f The Wittenberg Door: May 2011

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

About Me

My Photo
Name:

Commenting on Christendom, culture, history, and other oddities of life from an historic Protestant perspective.

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Do We Have Free Will?


The term “free will” is ubiquitous in the Arminian/Calvinism debate. But what does it mean? Geoff Ashley at the Merely Theological blog answers this important question . . .

Do we have free will? It depends on what we mean by free will, and it depends on who you mean by “we.” The freedom that Adam and Eve possessed prior to the Fall is different from the freedom which is experienced by all humanity after the Fall. Furthermore, these two types of freedom are different from the freedom that is experienced as a regenerate believer and what a regenerate believer will experience in the eternal state.

It might be helpful to distinguish between two terms in understanding this. This distinction boils down to a differentiation between “true freedom” [1] and “freedom of choice.”

True freedom consists of the ability to act without the hindrances of sin, whereas freedom of choice consists in the ability to do as you wish.

Here is a helpful way to remember the four different eras and the types of freedom experienced within each:

  1. Human beings as created had both true freedom and freedom of choice.

  2. Human being as fallen forfeited true freedom but retained freedom of choice.

  3. Human beings as regenerate have regained a measure of true freedom while retaining freedom of choice.

  4. Human beings as glorified will be perfected in true freedom and will retain freedom of choice.

You can read the rest here.

HT: The Contemporary Calvinist

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:28 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Monday, May 30, 2011

Thinking Theologically About Memorial Day

Kevin DeYoung offers some important thoughts on celebrating Memorial Day. Here are the main points with a few excerpts from the explanations . . .

1. Being a Christian does not remove ethnic and national identities.

In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free (Gal. 3:28), but this does not mean men cease to be male or Jews ceases to be Jewish. The worshiping throng gathered around the throne is not a bland mess of Esperanto Christians in matching khaki pants and white polos. God makes us one in Christ, but that oneness does not mean we can no longer recognize tribes, tongues, nations, and peoples in heaven. If you don’t have to renounce being an American in heaven, you shouldn’t have to pretend you aren’t one now.

2. Patriotism, like other earthly “prides,” can be a virtue or vice.

Most people love their families. Many people love their schools, their home, and their sports teams. All of these loves can be appropriate. In making us for himself, God didn’t mean to eradicate all other loves. Instead he wants those loves to be purer and in right proportion to our ultimate Love. Adam and Eve should have loved the Garden. God didn’t intend for them to be so “spiritual” that they were blind to the goodness around them. In the same way, where there is good in our country or family it is right to have affection and display affection for those good things. . . .

3. Allegiance to God and allegiance to your country are not inherently incompatible.

Sometimes Christians talk like you should have no loyalty for your country, as if love for your country was always a bad thing. To be sure, this must never be ultimate loyalty. We must always obey God rather than men. But most Christians have understood the fifth commandment to be about honoring not only your parents but all those in authority over you. . . .

4. God’s people are not tied to any one nation.

When Jesus says “go ahead and give to Caesar what belongs to him” he is effectively saying, “you can support nations that do not formally worship the one true God.” Or to put it a different way: true religion is not bound with only one country. This means–as we see in Revelation 7 and Isaiah 49 and Psalm 87 and Matthew 28 and Acts 1and a hundred other places–the Church will be transcultural and transnational. . . .

5. All this leads to one final point: while patriotism can be good, the church is not a good place for patriotism.

We should pray for service men and women in our congregations. We should pray for the President. We should pray for the just cause to triumph over the evil one. We are not moral relativists. We do not believe just because all people are sinners and all nations are sinful that no person or no nation can be more righteous or more wicked than another. God may be on America’s side in some (not all) her endeavors.

But please think twice before putting on a Star Spangled gala in church this Sunday. I love to hear the national anthem and “God Bless America” and “My Country, Tis of Thee,” but not in church where the nations gather to worship the King of all peoples. . . .

You can read the entire post here.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 9:53 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Today in History: Memorial Day

Memorial Day, the last Monday of May, is the day we honor Americans who gave their lives in military service.

The holiday was originally called Decoration Day and honored soldiers who had died during the Civil War. Immediately after the war, various towns in the North and South began to set aside days to decorate the soldiers’ graves with flowers and flags. Those earliest memorial observances occurred in Waterloo, New York; Columbus, Mississippi; Richmond, Virginia; Carbondale, Illinois; Boalsburg, Pennsylvania, and several other places.

The first widespread observance of Decoration Day came on May 30, 1868, which Maj. Gen. John A. Logan proclaimed as a day to honor the dead. General James Garfield (later the twentieth U.S. president) gave a speech at Arlington National Cemetery in remembrance of fallen soldiers, saying that “for love of country they accepted death, and thus resolved all doubts, and made immortal their patriotism and their virtue.” Afterward, 5,000 people helped decorate the graves of more than 20,000 Union and Confederate soldiers.

Over the years the day became an occasion to remember the dead in all American wars, and came to be known as Memorial Day.

On the Thursday before Memorial Day, in a tradition known as “Flags-in,” the soldiers of the 3rd U.S. Infantry place small flags before more than a quarter million gravestones at Arlington National Cemetery. They then patrol twenty-four hours a day to make sure each flag remains standing throughout the weekend. On Memorial Day the president or vice president lays a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in the cemetery.

According to the U.S. flag code, American flags should be flown at half-staff until noon on Memorial Day, then raised to the top of the pole. At 3:00 p.m. local time, all Americans are asked to pause for a moment of remembrance.

American History Parade

1539 - Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto lands in Florida.

1806 - In Kentucky, Andrew Jackson kills lawyer Charles Dickenson in a duel for allegedly insulting Jackson’s wife.

1868 - Memorial Day is widely observed for the first time.

1896 - In New York City the first recorded car accident occurs when a motor wagon collides with a bicycle.

1911 - Ray Harroun wins the first Indianapolis 500 auto race.

1922 - The Lincoln Memorial is dedicated in Washington D.C.

1958 - Unidentified soldiers killed in World War II and the Korean War are buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

The American Patriot's Almanac: Daily Readings on America

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:15 AM | 2 comments links to this post

Sunday, May 29, 2011

This Week in Church History: Synod of Dort

On May 29, 1619, the Synod of Dort was adjourned at the conclusion of its one hundred eightieth session.

Convened on November 13, 1618, in the Dutch city of Dordrecht, the international Reformed council answered the Arminian heresy through its canons, arranged according to five heads of doctrine, that affirmed the sovereignty of God in salvation. Contrary to popular modern impressions, the Canons of Dort were not a “rigid statement of monolithic Calvinism,” according to Robert Godfrey. Instead, they should be understood as “a moderate, inclusive compromise drawing all Calvinists together around the essentials of the faith and preventing the movement from fragmenting over peripheral matters.”

