Friday, October 23, 2009
God with Pumpkin-spice coffee on the side?
Does God come with pumpkin-spice coffee and door-prizes on the side? Only in America is God packaged, marketed, and sold to the masses. I recently received a mailer that read in huge letters on the front: "Church Sucks." The back promised coffee, exciting music, gifts, and "relevant" preaching that will be taking place at the "grand opening" of a new "church." I didn't know churches could have "grand openings" like a new Wal-Mart. What has happened to the true message of the Bible in these spiritually dark days? What has happened to human sinfulness, divine grace, and the shed blood of Jesus Christ at Calvary's cross being mankind's only hope of salvation? Such certainly does not "market" well. Are you as weary as I am of this kind of shallow nonsense being peddled as Biblical Christianity?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Potter's Freedom - 2nd Edition
I want to put in a plug for the 2nd Edition of Dr. James R. White's book: "The Potter's Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal to Norman Geisler's 'Chosen but Free'"
Dr. White's ministry carries the book at this link: Click Here
Maurice Roberts review on the back summarizes nicely: "In a manner reminiscent of Luther demolishing Erasmus, James White grinds the Semi-Pelagianism of Dr. Geisler to fine powder, not in the spirit of triumphalism, but knowing that all Arminianism is as hostile to the true gospel as it is friendly to a reviving Roman Catholicism."
Dr. White's ministry carries the book at this link: Click Here
Maurice Roberts review on the back summarizes nicely: "In a manner reminiscent of Luther demolishing Erasmus, James White grinds the Semi-Pelagianism of Dr. Geisler to fine powder, not in the spirit of triumphalism, but knowing that all Arminianism is as hostile to the true gospel as it is friendly to a reviving Roman Catholicism."
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
The most amazing quotation I have seen from an abortion-choice defender
This is the most amazing statement I have ever read by anyone in defense of elective abortion. I had to put the book down and walk away for awhile after reading it. This quotation is found in the introduction of Scott Klusendorf's excellent book: "The Case for Life." The quotation from Boonan's book, "A Defense of Abortion" is from p xiii-xiv. If you believe elective abortion is a moral right, I'd like to know if you agree with the sentiments expressed here by Boonan. Here is the full quote.
David Boonan, from "A Defense of Abortion," p xiii-xiv:
"On my desk in my office where most of this book [A Defense of Abortion] was written and revised, there are several pictures of my son, Eli. In one, he is gleefully dancing on the sand along the Gulf of Mexico, the cool ocean breeze wreaking havoc with his wispy hair. In a second, he is tentatively seated in the grass in his grandparents' backyard, still working to master the feat of sitting up on his own. In a third, he is only a few weeks old, clinging firmly to the arms that are holding him and still wearing the tiny hat for preserving body heat that he wore home from the hospital. Through all of the remarkable changes that these pictures preserve, he remains unmistakably the same little boy. In the top drawer of my desk, I keep another picture of Eli. This picture was taken ... 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clearly enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointed back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows the same little boy at a very early stage in his physical development. And there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point."
My Response:
Notice the use of 2 key words in his last sentence: "his" and "life." Usually, pro-abortion advocates try to argue (unsuccessfully) that the unborn are not persons, nor are they really human lives. But here, right at the outset of his own defense of abortion, this man refers to the unborn baby using a personal pronoun: "his" and even refers to the baby's "life." And he even says that it would be "morally permissible" to "end his life."
What are the unborn? That is the only question that matters. All of the talk about "privacy" and "a woman's right to choose" are irrelevant to the real issue: What is the unborn? Would it be "morally permissible" to kill a toddler in private? Would a judge acquit someone for killing their 5-yr-old because they happened to be "pro-choice" when it came to 5-yr-olds? Of course not. Why then do people think it is morally permissible to kill the unborn? Because they do not believe they are living human persons. If the unborn are living human persons, then abortion is wholesale murder. I would like to point out for the record and for all to see: staunch secularist defender of abortion David Boonan agrees with me, an ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, that the unborn are living human persons. But for some reason, it is "morally permissible" not to "dispose of an unwanted mass of tissue," or "discard an impersonal clump of cells," but to "end their lives." Can everyone see clearly what Boonan is actually saying here? He is saying that murder is morally permissible. I am thankful that at least one abortion-choice writer has the courage to simply come out and call abortion what it is: the ending of human life. It is my firm conviction that in time, people will wake up to the barbarism of this practice and see it as the holocaust it is. And when they do, one can only imagine what could possibly be done to make amends for the murder of more than 50,000,000 American citizens who, like all of us reading this, had the right to life.
