he so tightly held to and worshiped (Matthew 19:16-22/Mark 10:17-22/Luke 18:18-23). Jesus certainly did not accept the practice of the money changers in the Temple when He drove them out with a whip (Matthew 21:12-13/Mark 11:15-17/Luke 19:45/John 2:13-17)! He also did not accept any other avenue to get to God but stated that I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6). In the original Greek, each of these nouns (way, truth, and life) have a definite article which makes it clear that Jesus claims that He is the "one" or "only" way, the "one" or "only" truth, and the "one" or "only" life instead of "a" way, "a" truth, and "a" life which would communicate one of many. This means that the Jesus of the Bible does not accept the Buddha, Muhammad, Krishna, or one's own righteousness as means to get to God the Father. He is the sole and only way to God.

Not Solely Concerned About Man's Physical Well-Being
Yet another Jesus has as his primary concern the feeding and taking care of the poor. This Jesus instructs his follows to take care of the physical needs of the less fortunate of the world and may not even mention their spiritual condition at all. He mostly talks about the necessity of "making a difference" in the world. While the Jesus revealed in the Bible does care about the poor and calls His followers to do the same (Matthew 19:21; 25:31-45), His primary concern is with their spiritual plight. In His discussion with the woman at the well, Jesus looked past her physical need for literal water and instead told her of her need for the living water that only He could give. Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life (John 4:13-14). Even after meeting the physical need of the 5,000 around the Sea of Galilee with the miraculous multiplication of bread, Jesus later instructs them to not seek Him for more physical sustenance but instead to look to Him for the spiritual bread that will never wear out. Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you (John 6:27).

The Jesus of the Bible's mission was to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:10) and not to meet one's physical needs. Throughout the Gospels we find a seeking Savior who confronts sinners about their sins and calls them to believe and follow Him instead of a social worker going around feeding and clothing the poor. In fact, the salvation of sinners is His namesake. Jesus' name in Aramaic, Yeshua, literally means Yahweh saves or Yahweh is salvation. The angel who appeared to Joseph in a dream concerning Jesus' birth explicitly states salvation as the reason for this name to be given to the baby. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21). Following a Jesus whose primary concern is anything other than the salvation of lost souls is following a different Jesus than the One presented in the Bible.

The One True Jesus
Only one Jesus saves. He must be recognized as the Son of God who gave His life as a substitute for the sins of those who would believe in Him as described in Scripture. Salvation is only found in the Jesus portrayed in the Bible. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am (ego eimi), you will die in your sins (John 8:24). Any other conception of Jesus is a false one and while he may bring comfort to those who follow him, he does not have the power to save them from God's wrath that is upon them due to their sins (John 3:36; Romans 1:18).

Many may talk about Jesus and even worship him, but the real question is, which Jesus?

In Christ,
Lee
Soli Deo Gloria
Solus Christus

A New Generation of Missionaries from Malawi

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:20:51 PDT

Continuing the Legacy of Dr. David Livingstone

A little over one hundred and fifty years after Dr. Livingstone first stepped on the shores of Malawi in pursuit of God’s call upon His life there are now millions of Christians and many vibrant churches throughout Malawi and Southern Africa. These Christians have been growing both in number and in their understanding of the gospel.

When I see what the LORD is doing in Malawi—especially among the young people—I feel great joy and have tremendous hope that the gospel will continue to spread widely not only in Malawi, but from Malawi literally to the ends of the earth. I believe that the LORD is raising up a great army of “soldiers of the cross” from Malawi—young men and women who have embraced the whole gospel and are committed to serving God in their generation by “Taking the whole Gospel to the Whole Man and to the Whole World,” which is the motto of Joy to the World Ministries (JTW), the organization for which, in the LORD’s providence, I serve as the president.

Since 2008, JTW has been sponsoring the Chosen Generation Missions Conference in order to sensitize the church in Malawi to what is happening in missions around the world and to awaken a passion for missions among the younger generation of Christians from Malawi and Southern Africa.

From July 28-31, I will be joined by a group of speakers from Malawi and Scotland in calling a generation of young Christians from Malawi and the surrounding countries to open their eyes and see that the fields are ripe for harvest. We pray that they may respond to God’s call to serve as missionaries in other parts of Malawi, Africa and the world, as the LORD shall lead.

Ironically, places like Scotland and most of Europe have now become the spiritually dark places and are in great need of the gospel. Europe seems to have become the “New Dark Continent” spiritually. My prayer is that some day in the LORD’s good providence, Malawi will send not just one missionary but hundreds and thousands to Scotland and other parts of the world to preach the Gospel.