The Canons of Dort joined the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism as the three-fold doctrinal standard in the Dutch Reformed tradition. In analyzing the significance of the Synod, Cornelius Van Til wrote, “The followers of Dort, together with their brethren, the followers of Westminster, alone have the wherewithal with which to proclaim the gospel of the sovereign grace of God at all.”

John Muether

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 6:14 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Friday, May 27, 2011

Why We Argue – Part 3 (Conclusion)

As mentioned in the last post, we argue because we are instructed to defend the faith. Many scriptures could be cited; but, for the purpose of this post, we’re going to focus our attention on one verse: 1 Peter 3:15.

Instruction

Scripture not only instructs us to argue for the faith, but it also tells us in what manor we are to argue.

but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;
(1 Pet. 3:15)

Three things I want to point out:

  1. Never surrender your ultimate starting point: Scripture

  2. Be prepared

  3. Be a good ambassador of Christ

1. Never Surrender Your Ultimate Starting Point: Scripture

. . . sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts . . .

. . . And I am talking about the assertion of what has been delivered to us from above in the Sacred Scriptures.”

(Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will)

Whether teaching or arguing—or, for that matter, whatever we do—we must never surrender our commitment to take “every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). That means our arguments, as well as the manor in which we make them, must be based solidly on Scripture (1 Cor. 1:18–25).

2. Be prepared

. . . always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you . . .

Here Peter tells us to always be ready. I get a picture in my mind of a soldier waiting to be called into battle: his gear’s packed; his guns are loaded; and he’s been thoroughly trained.

We must have the same posture as the soldier—ready for action. Our weapons, of course, are of a different sort. Paul tells us of them in Eph. 6. Consider the sword of the Spirit, God’s word. By taking it up we can destroy “. . . speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God . . .” (2 Cor. 10:5).

God’s word is not only our most powerful weapon; it’s also the very sure foundation upon which we stand. For this reason we must consider the example of those in Berea:

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
(Acts 17:11)

They were daily in God’s word studying to see if what Paul and Silas were telling them was true. The only way we can fare well in battle is to be grounded in God’s word—to know the truth.

The next thing we must do is know how to defend the truth. This is where knowing good tactics and how to argue comes in. I’m going to recommend to you two resources to get you started:

  • Always Ready, Directions for Defending the Faith, by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen—This is a first-rate book on defending the faith. Dr. Bahnsen was a master debater and an extraordinary theologian. Regardless of your education or knowledge of apologetics (defense of the faith) or philosophy, this easy to understand book is beneficial to all.

  • Stand to Reason to Reason (STR) is, in my opinion, the best apologetics organization out there when it comes to tactics. Through essays, books, tapes, conferences, and a fantastic radio broadcast, STR will help you become a good ambassador of Jesus Christ. (And by the way, their site hosts the best blog on the Net, as well as a wealth of free stuff.)

3. Be a Good Ambassador of Christ

. . . yet with gentleness and reverence.

We must always remember that we are ambassadors of Christ (2 Cor. 5:20)—we represent Him as authorized messengers. This is a fearful thing. For, by our words and actions, we either tell the truth about Christ, or we misrepresent Him. To be a faithful representative, we must engage our opponent gently and respectfully. This means that we use our arguments to persuade, not to pummel. This also means that we don’t call or opponent names; we don’t talk over him; and we don't misrepresent his views.

Remember: The gospel is offensive enough; let’s not add to it!

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:07 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Why We Argue – Part 2

Continued from part one . . .

Ultimately, the reason we argue is because Scripture so enjoins us, via both example and instruction. In this post, we’ll take a look at two examples of biblical argumentation, and we’ll also see what we can learn from them.

Examples

“Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.” So says the Apostle Paul in the first verse of 1 Corinthians 11. Provided below are two examples of biblical arguing.

  • Acts 7
    Acts 7 records Stephen’s defense (apology) before the Sanhedrin. Stephen is brought before the council due to a charge of blasphemy (Acts 6:11). But instead of answering the charge, Stephan rehearses Israel’s history from Abraham to Christ. The reason he argued this way was not to acquit himself, but to show them their sin, especially the sin of betraying and murdering the Righteous One (vrs. 52), and the sins of their fathers.

  • Acts 17
    In Acts 17 we find Paul in Athens being provoked by the Spirit because the city was given over to idols. Paul responded by . . .

. . . reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present.
(vrs. 17)

Some of those with whom he was reasoning (arguing) were Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. They invited him to the Areopagus (Mars Hill) to hear him further. Seizing the opportunity, Paul, beginning with creation, provides a step-by-step argument for Christ and the coming judgment.

Consider Your Audience

In Acts 7, Stephen is providing an argument to the biblically informed. While in the Areopagus address of Acts 17, Paul is providing an argument to the uninformed. The manner in which they argue differs because the audience differs.

  • The Churched
    In Acts 7, Stephen is talking to those who have been brought-up in the teaching of the Old Testament their whole lives. Therefore, it was appropriate for him to use the language of the “church.” When Stephan spoke of the promise to Abraham, or the covenant of circumcision, or of the Angel of the Lord, they understood what he meant—they spoke the same “language.”

  • The Unchurched
    When addressing the Athenians, if Paul would have started with Abraham and then moved on to covenants and sacrifices, he would have lost his audience—the message would not have gotten through. Instead, because of the audience, Paul established a point of contact (TO THE UNKNOWN GOD). Then, beginning with God’s creation of heaven and earth, he proclaimed the true God and the upcoming judgment (i.e., here’s who God is, and here’s where you stand).

America Today

America is a very different place than it used to be. Preachers of old could rely on the fact that just about everyone had some experience with the church. We cannot make that assumption today. Therefore, we must tailor—not water down—our message.

Watch out for Christianese!

When speaking with someone who doesn’t know the lingo, take greater care to give explanations. Also watch your starting point: If the person doesn’t know that we were originally created good and in right relationship with God, he might get the wrong idea if you start with the Fall (i.e., he might end-up with a more Greek understanding of man and think that we’re essentially evil). Moreover, the message of redemption won’t make sense because he wouldn’t understand that we are being restored back to something.

Stay tuned for part 3!

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:02 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Why We Argue - Part 1

“To take no pleasure in assertions is not the mark of a Christian heart; indeed, one must delight in assertions to be a Christian at all. (Now, lest we be misled by words, let me say here that by ‘assertions’ I mean staunchly holding your ground, stating your position, confessing it, defending it and persevering in it unvanquished. . . . And I am talking about the assertion of what has been delivered to us from above in the Sacred Scriptures.”

(Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will)

What is an “Argument”?

By “assertions” Martin Luther means arguments. It was his Biblically-informed position that presenting arguments for the faith is a Christian’s duty. But what is an “argument”?

A good explanation of an argument is provided for us in The Philosopher’s Toolkit by Julian Baggini and Peter S. Fosl:

“An ‘argument’ is an inference from one or more starting points (truth claims called a ‘premise’ or ‘premises’) to an end point (a truth claim called a ‘conclusion’).”

Bagginin and Fosl further explain that as a “general rule . . . arguments attempt to demonstrate that something is true . . .” This is in juxtaposition to an explanation which is an “attempt to show how something is true.”

Providing Arguments vs. Being Argumentative

Providing an argument should be distinguished from being “argumentative,” which is characterized by being combative or quarrelsome. As Christians, we are to do the former not be the later.

But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth.

(2 Tim. 2:23–25)

Stay tuned for Part 2!

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 5:52 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Notable Quote: Edmund Clowney

The Puritan John Owen wrote: “Holiness is nothing but the implanting, writing and realizing of the gospel in our souls.” What Christ seeks in his church is what the gospel promises and provides. The quest for gospel holiness cannot mean acquiring confident expertise in the practice of the virtues. When Benjamin Franklin proposed to reform his life by shedding once vice at a time, he prepared an unintentional caricature of a Puritan spiritual journal.

The life of holiness is the life of faith in which the believer, with a deepening knowledge of his own sin and helplessness apart from Christ, increasingly casts himself upon the Lord, and seeks the power of he Spirit and the wisdom and comfort of the Bible to battle against the world, the flesh, and the devil. It is not a lonely or cheerless struggle, for Christ gives the Spirit to the members of his body to help one another. . . . Maturing in holiness means maturing in love, love that knows God’s love poured out in our hearts, and answers with love that tastes the goodness of the Lord

Edmund P. Clowney (1917 – 2005), The Church

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 5:43 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Monday, May 23, 2011

"Stram" and The Feast Day of St. Didier


From Forgotten English . . .

Stram

Any sudden, loud and quick sound; so to stram the doors means to shut them with noise and violence. Hence, a bold and unexpected lie that greatly surprises the hearer is called a strammer, and hence also to strammer means to tell great and notorious lies.

Frederick Elworthy’s Specimens of English Dialects; Devonshire Glossary, 1879

The Feast Day of St. Didier

Let me be the first to wish each of my readers a happy feast day of St. Didier!

St. Didier was invoked to protect against liars. A story is told about a preacher who concluded his sermon one Sunday by instructing his congregation to read Mark 17 as background for his next sermon, whose topic would be insincerity. The following week, when he asked how many had read the biblical passage in question, most of the congregants’ hands immediately went up. The preacher looked both shocked and determined, “You are just the people I want to talk to,” he declared, “as there is no ‘Chapter 17’ of Mark!”

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:11 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Today in Church History: Harry Emerson Fosdick

On May 21, 1922, Harry Emerson Fosdick preached the famous sermon, “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” from the pulpit of First Presbyterian Church in New York City.

Although a Baptist, Fosdick was serving as the preaching minister of the prominent Fifth Avenue church, and his sermon has been generally regarded as the “Fort Sumter” of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy in the Presbyterian Church. Though ostensibly a plea for tolerance within the northern church, the widely distributed sermon served to warn fundamentalists that they could not “drive out from the Christian churches all the consecrated souls who do not agree with their theory of inspiration.”

In an earlier (1916) letter, J. Gresham Machen had described Fosdick’s preaching as “just dreadful! Just the pitiful stuff about an undogmatic Christianity.” By 1923, Machen would emerge as modernism’s most formidable critic with the publication of Christianity and Liberalism. Fosdick, however, would recede from Presbyterian prominence. In 1925 he resigned his post under pressure, and in 1930 he became pastor of the newly built Riverside Church in New York City.

John Muether

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:07 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Friday, May 20, 2011

Was Jesus Against Capital Punishment?

The United Methodist Church declares its opposition to the retention and use of capital punishment and urges its abolition. In spite of a common assumption to the contrary, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," does not give justification for the imposing of the penalty of death. Jesus explicitly repudiated retaliation (Matthew 5:38-39), and the Talmud denies its literal meaning and holds that it refers to financial indemnities.

United Methodist Church, In Opposition
to Capital Punishment

Oftentimes, when capital punishment is being discussed, Jesus’ remarks regarding “an eye-for-an-eye” are pressed into service. When coupled with the “turn the other check” passage, capital punishment abolitionists believe that they’re holding a biblical wining hand.

But is it the case that Jesus was either rejecting capital punishment or setting the record straight (i.e., that eye-for-an-eye doesn’t apply to the death penalty)? Likewise, is “turn the other check” a condemnation of capital punishment and a call to passivism?

What is “Eye-for-an-Eye?”

38) “You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'

39) "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

Matthew 5:38-39

In figuring out what Jesus meant, we should first see what he was referencing. The relevant passages are Ex. 21:12–36, Lev. 24:17–23, and Deut. 19:14–21. In these passages God is laying out a principle of justice: the punishment should fit the crime. This would, of course, include financial matters, as the United Methodist Church (UMC) suggests. But to say that God is only interested in justice when it comes to commerce makes God the moral equivalent of Ebenezer Scrooge.

Contrary to the claim of the UMC, God’s perfect moral character requires justice in all matters, including the most heinous crime committed against man.

Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.

Genesis 9:6

Did Jesus Overturn This Principle?

For Jesus to reject an “eye-for-an-eye” means that He would reject the principle that the punishment should fit the crime. The question abolitionists need to answer is, “Is it your understanding that Jesus taught that the punishment should not fit the crime? Do you believe that Jesus rejected justice?” Indeed, such a teacher would be profoundly immoral, and not worthy of our attention.

Did Jesus Reject the Capital Punishment?

God established the death penalty.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Jesus established the death penalty.

The logic of the above syllogism is inescapable. The only way around it is to show that either the major premise (first sentence) or the minor premise (the second) is false: either God didn’t establish the death penalty or Jesus isn’t God. Of course, if one takes the Scriptures seriously, then neither can be rejected.

With murder, there is one more thing that must be considered beyond just the “eye-for-an-eye” principle. As Genesis 6:9 points out, man is made in the image of God. Consequently, murder is not simply taking a man’s life—it’s destroying the very image of God. This profoundly compounds the sin.

So, the second question we must ask is, “Is man no longer God’s image bearer? Or, if he is, is it now no big deal to destroy that image?”

As with the earlier questions regarding the rejection of justice, these questions too cannot be answered in the affirmative.