David Boonan, from "A Defense of Abortion," p xiii-xiv:
"On my desk in my office where most of this book [A Defense of Abortion] was written and revised, there are several pictures of my son, Eli. In one, he is gleefully dancing on the sand along the Gulf of Mexico, the cool ocean breeze wreaking havoc with his wispy hair. In a second, he is tentatively seated in the grass in his grandparents' backyard, still working to master the feat of sitting up on his own. In a third, he is only a few weeks old, clinging firmly to the arms that are holding him and still wearing the tiny hat for preserving body heat that he wore home from the hospital. Through all of the remarkable changes that these pictures preserve, he remains unmistakably the same little boy. In the top drawer of my desk, I keep another picture of Eli. This picture was taken ... 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clearly enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointed back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows the same little boy at a very early stage in his physical development. And there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point."
My Response:
Notice the use of 2 key words in his last sentence: "his" and "life." Usually, pro-abortion advocates try to argue (unsuccessfully) that the unborn are not persons, nor are they really human lives. But here, right at the outset of his own defense of abortion, this man refers to the unborn baby using a personal pronoun: "his" and even refers to the baby's "life." And he even says that it would be "morally permissible" to "end his life."
What are the unborn? That is the only question that matters. All of the talk about "privacy" and "a woman's right to choose" are irrelevant to the real issue: What is the unborn? Would it be "morally permissible" to kill a toddler in private? Would a judge acquit someone for killing their 5-yr-old because they happened to be "pro-choice" when it came to 5-yr-olds? Of course not. Why then do people think it is morally permissible to kill the unborn? Because they do not believe they are living human persons. If the unborn are living human persons, then abortion is wholesale murder. I would like to point out for the record and for all to see: staunch secularist defender of abortion David Boonan agrees with me, an ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, that the unborn are living human persons. But for some reason, it is "morally permissible" not to "dispose of an unwanted mass of tissue," or "discard an impersonal clump of cells," but to "end their lives." Can everyone see clearly what Boonan is actually saying here? He is saying that murder is morally permissible. I am thankful that at least one abortion-choice writer has the courage to simply come out and call abortion what it is: the ending of human life. It is my firm conviction that in time, people will wake up to the barbarism of this practice and see it as the holocaust it is. And when they do, one can only imagine what could possibly be done to make amends for the murder of more than 50,000,000 American citizens who, like all of us reading this, had the right to life.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Baxter on pride - p138
p138 - "And when pride hath made the sermon, it goes with us into the pulpit, it formeth our tone, it animateth us in the delivery, it takes us off from that which may be displeasing, how necessary soever, and setteth us in pursuit of vain applause. In short, the sum of all is this, it maketh men, both in studying and preaching, to seek themselves, and deny God, when they should seek God's glory, and deny themselves. ... If they perceive that they are highly thought of, they rejoice, as having attained their end; but if they see that they are considered by weak or common men, they are displeased, as having missed the prize they had in view."
Quote from Baxter's book "The Reformed Pastor"
p85 - This quote hurt a little to read. With the help of God, I must take it to heart!
They [your congregation] will give you leave to preach against their sins, and to talk as much as you will for godliness in the pulpit, if you will but let them alone afterwards, and be friendly and merry with them when you have done, and talk as they do, and live as they, and be indifferent with them in your conversation. For they take the pulpit to be but a stage; a place where preachers must show themselves, and play their parts; where you have liberty for an hour to say what you list; and what you say they regard not, if you show them not, by saying it personally to their faces, that you were in good earnest, and did indeed mean them. Is that man likely to do much good, or fit to be a minister of Christ, that will speak for him an hour on the Sabbath, and, by his life, will preach against him all the week besides, yea, and give his public words the lie?
They [your congregation] will give you leave to preach against their sins, and to talk as much as you will for godliness in the pulpit, if you will but let them alone afterwards, and be friendly and merry with them when you have done, and talk as they do, and live as they, and be indifferent with them in your conversation. For they take the pulpit to be but a stage; a place where preachers must show themselves, and play their parts; where you have liberty for an hour to say what you list; and what you say they regard not, if you show them not, by saying it personally to their faces, that you were in good earnest, and did indeed mean them. Is that man likely to do much good, or fit to be a minister of Christ, that will speak for him an hour on the Sabbath, and, by his life, will preach against him all the week besides, yea, and give his public words the lie?