Please pray with me that the LORD will be pleased to raise up a generation of mighty men and women who will heed this call and go wherever the Lord chooses to use them to spread the gospel for his own glory and the salvation of the lost.

~By: Bill Walsh

Desiring God

Coming to a Doctor’s Office Near You? The New Abortion Strategy

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 06:43:39 PDT

Via: Al Mohler

Monday, July 19, 2010

The tragedy of abortion remains one of this nation’s greatest reasons for shame, and the fact that over a million abortions are performed each year is nothing less than horrifying. In light of this tragedy, it is at least encouraging to know that abortion, though an industry of death, is not a growth industry. At least for now.

All that may change if a new movement meets with success. As reported by Emily Bazelon, a new movement seeks to move abortions from abortion clinics to your local hospital, medical school, and physician’s office. In other words, those behind this new movement intend to mainstream abortion as medical practice, and to hide it behind a facade of medical respectability.

Bazelon’s report, “The New Abortion Providers,” appears as the cover story in the July 18, 2010 edition of The New York Times Magazine. As she reports, this new movement is training family physicians and other doctors to perform abortion as a standard part of their medical practice. As the cover of the magazine states, “”They are doctors seeing patients in their offices. They have quietly learned how to terminate pregnancies.”

The story of how and why this is happening is important, and Bazelon’s cover article demands attention. If this movement is successful, abortion will become institutionalized within American medical practice.

The background for this new movement is itself interesting. When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the infamous Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in 1973, 100 obstetricians and gynecology professors released an open letter, suggesting that abortion clinics would be unnecessary if half of the nation’s obstetricians would make abortion part of their medical practice. They also called upon hospitals to do “their proportionate share.”

But, as Bazelon reports, this was not to be. As a matter of fact, hospitals largely worked their way out of the abortion business. Hospitals accounted for 80 percent of abortion facilities in 1973, when abortion was legalized. By 1988, 90 percent of abortions took place in an abortion clinic. In Bazelon’s words, “The American Medical Association did not maintain standards of care for the procedure. Hospitals didn’t shelter them in their wings. Being a pro-choice doctor came to mean referring your patients to a clinic rather than doing abortions in your own office.”

This was not what the architects of the abortion rights movement had in mind. “This was never the feminist plan,” Bazelon explains. She goes on to argue that the founders of the abortion clinics also did not intend those facilities to become the mainstays of the abortion industry, but this is rather hard to square with the financial incomes those clinics defend.

Nevertheless, the fact is that abortions were largely isolated to abortion clinics, and most doctors kept themselves far from involvement in abortion. In the words of a much-cited 1992 medical journal article, “Under pressure and stigma, more doctors shun abortion.”

The turning point in Bazelon’s article comes when she explains that this new movement is doing everything it can to reverse these trends — and to put abortion in the mainstream of American medical practice. Bazelon calls this “a deliberate and concerted counteroffensive.”

Further:

This abortion-rights campaign, led by physicians themselves, is trying to recast doctors, changing them from a weak link of abortion to a strong one. Its leaders have built residency programs and fellowships at university hospitals, with the hope that, eventually, more and more doctors will use their training to bring abortion into their practices. The bold idea at the heart of this effort is to integrate abortion so that it’s a seamless part of health care for women — embraced rather than shunned.

The center of the movement is the University of California at San Francisco. There, Professor Jody Steinauer told the magazine, “The ’90s were about getting abortion back into residency training and medical schools . . . . Now it’s about getting abortion into our practices.”

Steinauer was a leader in founding Medical Students for Choice, a group that pushes for more visibility and for residency programs in abortion procedures and reproductive health. Largely due to the MSFC and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, fully half of the 200 OB-GYN programs in the country “integrate abortion into their residents’ regular rotations.”

The University of California at San Francisco medical school has also established a two-year “Family Planning Fellowship,” designed to attract promising young physicians. The program has now spread to 21 medical schools.

What this fellowship program and the larger movement aim to accomplish is nothing less than the normalization of abortion within the practice of medicine. As Bazelton observes, “The providers that make up the new vanguard don’t define themselves as ‘abortion doctors.’ They often try to make the procedure part of their broader medical practice — by spending much of their week seeing patients for general gynecology or primary-care visits, and by being on call on the labor and delivery floor. If the young doctors succeed at making abortion mainstream and respected within medicine, abortion could move from clinics to doctor’s offices and hospitals.”