What Jesus’ Words Do Not Mean?

First, what they don’t mean. Throughout the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus uses personal pronouns, such as “You are the salt of the earth,” Let your light shine,” For truly I say to you,” and, in the passage in question, “But I say to you.” This is important because it shows that He is addressing His immediate hearers and us (i.e., individuals). He is not talking to the government. Therefore, He’s not telling the government to turn the other check. Furthermore, the New Testament affirms the state’s right, as God’s minister, to execute judgment via the sword (Rom. 13:4; Acts 25:11). And since the New Testament came from Jesus, He affirms the state’s right to carryout capital punishment.

It also isn’t a call to passivism. Even the most cursory reading of the Old Testament will reveal that God isn’t a pacifist. Moreover, Jesus, who is God incarnate, instructed His disciples to arm themselves for journey (Luke 22:36). Why were they to buy a sword, even if it meant selling their garment? Answer: For self defense along the dangerous Roman highways. And, let us not forget what happened when the Temple Guard came to arrest Jesus:

50) And Jesus said to him, "Friend, do what you have come for." Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and seized Him.

51) And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear.

52) Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.

Matthew 26:50-52

Jesus didn’t respond, “Hey! Where did you get that thing? How long have you been carrying that? Get rid of it before it kills us all!” Instead, he told Peter to return it to its sheath, followed by the instruction that this was an inappropriate time for its use.

There’s one other problem with the pacifistic interpretation, and that’s with its application. Let’s say someone breaks into your house and steals one of your children. Do you offer the intruder your other child as well?

What Do Jesus’ Words Mean

I’m partial to an interpretation I heard from Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason. Since most people are right handed, how would someone slap you on the right cheek? He would do so by slapping you with the back of his hand. A back-handed slap is not meant to injure, but to insult. And let us not forget that when Jesus was struck by one of the temple guards, He did not turn the other cheek. Instead, He inquired as to the justice of the action (John 18:22–23).

“Turn the other cheek” is not a call to passivity, nor is it an overturning of the principle that the punishment should fit the crime (including capital punishment). It seems that what Jesus is actually calling us to do is to bear insults and to not respond in kind, just like in the verses following Mat. 5:39 where we are instructed to bear other such personal affronts.

The UMC would do well to reconsider their opposition.

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 6:21 AM | 2 comments links to this post

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Today in History: In God We Trust

On May 18, 1908, congress mandated that the motto “In God We Trust” be minted on certain coins. The motto evidences one of the reasons why America is different from her peers: our rights come not from the government or the crown, but from God. This is important because if our rights come from God, then the government can’t take them away. Conversely, if our rights come from the government then the government givith, the government taketh away.

In God We Trust is one of the pillars of what columnist and radio talk show host Dennis Prager calls The American Trinity: E Pluribus Unum (out of many one), In God We Trust, and Liberty. All three of these appear on our currency and all three of these, taken together, define our country’s values—and it is this value system that makes America exceptional, as Mr. Prager explains in this short video . . .

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 5:13 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Today in Church History: Carl McIntire

On May 17, 1906, Carl McIntire was born in Ypsilanti, Michigan.

The son of a Presbyterian minister, McIntire followed his mentor, J. Gresham Machen, to Westminster Seminary (where he graduated in 1931) and into the Orthodox Presbyterian Church at its founding in 1936. Soon, however, he would have a falling out with Machen and the "un-American" theology emanating from Westminster, represented in the likes of R. B. Kuiper, John Murray, Ned Stonehouse, and Cornelius Van Til. In 1937 he led an exodus from the OPC and formed the Bible Presbyterian Church and Faith Theological Seminary, committed to a more rigorous form of separatism.

McIntire's fiery combination of fundamentalist theology and conservative politics expanded steadily in popularity during the height of the America's cold war. His Collingswood, New Jersey, church grew to 1,200 members, his Christian Beacon newspaper claimed 100,000 subscribers, and his "Twentieth Century Reformation Hour" was broadcast on over 600 radio stations. Through these media he took on Catholics, communists, and evangelicals " especially Billy Graham. McIntire also led in the formation of the American Council of Christian Churches (1941) and the International Council of Christian Churches (1948).

Eventually, several church splits (largely stemming from his domineering personality) and legal battles with the FCC would greatly diminish his following. He retired after over 60 years in the ministry, and he died on March 20, 2002, at the age of 95.

John Muether

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:57 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Monday, May 16, 2011

First Amendment Abuse

Beginning in 1998, the Utah Highway Patrol Association begin erecting monuments to fallen patrolmen along the Utah highways. The monuments are in the shape of a cross and include the fallen officer's picture and biographical information. Although the monuments, 14 in all, are privately funded, they are on public land since that is where the officers fell. The State of Utah allowed the monuments to be erected, but did provide the caveat that it "neither approves or disapproves of the memorial marker."

A group of Texas atheists sued to have the memorials taken down. In response a federal court ruled in the atheists' favor and declared the memorials unconstitutional. From CNN . . .

A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the 14 large crosses would be viewed by most passing motorists as "government's endorsement of Christianity."

"We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion," concluded the Denver, Colorado-based court . . .

At issue was whether the crosses violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, by having the government endorsing the Christian symbols, even if indirectly.

(A quick side note regarding the Utah ruling. There is something that strikes me as amusing: Mormons reject the cross as a symbol. So, a state founded by Mormons for Mormons, and remains predominately Mormon to this day, is, according to the court, now embracing the cross and endorsing Christianity. Riiiiiiiiight.)

The First Amendment

Whether ruling on school prayer, or the teaching of Intelligent Design, or the displaying of the Ten Commandments, or even these memorial crosses, the courts seem intent on using the Establishment Clause (or, more properly, the Non-Establishment Clause) to justify the disallowing of certain perceived religious, particularly Christian, expressions. But was it indeed the intent of the Founding Fathers to have a public square bereft of religion? In other words, were they trying to protect the state against the church? Let’s begin by reviewing the amendment in question:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(First Amendment - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression)

Original Intent

America was established as a Christian nation (i.e., founded with Christian values), but with a secular government. Part of that was to reject the European model of state churches. Back in 1791, the year the First Amendment was ratified, 9 of the 13 state governments had official, tax-supported churches. Since the amendment was seen as only applying to the federal government, nobody believed that there was any conflict—nobody, that is, except for Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut.

The Connecticut state constitution endorsed Congregationalism. Although the Baptists were tolerated, they had serious concerns about discrimination; they were also concerned that the state government would start interfering with the operation of the church. So, in 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association took a bold step and wrote the newly elected President of the United States—Thomas Jefferson.

Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty – That Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals – That no man ought to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions – That the legitimate Power of civil Government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbour: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our antient charter, together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted as the Basis of our government at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws & usages, & such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; & therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power & gain under the pretence of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men – should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Jefferson agreed with the Baptists that it was inappropriate for the state to interfere with maters of conscience, faith, and worship. In his reply to the Baptists he penned the famous words:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Our Founding Fathers were careful to guard against the establishment of a state (federal) church, hence this amendment—they stipulated that congress may not establish a state church, nor infringe upon the citizens' right to worship as they please. Here's my question: How do these memorials to fallen officers establish an official, state-sponsored church of the United States? Same question for offering alternatives to macro-evolution, or allowing school prayer, or a plaque displaying the Ten Commandments. They obviously don't.

Conclusion

Although a cross is a religious symbol, it has been co-opted for secular purposes--to be a grave marker or a memorial. The Ten Commandments are given by God and thus have a religious origin. But they are also the grounds for our justice system and so have been likewise co-opted. Macro-evolution is a theory, despite how it is taught in our schools, with many problems. Intelligent Design answers those problems; because of its explanatory power, it should at least be acknowledged when origins are being taught.

The truth is that the courts misuse the amendment to discriminate against positions they don't like. The intention of the Founding Fathers couldn't be more clear, but these judges aren't interested in that--they'd rather use the Constitution as a wax nose to refashion the country to their liking. Why let truth get in the way?

Labels: , ,

posted by The Catechizer | 6:14 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Notable Quote: J.C. Ryle


J.C. Ryle (1816 – 1900) on Biblical love . . .

Biblical love will show in a Christian’s actions, making him ready to do good to everyone, without looking for any reward. It will show itself in willingness to bear evil. It will make him patient when provoked, forgiving, meek, and humble. He will often deny himself for the sake of peace and will be more interested in promoting peace than in securing his own rights. Biblical love will show in a Christian’s general attitude. We will be kind, unselfish, good-tempered and considerate, gentle and courteous, thoughtful of others’ comfort, concerned for others’ feelings and more willing to give than to receive. True love never envies, and never rejoices in people’s troubles.

Walking with God

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 2:19 PM | 0 comments links to this post

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Notable Quote: O. Palmer Robertson

O. Palmer Roberts on "The Purpose Driven Life" . . .

An ordinance of God as old as this world but as fresh as each new day ought to be heard and heeded by the young of today: 1) get married; 2) have children; 3) raise those children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. When thrashing about trying to find purpose and meaning, goals and callings in life, get back to the basics! (1 Get married; 2) have children; 3) raise those children in the Lord. Some of the most essential reasons for existence center on those basic principles.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 2:57 PM | 1 comments links to this post

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Special Revelation – Part 3 – The Necessity of Scripture Continued

Continued from Part Two – The Necessity of Scripture . . .

What if the prophets spoke but the prophecies were not written down? How would we know what came to pass or what was to come to pass? What if God did not write down the Ten Commandments? How would I know to keep the Sabbath?

Scripture is not merely revelation, but inscripturation—It’s revelation committed to writing. It is an everlasting deposit of divine revelation. It was divine revelation when Paul preached Christ at Thessalonica. But when it was written down as Acts chapter 17, it became inscripturation.

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son…

Hebrews 1:1

Not all of divine revelation was recorded. Throughout redemptive history, God has spoken to His people. But for His own sovereign purpose, He did not have all His “speakings” inscripturated.

And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

John 21:25

The Necessity of Inscripturation

Inscripturation is necessary for the following reasons:

  • Because of the corrupting effects of sin. A written revelation is more objective and less prone to corruption. Moreover, a written revelation is less affected by the vicissitudes of history. This is especially important when prophecies must be preserved for successive generations.

  • Written prophecy is better judged in written form. When prophecy is written down, it is preserved. It may be scrutinized by future generations. Events foretold two hundred years in the future are not verifiable during the prophet’s lifetime. Only through the written record may the prophet be vindicated.

  • Written prophecy acts as an indictment and a warning. In Scripture we see God indicting His people through the prophets for idolatry, covenant breaking, and unbelief. Furthermore we see God’s wrath poured out, as was prophesied, upon nations, cities, and peoples. These events have been inscripturated for our instruction and warning. These events provide witness to God’s justice and wrath.

  • Written prophecy preserves the promises of God. Certain prophecies were not fulfilled in the generation in which they were uttered. This preserves His promises, giving hope to His people throughout redemptive history.

  • Instcripturation shows the permanence of God’s revelation. Written revelation demonstrates that the Word of God abides forever. It does not change, nor do the wants, desires, and opinions of man affect it.

  • The written Word of God may be tested. God has objectively revealed Himself and His will to us in the pages of Holy Writ.

  • God commits His words to writing for the greater assurance of His people. Each of the preceding points shows how inscripturation works towards our assurance and sanctification.

Conclusion

In summary, Scripture is necessary because it . . .

  • Expounds upon general revelation

  • Provides the way of salvation

  • Is the chosen communication method of the King

  • Is more than just revelation, providing us the inscripturated words of God

  • Presents a recorded record of God’s promises and dealings with His people

  • Is objective and self-authenticating (we will talk more of this in a later post)

  • Reveals God and His will to us

  • Is sufficient for doctrine and life

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 6:24 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Special Revelation – Part 2 – The Necessity of Scripture

This post, and the one to follow on this topic, was adapted from a study I did several years ago; the study was partially based upon notes I had taken during a Dr. Greg Bahnson lecture on this topic.

The necessity of Scripture is demonstrated by the following:

  • Scripture expounds upon general revelation

  • Scripture provides the way of salvation

  • Scripture is the way the king communications to his people

  • Scripture is more than revelation

Scripture Expounds Upon General Revelation

The term “general revelation” refers to God making Himself known (i.e., revealing Himself) to all people everywhere. God reveals Himself to us, both internally and externally, through the created order. This revelation is sufficient to establish basic knowledge of God, our sin, and our impending judgment.

On these topics—and a host of others—Scripture provides us the details that were previously unrevealed.

Scripture obviously provides further information pertaining to the nature of God. The Trinity and the duel-nature of Christ jump to mind. But Scripture also reveals to us things about God’s nature that might or might not have been deduced, such as . . .

  • God is self-existent and -sufficient:

    In the beginning God…
    Genesis 1:1
    And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.”

    Exodus 3:14

  • God is eternal:

    …from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
    Psalms 90:2
    …Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

    Revelation 1:8

Whether or not we would have drawn these conclusions cognitively is unclear. But there are some things that are perfectly clear: Man in his unregenerate state knows the one, true God, suppresses this knowledge in unrighteousness, and is under God’s just judgment. Scripture crystallizes this:

...although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and fourfooted animals and creeping things.