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Illustration of the subduing of the rebellious heart
I've always loved the 1962 edition of "The Miracle Worker" about the life of Hellen Keller. This scene tears my heart out. This wonderful woman, Ann Sullivan, (a real life character) devoted so much of her time and life to helping this girl who had been deaf and blind since an illness she contracted at around 18 months of age. Hellen's father and mother had given her up as a lost cause and at one point even considered admitting her to a mental institution. But Ann Sullivan was convinced she was bright and would not be denied a chance to see if she could teach this poor child how to communicate and function in the world. This scene shows the moment Hellen finally realizes that the signs Ann had been teaching her for so long were actually the names of objects. In a sense, Hellen finally is able to "see" and "hear." When the disciples of John the Baptist, then in prison, came to Jesus to inquire about his Messiahship, the response was: Matthew 11:5, "The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them." The once bitter, resentful, resistent Hellen who had violently fought Ann's efforts at every step of the way now sees that Ann was really trying to give her "sight" and "hearing" all along. The closing scene where Ann, with Hellen wrapped up in her arms, signs the words, "I love Hellen" is a wonderful illustration of God's love for his precious children. He calls us by name. He chose us by name before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4ff). He takes us, bitter, resentful, and resistant as we are and opens our eyes and subdues our rebellious hearts unto Himself, wraps us up in his arms and there gives us peace, comfort, and safety in his unbounded love for us. Through the sacrifice of Jesus in our behalf, having canceled out and forgiven us all our sins, we rest secure in the love of God. There is no safer, no more secure place than that.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Good article on pictures of Christ
This is rather strongly worded but captures the essence of the issue:
Click here for the article
Blessings,
Click here for the article
Blessings,
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Freedom of Choice Act
The entire text of 'The Freedom of Choice Act' can be accessed here
In this post, I'm going to comment on section 3 (Definitions) and section 4 (Interference of Reproductive Health Prohibited)
Here is the full text of section 3:
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) GOVERNMENT- The term `government' includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official (or other individual acting under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State.
(2) STATE- The term `State' means each of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory or possession of the United States.
(3) VIABILITY- The term `viability' means that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.
It is important to notice the definition of "viability" set forth above in point (3). What we are being asked to embrace here is the idea that there is something about a fetus' ability to survive outside of its mother's womb that gives it human rights. As long as it is dependent upon its mother for its continued life, the mother's will is sovereign (although, as you'll see below in section 4, even after it becomes "viable" the mother's will remains sovereign). We must ask at this point what it is that happens in the moment in which "in the best medical judgment of the attending physician" the baby is able to survive outside of the mother that makes it into a living human person with all of the attending rights afforded by our nation's constitution. When President Obama (before he was the president) was asked by Rick Warren when he believed an unborn baby gets human rights, his response was: "That's above my pay-grade." It should shock the public to know that this monumental moral issue could be treated in such a cavalier way by the man who now occupies the head office of the world's most powerful nation. The propriety of this bill *depends* entirely on the justification of this definition of "viability." As you will see below in section 4, the bill assumes the immorality of "terminating" a "viable" "pregnancy."
SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.
(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--
(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--
(A) to bear a child;
Why does the legislation refer to the bearing of a "child" instead of a "pregnancy?" All that is in the mother's womb prior to its "viability" is a "pregnancy" or a "fetus." But what is born is a "child." I find it insulting that legislators think Americans are this stupid. Do they seriously think we can't see how they're playing with words here? Then again, perhaps most Americans want to be deceived on this issue. Being told and believing lies helps to quiet the conscience.
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
Here again the question cries out to be answered: what happens when a fetus becomes able to survive outside the mother that makes it somehow different than before? At any rate, as you're about to see in point (C), this question is about to become irrelevant anyway.
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman;
Here is where interpretation will lift abortion restrictions throughout all 9 months of normal pregnancies. If only the term "health" had been defined in the "Definitions" section above. Is this physical health, financial health, psychological health, or what?
Subtlety of speech is what we see here. It is truly amazing that what was once universally regarded as a crime against humanity is now fiercely defended as a constitutional "right." Children aren't murdered - "pregnancies" are merely "terminated." "Fetuses" and "pregnancies" become "viable" at a certain point in time when experts can supposedly tell if they'd be able to survive outside of the womb. We really shouldn't "terminate" such "viable" "fetuses" but if the mother's financial, psychological, spiritual, physical, social, or whatever "health" is in jeopardy, then the government (i.e. the laws of the land) cannot interfere with the "termination" of such "pregnancies" or "fetuses" even though they are now "viable" (i.e. living human persons). More respect could be afforded to the person who calls this what it really is instead of hiding behind all of this subterfuge. Of course, manipulation of language through the use of euphemisms and other rhetorical devices is nothing new. The twisting of language to hide evil is as old as the temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden. But what we have here is the mass marketing of the legalized torture and murder of living human persons. Once the egg is fertilized, nothing essential to its life is added throughout the entire 9 months of pregnancy other than nutrition. There is nothing added which at some point makes it become alive or become a living human person. Everything essential to and unique about that living human person is right there from the moment of conception forward.