Another part of this movement is driven by the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program, started by former National Abortion Federation director Uta Landy and her husband, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California at San Francisco. That program finances abortion training for medical students and doctors on 58 campuses. That program, Bazelon reports, is funded by one foundation and one anonymous donor. The foundation is the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, named for the late wife of investor Warren Buffett. According to Bazelon’s report, Warren Buffett contributed $3 billion to the foundation, and most of the foundation’s spending goes to “abortion and contraception advocacy and research.” Bazelon cites a report in the The Wall Street Journal that credited Buffett with funding the research to produce the abortion pill. Even with this massive funding in place, Warren Buffett has largely escaped public attention on the abortion issue.

And that is the aim — to normalize abortion without public notice, avoiding the protests outside abortion clinics. “We want to fight the battle, but not all of us are martyrs,” said one physician.

They have a long way to go. The report states that only 2 percent of abortions are now done in a physician’s office and only 5 percent are performed in a hospital. The medical profession is still reluctant, at the very least, to embrace abortion as normal practice.

As Bazelton explains:

This highlights the challenge of making abortion truly mainstream — of moving beyond residency training and outside the haven of medical-school faculties, so that more doctors offer abortions when they join a regular OB-GYN or primary-care practice. As yet, all the success in training new doctors hasn’t translated into an increase in access. Abortion remains the most common surgical procedure for American women; one-third of them will have one by the age of 45. The number performed annually in the U.S. has largely held steady: 1.3 million in 1977 and 1.2 million three decades later. In metropolitan areas, women who want to go to their own doctor for an abortion can ask whether a practice offers abortion when they choose an OB-GYN or family physician. But in 87 percent of the counties in the U.S., where a third of women live, there is no known abortion provider.

Emily Bazelon’s report offers a fascinating and important look at abortion in American today — past, present, and future. She points sympathetically to this new movement and its aims, but she seems to sense that the medical profession is still resistant to abortion, and may remain so.

She writes with great skill and insight, but she lets her own disposition slip when she refers to the aborted contents of a womb as “pregnancy tissue.”

This new movement, fueled by fervent abortion advocates and financed, in part, by Warren Buffett’s billions, may make real headway. We must pray that it does not. The normalization of abortion within the practice of medicine would be a tragedy beyond words — the embrace of death within a profession dedicated to life.

The front cover of the magazine asks the question: “Is this the new front in the abortion wars?” If the magazine’s editors did not believe that indeed this is the next front in this long war, they would never have asked the question. Now, thanks to Emily Bazelon and this report, we all know the answer to that question.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

What Would God Say to the President of South Africa?

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 05:43:51 PDT

The Resurgence writes: “PJ Smyth of GodFirst Church in Johannesburg recently preached a sermon entitled “What Would God Say to the President of South Africa” with South African President Jacob Zuma in attendance.”

Well done, Pastor Smyth!

You can read the notes here.

Here are his three main points:

1. I have made you the President of South Africa
2. Anticipate submissive and prayerful followership by Christ-following South Africans
3. In view of me appointing you, lead confidently and humbly

An excerpt from the third point:

So lead confidently in the assurance that you are God’s appointment, but also lead…Humbly, because within this epic encouragement lies a sobering truth: You are God’s servant (Romans 13:4), and as such the day will come that God will relieve you of your responsibilities and give them to another, and the day will come when you will need to give an account to God for how you have led. A servant of South Africa certainly, but more than that a servant of God. He gave you the job, to govern his people, according to his template of right and wrong.

By: Justin Taylor

A Primer on Limited (or Definite) Atonement

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:45:01 PDT

By: Justin Taylor

Last week Doug Wilson linked to a piece by Randy Alcorn, who suggested that the logic of limited atonement is appealing but the exegetical basis for it is lacking. Doug offered a brief response, with valid points about Christ securing actual salvation and not possible salvation, but asserts that post-millenialism is the real solution. I don’t see how the post-mill scheme helps much exegetically, but that’s not the point of this post.

Let me mention a couple of things that I found helpful when I began exploring this issue several years ago.

In his classic The Death of Death in the Death of Christ John Owen explained the dilemma of those who deny definite atonement:

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

All the sins of all men.
All the sins of some men, or
Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, “Because of unbelief.”

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!

In other words, it is impossible to reconcile the proposition “Christ paid the punishment for all the sins of all people” with the idea that “Some people will pay the punishment for their sin in hell.”

Secondly, Lorraine Boettner showed in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination that both Calvinists and Arminians “limit” the atonement.

The Calvinist limits the extent of [the atonement] in that he says it does not apply to all persons . . . ; while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody.

The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively.

For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge which goes only half-way across.

I think these are valid arguments.

But it was John Piper who helped me see the issue from another angle. In effect, Piper argues that Calvinists essentially affirm the biblical truth that Arminians insist upon. But the Calvinist affirms something some more—something biblical that Arminians deny.