Romans 1:21-23

Scripture provides the way of salvation

General revelation leaves us in judgment, for only law is revealed. The Mediator is not revealed to us in the trees, animals, or human kind. The answer to the Heidelberg Catechism’s question number 19 tells us that special revelation was used to reveal Christ to us throughout redemptive history:

From the Holy Gospel, which God Himself first revealed in Paradise, afterwards proclaimed by the holy patriarchs and prophets, and foreshadowed by the sacrifices and other ceremonies of the law, and finally fulfilled by His well-beloved Son.

The catechism proceeds to tell us about true faith and the necessity of believing the gospel. But why does the catechism make such pronouncements? How do we know it’s correct? The answer is in small print at the bottom of its pages—God has provided the way of salvation through scripture.

Scripture is the way the king communicates to His people

Can you imagine a king that has never entered his kingdom? Never spoke to his people? Never gave any laws or commands? Never set kingdom policy? Any such man would be a king in name only.

God is an ever-present king. Indeed, He is THE King. He has chosen a people for Himself—a covenant people. The covenant was not ratified, however, like covenants are between men and kingdoms. There was no bargaining; there was no dialog; there were no debates; there were only pronouncements—only declarations. The King has spoken.

  • He has chosen His people:

    Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!

    Psalm 33:12

  • He has given His law to His people – Exodus 20


  • He has chosen to dwell among His people:

    …I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

    2 Corinthians 6:16

Through His Word and by His Spirit, our great King continues to speak to us.

Stay tuned for Part 3.

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 6:18 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Monday, May 09, 2011

Special Revelation - Part 1

We confess that this Word of God was not sent nor delivered by the will of man, but that men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit, as the apostle Peter says; and that afterwards God, from a special care which He has for us and our salvation, commanded His servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit His revealed word to writing; and He Himself wrote with His own finger the two tables of the law. Therefore we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures.

The Belgic Confession, Article 3

In the Seventeenth Century, a running dogfight ensued among Protestants over the place and authority of Scripture in the life and teaching of the church. A group called the Antinomians instigated the fight. The Antinomians, or Sectaries as they were called in England, were very much like our present-day Pentecostals. They held that Scripture was subordinate to the direct revelation of the Spirit, which each believer was supposed to receive. This supposed direct revelation was most important in preaching, as one Antinomian made clear: “I had rather hear such a one that speaks from the mere motion of the spirit, without any study at all, than any of your learned scholars, although he may be fuller of Scripture.”

The Puritans, of course, held a much different view. They championed the concept that Scripture was sufficient for doctrine and life.

There is not a condition into which a child of God can fall but there is a direction and rule in the Word, in some measure suitable thereunto.

Thomas Gouge (1605 - 1681)

The Puritan’s position was firmly rooted in the Reformation. Martin Luther said, “We have never yet desired anything else…than the liberty to have the Word of God, or the Holy Scriptures, to teach and to practice it.” The Reformation sought to return Holy Writ to God’s people by loosing it from the shackles placed on it by the Church of Rome.

This idea was highly esteemed among the Puritans. William Tyndale told a priest at Gloucestershire that “if God spare my life, ere many years pass, I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scriptures than thou dost.” Indeed, God’s people are to be a people of the Book. John Ball’s Catechism answers the question, “Doth the knowledge of the Scriptures belong unto all men?” with, “Yes, all men are not only allowed, but exhorted and commanded, to read, hear, and understand the Scripture.” John Cotton exhorted his congregation to “FEED upon the WORD” and to “Let not a day ordinarily pass you wherein you will not read some portion of it, with a due meditation and supplication over it.” Richard Baxter implored his readers to “love, reverence, read, study, obey, and stick close to the Scripture.”

Scripture, in the Puritan view, was to be our sole authority. Cotton Mather referred to Scripture as “The rule according to which conscience is to proceed…” John Lightfoot echoed this sentiment: “This is the glory and sure friend of a church, to be built upon the Holy Scriptures…The foundation of the true church of God is Scripture.” Theological claims, therefore, are to be tried in but one court, “…by that which transcends all human antiquity, customs, counsels, and traditions (though all those may contribute some help), the Word of God.” Thus human opinions must bow to God’s Holy Word, as John Owen makes clear: “Pin not your faith upon men’s opinions…the Bible is the touchstone.”

To the Puritans it was clear: Scripture is to be our sole authority for doctrine and life, and as such, it is necessary and sufficient. It is upon this footing that we shall take our steps.

  • The first step will be to understand why Scripture is necessary.

  • Next we shall learn about the sufficiency of Scripture.

  • And finally, we shall consider Scripture’s place as our sole authority for doctrine and life.

Labels: ,

posted by The Catechizer | 6:13 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Sunday, May 08, 2011

Today in History: Mother’s Day

Credit for starting Mother’s Day goes to a schoolteacher named Ana Jarvis. Here campaign to organize a holiday began as a way to honor the memory of her own mother, Anna Maria Reeves Jarvis. The elder Jarvis had devoted much of her life to the Andrews Methodist Episcopal Church of Grafton, West Virginia, and in May 1908, at Anna Jarvis’s urging, the church held a service honoring mothers. Anna Jarvis, who lived in Philadelphia, also convinced merchant John Wanamaker to join her cause in establishing Mother’s Day, and he held an afternoon service in his store. Within just a couple of years, the custom had spread to other states.

At one of the first Mother’s Day services, Jarvis distributed white carnations, her mother’s favorite flower. Many people still follow the tradition of giving and wearing carnations on Mother’s Day—white flowers in memory of deceased mothers, and brightly colored ones for living mothers.

Jarvis and her supporters convinced ministers, politicians, and businessmen to support the goal of starting a national observance. On May 8, 1914, Congress passed a joint resolution designating the second Sunday in May as Mother’s Day. The next day, President Woodrow Wilson issued the first Mother’s Day presidential proclamation, calling for “a public expression of our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.”

American History Parade

1541 - Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto reaches the Mississippi River.

1846 - General Zachary Taylor wins the first major battle of the Mexican War at Palo Alto, Texas.

1884 - Harry S. Truman, the thirty-third U.S. president, is born in Lamar, Missouri.

1886 - Druggist John S. Pemberton sells the first Coca-Cola at Jacob’s Pharmacy in Atlanta, Georgia.

1914 - Congress establishes the second Sunday in May as Mother’s Day.

1945 - Americans celebrate victory in Europe over Nazi Germany (VE Day).

The American Patriot's Almanac: Daily Readings on America

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 2:11 PM | 0 comments links to this post

Today in Church History: John Murray

On May 8, 1975, John Murray died in Bonar Bridge, Scotland, the town where he was born on October 14, 1898.