I may post more thoughts on this later...
In this post, I'm going to comment on section 3 (Definitions) and section 4 (Interference of Reproductive Health Prohibited)
Here is the full text of section 3:
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) GOVERNMENT- The term `government' includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official (or other individual acting under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State.
(2) STATE- The term `State' means each of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory or possession of the United States.
(3) VIABILITY- The term `viability' means that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.
It is important to notice the definition of "viability" set forth above in point (3). What we are being asked to embrace here is the idea that there is something about a fetus' ability to survive outside of its mother's womb that gives it human rights. As long as it is dependent upon its mother for its continued life, the mother's will is sovereign (although, as you'll see below in section 4, even after it becomes "viable" the mother's will remains sovereign). We must ask at this point what it is that happens in the moment in which "in the best medical judgment of the attending physician" the baby is able to survive outside of the mother that makes it into a living human person with all of the attending rights afforded by our nation's constitution. When President Obama (before he was the president) was asked by Rick Warren when he believed an unborn baby gets human rights, his response was: "That's above my pay-grade." It should shock the public to know that this monumental moral issue could be treated in such a cavalier way by the man who now occupies the head office of the world's most powerful nation. The propriety of this bill *depends* entirely on the justification of this definition of "viability." As you will see below in section 4, the bill assumes the immorality of "terminating" a "viable" "pregnancy."
SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.
(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--
(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--
(A) to bear a child;
Why does the legislation refer to the bearing of a "child" instead of a "pregnancy?" All that is in the mother's womb prior to its "viability" is a "pregnancy" or a "fetus." But what is born is a "child." I find it insulting that legislators think Americans are this stupid. Do they seriously think we can't see how they're playing with words here? Then again, perhaps most Americans want to be deceived on this issue. Being told and believing lies helps to quiet the conscience.
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
Here again the question cries out to be answered: what happens when a fetus becomes able to survive outside the mother that makes it somehow different than before? At any rate, as you're about to see in point (C), this question is about to become irrelevant anyway.
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman;
Here is where interpretation will lift abortion restrictions throughout all 9 months of normal pregnancies. If only the term "health" had been defined in the "Definitions" section above. Is this physical health, financial health, psychological health, or what?
Subtlety of speech is what we see here. It is truly amazing that what was once universally regarded as a crime against humanity is now fiercely defended as a constitutional "right." Children aren't murdered - "pregnancies" are merely "terminated." "Fetuses" and "pregnancies" become "viable" at a certain point in time when experts can supposedly tell if they'd be able to survive outside of the womb. We really shouldn't "terminate" such "viable" "fetuses" but if the mother's financial, psychological, spiritual, physical, social, or whatever "health" is in jeopardy, then the government (i.e. the laws of the land) cannot interfere with the "termination" of such "pregnancies" or "fetuses" even though they are now "viable" (i.e. living human persons). More respect could be afforded to the person who calls this what it really is instead of hiding behind all of this subterfuge. Of course, manipulation of language through the use of euphemisms and other rhetorical devices is nothing new. The twisting of language to hide evil is as old as the temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden. But what we have here is the mass marketing of the legalized torture and murder of living human persons. Once the egg is fertilized, nothing essential to its life is added throughout the entire 9 months of pregnancy other than nutrition. There is nothing added which at some point makes it become alive or become a living human person. Everything essential to and unique about that living human person is right there from the moment of conception forward.
I may post more thoughts on this later...
Monday, February 9, 2009
Don't trip when you're running on the hamster wheel
The 2nd hamster in this video reminds me a little of my life over the past few years:
Saturday, January 31, 2009
It is good to be home!
I'm back in the frozen north. Here are some pics I took this morning, and 1 pic of my precious family. Blessings!
Open Your Eyes
Here is another favorite Keith Green Song. May this attitude characterize all our churches. Enjoy!
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Praise You in This Storm - My new favorite Christian song
Amy found this on youtube while we were in Mississippi during the middle of everything that happened with Abigail's scoliosis. It really ministered to us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)