If you want to think this through, then I’d encourage you to read the following carefully. I’ve added some headings and italics to help process the argument a bit.

What Arminians Believe

Arminians take all the passages which say the death of Christ is “for us” (Romans 5:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:10) or for “his own sheep” (John 10:11, 15) or for “the church” (Ephesians 5:25; Acts 20:28) or for “the children of God” (John 11:52) or for “those who are being sanctified” (Hebrews 10:14) and say that the meaning is that God designs and intends the atonement for all people in the same way, but that God applies it as effective and saving only for those who believe and become part of “us” and “the sheep” and “the church” and “the children of God.”

In this view, then, the sentence, “Christ died for you,” means: Christ died for all sinners, so that if you will repent and believe in Christ, then the death of Jesus will become effective in your case and will take away your sins.

Now, as far as it goes, this seems to me to be acceptable teaching.

What Arminians Deny

But then Arminians deny something that I think the Bible teaches.

They deny that the texts about Christ’s dying for “us” or “his sheep” or his “church” or “the children of God” were intended by God to obtain something more for his people than the benefits they get after they believe.

They deny, specifically, that the death of Christ was not only intended by God to obtain benefits for people after they believe (which is true), but even more, Christ’s death was intended by God to obtain the very willingness to believe.

In other words, the divine grace that it takes to overcome our hardness of heart and become a believer was also obtained by the blood of Jesus.

Where Arminians and Calvinists Agree

There is no dispute that Christ died to obtain great saving benefits for all who believe.

Moreover, there is no dispute that Christ died so that we might say to all persons everywhere without exception: “God gave his only begotten Son to die for sin so that if you believe on him you may have eternal life.”

Where Arminians and Calvinists Disagree

The dispute is whether God intended for the death of Christ to obtain more than these two things: (1) saving benefits after faith, and (2) a bona fide invitation that can be made to any person to believe on Christ for salvation.

Clarifying Questions

Specifically, did God intend for the death of Christ to obtain the free gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8) and repentance (2 Timothy 2:25)?

Did the blood of Jesus obtain both the benefits after faith, and the benefit of faith itself?

Here’s the Rub

Does the historic Arminian interpretation of any of the “universal” texts on the atonement necessarily contradict this “more” that I am affirming about God’s intention for the death of Christ? (Texts like: 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 John 2:1-2; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Corinthians 5:19; John 1:29; 2 Peter 2:1.)

I don’t think so. Arminians historically are just as eager as Calvinists to avoid saying that these texts teach “universal salvation.” So they do not teach that the death of Christ “for all” saves all. Rather, they say, in the words of Millard Erickson, “God intended the atonement to make salvation possible for all persons. Christ died for all persons, but this atoning death becomes effective only when accepted by the individual.” Erickson then says, “This is the view of all Arminians” (Christian Theology, p. 829, emphasis added).

What has come clearer to me as I have pondered these things is that Arminians do not say that in the death of Christ God intends to effectively save all for whom Christ died. They only say that God intends to make possible the salvation of all for whom Christ died. But this interpretation of these “universal” texts does not contradict the Calvinist assertion that God does intend to obtain the grace of faith and repentance for a definite group by the death of Christ.

Arminians may deny this assertion, but they cannot deny it on the basis of their interpretation of the “universal” texts of the atonement. That interpretation simply affirms that all may have salvation if they believe. Calvinists do not dispute that. They only go beyond it.

Here’s the rub: if he did this “more,” he didn’t do it for everyone. So at this level the atonement becomes “limited.” And this is what Arminians stumble over: is there anything that God would do to get some unbelievers saved that he would not do for all? This “limitation” implies a choice on God’s part to save some and not all.

A word about the comments before anyone responds. Let’s dialogue respectfully. Before critiques are offered—for or against limited atonement—let’s make sure we have an attitude of faith seeking understanding.

The Case Against Marriage, Courtesy of Newsweek

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:53:36 PDT

By: Al. Mohler

One essential task for the Christian Church is to rebuild and maintain a marriage culture — even when marriage itself no longer makes sense to so many around us.

Friday, June 25, 2010

“Once upon a time, marriage made sense.” So write Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison in the June 11, 2010 edition of Newsweek magazine. The two women who wrote the article are both young adults who identify themselves as “committed to our careers, friendships, and, yes, our relationships.” But, as for marriage, not so much.

As Bennett and Ellison explain their case, marriage once made sense, at least for women, because it “was how women ensured their financial security, got the fathers of their children to stick around, and gained access to a host of legal rights.” But now, thanks largely to the feminist movement, they claim, the financial and legal rights are theirs without marriage. They never actually get around to saying much about fathers sticking around to take responsibility for children.