Long-time professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Seminary, where he taught from 1930 to 1967, Murray was also an active Orthodox Presbyterian churchman. He attended meetings of the Presbytery of New York and New England whenever possible, and he served on several General Assembly committees, including the Committee on Foreign Missions, the Committee on Local Evangelism, the Committee on Texts and Proof Texts to the Westminster Standards, and the Committee to Revise the Form of Government and Book of Discipline. In 1947, along with William Young, he presented a Minority Report of the Committee on Song in Public Worship, where he argued that the Psalter was the exclusive hymnbook for the New Testament church. His most popular book, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (1955), began as articles published in the Presbyterian Guardian, where he was a frequent contributor.

The Banner of Truth described Murray's funeral in this way:

The dignity and simplicity of the service, in true Reformation style, was just as Professor Murray would have desired. John Murray had gone forth from this small community to become one of the world's leading theologians. Having finished his course and kept the faith, it now seemed fitting that the small cemetery on the shores of the Kyles of Scotland should contain the remains of this worthy servant of Christ until the day break and the shadows flee away.

John Muether

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:53 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Friday, May 06, 2011

Total Depravity – Questions and Answers

One of the most contentious topics in the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism is the pravity of man: Is man spiritually dead, as the Calvinist claim? Or is he simply morally ill or spiritually impoverished, as posited by the Arminians?

In parts four and five of my series Who is Sovereign in Salvation¸ I provide an overview of both positions while making a positive case for Total Depravity. In response, Mark of Moros Theos – The Foolishness of God, and a helment of Comba(t)ing the Doctrines of Grace, posed questions (summarized below) regarding the Calvinist position. In this post I’ll attempt to answer these questions.

Total Depravity: A Definition

In the third chapter of Genesis we read of our first parents’ sin. Because Adam represented us as our federal head, we all sinned in him (Rom. 5:12–19). The resulting corruption is passed on to us all, and its extent is total—every aspect of our being has been affected:

  • Our heart (emotions and affections)—Rom.1:24–27; 1 Tim. 6:10; 2 Tim. 3:4

  • Our mind (thoughts and understanding)—Gen. 6:5; 1 Cor. 1:21; Eph. 4:17

  • Our will (constitution and moral vitality)—John 8:34; Rom 7:14–24; Eph.2:1–3; 2 Pet. 2:19

Furthermore, Scripture teaches that Adam’s sin brought spiritual death to us all (Gen. 2:16–17, 3:1–7; John 11:24-26; Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:1–3; Col. 2:13). As a result, men are spiritually deaf, blind, and completely corrupted (Ecc. 9:3; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 8:7–8; 1 Cor. 2:14); also, men are slaves of sin (John. 8:34; Rom. 6:20; Tit. 3:3) and children of the devil (Eph. 2:1–2; 2 Tim. 2:25–26; 1 John 3:10).

THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

(Rom. 3:10–12)

Because of this corrupted state, man is dead in his sins and in complete and utter rebellion against God. His only hope is a sovereign act of God’s Mercy: he must be made a new creation (Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:10; 1 Cor. 5:17–18), to have his nature renewed (Due. 30:6; Ezk. 36:26–2; 1 Pet. 1:3)—to be brought to life by the Spirit (John 5:21; Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13) and granted repentance (Acts. 11:18, 16:14; Phil. 1:29; 2 Tim. 2:25–26).

How do you know when you've/someone else has been made alive?

When someone is granted repentance, he goes from being a rebel to being a servant, from being a slave to sin to being a slave to God (Rom. 6:21–22). Furthermore, now that he has new disposition towards God, his life is characterized by thankfulness and service unto the Lord (Rom. 6:1-14; Eph. 2:10; Phil. 2:13).

What's the difference between “dead in sin" (Eph 2:1) and "dead to sin" (Rom 6,2)?

The first refers to our spiritual condition, as described in the Total Depravity definition above. The second refers to the believer being released from sin’s bondage (i.e., sin is no longer our master).

Why does such an equation of "spiritual death" = "physical death" have to be made? Why does the spiritual dead man have to be compared to a physical dead corpse?

Calvinists are quick to point out that "world" does not always mean "world", and that "all" does not always mean "all". But "dead" must always mean "dead"? Why?

What else could it mean? Consider Col. 2:13:

When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions

If “death” doesn’t mean death, then “alive” doesn’t mean alive. All throughout Scripture we find life and death contrasted. But if “life” doesn’t mean life and “death” doesn’t mean death, then the scarlet thread of redemption that runs through Scripture becomes unintelligible, and passages such as these become meaningless.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:35 AM | 2 comments links to this post

Thursday, May 05, 2011

Today in History: National Day of Prayer


The first Thursday in May is the National Day of Prayer, a day that encourages Americans to pray for the United States, its people, and its leaders.

The tradition of a National Day of Prayer dates to 1775, when the Second Continental Congress set aside a day for Americans to pray to “be ever under the care and protection of a kind Providence” as they began the struggle for independence. In the following decades, Congress and the president set aside various days for prayer. In 1863, for example, Lincoln proclaimed “a day of national humiliation, fasting, and prayer” to help the country get through “the awful calamity of civil war” and for “the restoration of our now divided and suffering Country to its former happy condition of unity and peace.”

In 1952 Congress and President Truman established a National Day of Prayer as a yearly event. Truman called for a day “on which all of us, in our churches, in our homes, and in our hearts, may beseech God to grant us wisdom to know the course which we should follow, and strength and patience to pursue that course steadfastly.”

In 1988, President Reagan designated the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer, urging Americans to ask God for “His blessings, His peace, and the resting of His kind and holy hands on ourselves, our Nation, our friends in the defense of Freedom, and all mankind, now and always.”

American History Parade

1749 - George Washington receives his surveyor’s license from the College of William and Mary.

1809 - Mary Kies of Connecticut becomes the first woman to receive a U.S. patent, for a technique for weaving straw with silk and thread.

1864 - The Battle of the Wilderness begins in Spotsylvania Country, Virginia.

1925 - John T. Scopes is arrested in Tennessee for teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution.

1961 - Astronaut Alan Shepard becomes the first American to travel into space during a fifteen-minute suborbital flight.

1988 - The first Thursday in May is designated the National Day of Prayer.

The American Patriot's Almanac: Daily Readings on America

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:42 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Wednesday, May 04, 2011

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage?

Self-described conservative and former Reagan and Bush administration official Ted Olson is one of two attorneys who sued to have California’s proposition 8 overturned. Mr. Olson makes his case to the American people in a Newsweek opinion piece titled, The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage. In this post we’ll consider some of the main ideas presented in the column.