The Newsweek article represents what may be the most direct journalistic attack on marriage in our times. Though only an op-ed column, it presents arguments that had to date been made largely, if not exclusively, outside of mainstream circles. Consider this column an opening salvo in a battle to finish marriage off, once and for all.

Both women identify themselves as secular, and their rejection of marriage reflects the inevitable crumbling of a marriage culture in the wake of a moral revolution. As they explain, reserving sex for marriage is simply unthinkable to them and their peers. “And the idea that we’d ’save ourselves’ for marriage? Please.” Interestingly, they quote a young man who makes a remarkable case for why the loss of moral stigma for premarital sex breaks down the institution of marriage itself: “If I had to be married to have sex, I would probably be married, as would every guy I know.”

And when it comes to having children without marriage: “We know that having children out of wedlock lost its stigma a long time ago.” They then point with envy to Scandinavia, where a majority of children are now born out of wedlock, but parents claim to spend more time with their children than parents of other nations.

The secular worldview represented by Bennett and Ellison is joined to their status as young professionals. Marriage does not enhance professional prospects, they argue. Women who take their husbands’ last name are considered less professional, less competent, and less ambitious than women who keep their own names.

As they explain, “We are also the so-called entitled generation, brought up with lofty expectations of an egalitarian adulthood; told by helicopter parents and the media, from the moment we exited the womb, that we could be ‘whatever we wanted’—with infinite opportunities to accomplish those dreams. So you can imagine how, 25 years down the line, committing to another person—for life—would be nerve-racking.”

And just who are they seeking as partners, anyway? They explain that their generation of young women is looking for a “soulmate” — a fantasy they admit is hard to define and even harder to find.

And an adult lifetime is just too long for any realistic commitment, they insist. “With our life expectancy in the high 70s, the idea that we’re meant to be together forever is less realistic.” So while their generation of young women is, by their admission, unrealistic in what they are looking for in a partner, they are supposedly cold sober realistic when it comes to calculating the value of marriage, and finding it wanting.

This duo of young women go so far as to claim that “the permanence of marriage seems naive, almost arrogant.” Others, of course, might be forgiven for seeing unbridled arrogance in dismissing an institution that has been central to human flourishing for thousands of years.

They cite authorities who make the predictable arguments that humans are not hardwired for monogamy, anyway. Bennett and Ellison propose that perhaps a series of short, mostly monogamous relationships is best. “For us, it’s not that we reject monogamy altogether—indeed, one of us is going on six years with a partner—but that the idea of marriage has become so tainted, and simultaneously so idealized, that we’re hesitant to engage in it,” they explain.

In their essay, Bennett and Ellison cite a considerable body of research on marriage and make reference to our disastrous divorce rate. Nevertheless, it never seems to cross their minds that the very social trends they celebrate were the cause of marital decline — both in terms of individual marriages and the institution of marriage itself.

The moral revolutions of the late-twentieth century brought personal autonomy to preeminence. These moral revolutions included the rise of “no fault” divorce and a host of other developments that subverted marriage. Chief among these was the “liberation” of sex from marriage. Once sexual intercourse was no longer limited to married couples, marriage lost respect and binding authority, becoming more like a mere legal contract. Once having children out of wedlock was normalized (at least in many sectors of the society), marriage became a lifestyle option and little else.

There is an amazing lack of humility in the article by Bennett and Ellison, and a breathtaking lack of concern for other women as well. What about women who are not so professional, so secular, and so liberated from a desire for marriage? They are simply thrown under the bus, run over by the very social trends and moral revolutions these women champion and celebrate.

The Christian church should take careful note of this essay, not because its arguments are unprecedented, but because its distillation of these arguments in one of the nation’s two major newsweeklies must not escape attention. Christians see marriage, first of all, as an institution made good and holy by the Creator. Its value, for us, is not established by sociology but by Scripture. We also understand that God gave us marriage for our good, for our protection, for our sanctification, and for human flourishing.

In other words, the Bible compels us to see marriage as essential to human happiness, health, and infinitely more.

The essay by Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison is an undeniable reminder of our challenge to rebuild a marriage culture, and to start inside our own churches. “Once upon a time, marriage made sense,” Bennett and Ellison assert. One essential task for the Christian Church is to rebuild and maintain a marriage culture — even when marriage itself no longer makes sense to so many around us.

Live for Eternity - Paul Washer (Spanish Captions)

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:45:01 PDT

Ergun Caner and the Jerry Springer Show

noreply@blogger.com (Bud Driver) — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:37:00 PDT