Conservative?

My first comment has to do with the title of the piece: The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage. Since “conservative” means “to conserve,” how is it that his desire to fundamentally change the institution can be labeled “conservative”? Moreover, how does his “conservative” case differ from a liberal or “progressive” case? If it walks like a liberal, and quacks like a liberal . . .

Stopping Homosexuals from Marrying?

Various federal and state laws have accorded certain rights and privileges to gay and lesbian couples, but these protections vary dramatically at the state level, and nearly universally deny true equality to gays and lesbians who wish to marry. The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society; any status short of that is inferior, unjust, and unconstitutional.

It should be pointed out that the state is not stopping those with homosexual desires from marrying. They can marry any willing, unmarried, of-age opposite-sex person they wish; same as those with heterosexual desires. The state doesn’t care about our desires, nor does it care about “love.”

Of course, the objection is that they can’t marry whomever they wish, which is true. But I can’t marry whomever I wish either, if, say, I wanted to marry my neighbor’s wife, or my sister, or a potted plant. These relationships would be disallowed state-sanction for the same reason state-sanction is denied same-sex relationships: the state has no interest in their relationships.

State Interest

When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so.

First, this type of emotional pandering is unbecoming any person who wants his ideas to be taken seriously. That aside, the answer is “yes,” same-sex relationships (whether homo- or heterosexual) are less valued by the state, and rightfully so. Here’s why . . .

The state should only have an interest in two types of contractual relationships: corporations and heterosexual marriages. The first because the state is required to regulate commerce (section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution); and the second because it is the best way for it, the State, to perpetuate itself.

Mommies and daddies are from where the next generation of citizens will come. And the best environment for the raising of responsible citizens is a married, monogamist, heterosexual household. Married and monogamist because that brings stability to the home; heterosexual because both the mother and the father bring something in particular to the childrearing enterprise.

This unit is the best way to secure society’s future. Therefore, the state has an interest in favoring and protecting marriage between a man and a woman. It has no such interest in same-sex unions.

Moral Superiority

I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law . . .

This is breath-taking arrogance. Mr. Olson claims that he and his compatriots on the left are morally superior to all religious leaders of all times, and to all generations that preceded this one. (I suppose Ted Olson can teach Jesus a-thing-or-two about morality.)

. . . And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others . . .

Obviously this doesn’t apply to Mr. Olson since he wants to force his convictions upon the rest of society. But of course he is the moral standard for all of humanity.

Science and Homosexuality

. . . Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed . . .

I was born with certain heterosexual desires. These desires are good when exercised properly (i.e., for my wife, and for her alone). However, if I misdirect these desires (i.e., lust towards another woman), they are bad (immoral). When confronted with these misdirected desires, what should I do? Should I say, “Hey, it’s natural; I was born with these desires,” and then act upon them? No. I’m expected to realize that these desires are misdirected (sinful) and to restrain myself.

Likewise, those with homosexual desires should show the same restraint. The moral aspect aside for a moment, isn’t it obvious that their desires are misdirected? If “nature” intended for a man to have relations with another man, wouldn’t “nature” have provided the compatible equipment? It seems obvious that the proper direction for the desires should be towards those of the opposite sex.

Ethnicity Equal to Homosexuality?

. . . It seems inconceivable today that only 40 years ago there were places in this country where a black woman could not legally marry a white man. And it was only 50 years ago that 17 states mandated segregated public education—until the Supreme Court unanimously struck down that practice in Brown v. Board of Education. Most Americans are proud of these decisions and the fact that the discriminatory state laws that spawned them have been discredited. I am convinced that Americans will be equally proud when we no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians and welcome them into our society.

Ted Olson’s ethnicity is white (Caucasian). He was born that way and could do nothing to change it. His ethnicity was intrinsic to him. Consequently he had no choice in the matter. Those with homosexual desires, on the other hand, have a choice as to whether or not to act upon those desires. The latter is morally relevant, while the former is not. Thus ethnicity and homosexuality are not on the same moral plain (one involves choice and the other does not—one is intrinsic and the other a behavior). And since the state should only treat equals equally, it is in fact immoral to judicially conflate the two.

Conclusion

I call on Mr. Olson to drop the label “conservative case” unless he can explain how it differs from the liberal case, and to explain how you can “conserve” something by radically changing it . I also call upon him and others who take his position to consider carefully the case for traditional marriage that I made above, and to drop the bad arguments like those employed by Mr. Olson—Intellectual honesty demands it. We’ll see if they’re up to it, but I’ not holding my breath.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:25 AM | 2 comments links to this post

Tuesday, May 03, 2011

Today in Church History: Cornelius Van Til


On May 3, 1895, Cornelius Van Til was born in Grootegast, Groningen, the Netherlands.

After immigrating to the United States with his family in 1905, Van Til studied at Calvin College and Seminary before enrolling at Princeton Seminary, where he studied under Geerhardus Vos, C. W. Hodge, and Robert Dick Wilson. In 1927 he earned a Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University. Following a brief pastorate in the Christian Reformed Church, Van Til became a member of the original faculty at Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929, teaching apologetics until his retirement in 1972. In 1936, he transferred his ministerial membership into the newly-formed Orthodox Presbyterian Church where he remained throughout his life, declining several invitations to return to Calvin Seminary and the CRC.

In all of his work Van Til consistently championed the apologetic approach of presuppositionalism. "The issue between believers and non-believers in Christian theism cannot be settled by a direct appeal to 'facts' or 'laws' whose nature and significance is already agreed upon by both parties to the debate," he wrote. Van Til vigorously challenged traditional approaches to apologetics, both Catholic and evangelical, because they conceded too much to non-Christian ways of thinking and denied God as the ultimate judge of reality. In works such as The New Modernism (1946), he also warned against the seductive teachings of Karl Barth and the emerging neo-orthodox movement.

John Muether

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:46 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Monday, May 02, 2011

Don’t Like Abortion? Don’t Have One!

This morning, at a stop light, I was sitting behind a car with the bumper sticker, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" I'm sure the car's owner thought this sticker very cleaver. But cleverness is often a shallow substitute for thought. Consider these alternatives:

Don't like theft? Don't steal!

Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave!

Don't like rape? Don't commit one!

As you can see, the bumper sticker's logic can be applied to any moral issue. As with any of these, the question is not whether I like them, but rather if they're moral. Thus the question in the abortion debate is whether what is being killed is a human being. If it's not, then do with it what you will. If it is, then there is no justification for abortion. This is the question the sticker's owner should have considered before defacing his car.

Labels:

posted by The Catechizer | 6:32 AM | 1 comments links to this post