Monday, September 29, 2008

C-Span and Naked Emperor News

This video says all that needs to be said. Corrupt Democrats with bad policy covering up for their corrupt friends. Kuddos to those that put this video together.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Maverick Republican House Is Needed

Here is more evidence that neither Obama nor McCain deserve to be President. Both are supporting the concept of socialism in one form or another. is reporting McCain's comments about this ridiculous bailout,

The presidential nominees came behind the outlines of the bailout. "This is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. "The option of doing nothing is simply not an acceptable option."

Doing nothing is by far and away the best positive option. The even better negative option is to get out of the way of the free market by taking taxes out of the way. The assumption that government must fix everything is simply wrongheaded. This paragraph is extremely troubling. The newly proposed bailout makes even more demands.

"It also calls for the financial sector to help make up the difference if the government does not recoup its investment in five years, the official said, but details remained unclear. The government would receive stock warrants in return for the bailout relief, giving taxpayers a chance to share in financial companies' future profits."

Where does this kind of thing end? We are truly entering a new era. House Republicans seem to be the only semblance of Conservatism in any form. This article from Forbes states that House Republicans have indeed offered a plan.

"A deal had appeared within grasp Thursday afternoon but fell apart that night when a group of House Republicans issued a rival plan. Under their proposal, companies would pay premiums to insure their frozen mortgage-backed securities, instead of having the Treasury use taxpayer dollars to buy them. In addition, the plan--the fine details of which are still vague at this point--would provide some companies with tax relief, remove unspecified banking regulations and allow them to temporarily suspend dividend payments to free up capital."

If only the Republican Party had Conservative Leadership. Bush must not be let off the hook. It was under his leadership that the Republican Party went from being a majority to a minority. It may rightly be said that this entire mess is Bush's fault. There are other ways to fix this problem. As Rush says, "Conservatism works every time its tried." If only someone was willing to try.

"Any time you have a plan this big that is moving this quickly, that requires legislative approval, it creates challenges," Bush said. He said members of Congress "should be allowed to express their opinions," but emphasized that "there is no disagreement that something substantial must be done."

The very people that caused the problem (Big Government telling banks they must give homes to people that cannot afford homes) are now telling us over and over again that they must fix it. This is just going to go from bad to worse. Why bigger government must fix all the problems they caused we are not told.

Perhaps the answer to this is winning the House back. This time though, we must elect a maverick Republican House. A maverick majority that will oppose the Left's, Bush's and McCain's stupid ideas.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Beyond Death

For those of you that might be interested in reading about the evidences for life after death, I would recommend Beyond Death by Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland. The book is now out of print. However, sometimes you can find used books on amazon. Professor Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary gives a brief overview of the book here.

At one point he writes:
By far the most fascinating material for me was the study of near-death experiences. Our authors recognize that fraud and unknown scientific explanations may account for some of them but are convinced that testimonies of people declared clinically dead but later resuscitated, who were able accurately to recount information about what was happening both inside and outside of the room where their bodies lay points to some genuine experience of life after death.

This section of the book is fascinating. What is also good about the book is that it gives a Biblical framework that I think keeps the evidence that currently exists in perspective. Christians don't need to believe every crazy story about heaven and hell that comes from the mouths of money-makers. Yet neither do we need to be so skeptical that we deny truthful accounts and evidence that plainly point to the dualistic character of the human person.

If you find it, it is worth the read. I may even let you borrow my copy if you promise to give it back.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Parnia Opens the Box

For years, atheistic scientists such as Dawkins have been advancing a scientific model that claimed that all of the universe's secrets could be discovered given enough time. The human mind has such great ability we could actually learn everything about this vast universe. It is interesting to see when the world of science comes full circle and sees that they may not have all the answers.

This morning's Yahoo News story written by M.J. Stephey is entitled "What Happens When We Die?" Stephey interviews one the world's "leading experts on the scientific study of death", Dr. Sam Parnia.

Parnia explains that due to the advances of medical technology, the line of demarcation between life and death may not be as sharp as once was.

"Nowadays, we have technology that's improved so that we can bring people back to life. In fact, there are drugs being developed right now - who knows if they'll ever make it to the market - that may actually slow down the process of brain-cell injury and death."

This leads to obvious questions when people who have been technically dead or at least unconscious from our perspective are able to give information about events that took place during that time. Parnia plans to use the scientific method to verify that consciousness is still in effect after the brain is shut down. He says,

"So the key thing here is, Are these real, or is it some sort of illusion? So the only way to tell is to have pictures only visible from the ceiling and nowhere else, because they claim they can see everything from the ceiling. So if we then get a series of 200 or 300 people who all were clinically dead, and yet they're able to come back and tell us what we were doing and were able see those pictures, that confirms consciousness really was continuing even though the brain wasn't functioning."

Parnia is doing more than just using the current scientific method. He is challenging the current framework of science by using the current methods of science to do so! When asked why there is such resistance to his studies he replies,

"Because we're pushing through the boundaries of science, working against assumptions and perceptions that have been fixed."

Parnia may be very well opening the proverbial Pandora's Box. It is a terrifying thing to discover that the world is truly greater than your mind would allow.

The God of Scripture is coming out of Pandora's Box. Advancing science and technology will not allow us to shut the lid. If men would just start with what the Creator has revealed to us, perhaps we would have a healthy sense of fear of the one with whom all men must face.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

George Will With Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager asks George Will why should we vote for John McCain to which Will responds,

It is. The first thing any man elected president has to do is staff the government. That is, he has to fill about 3,000 policy making Cabinet and sub-Cabinet level positions. The Republican conservative pool of 3,000 is going to be a lot healthier making day to day decisions that affect our schools and our business and everything else in American life, a lot healthier, better for freedom, than the 3,000 on the other. So there are 3,000 reasons right there. I’ll give you five additional reasons. They’re Supreme Court justices. Someone once said, I think it was Justice Brennan, said the most important word in the Supreme Court isn’t law, freedom, justice, no. The most important word is five. Now…because that’s a Supreme Court majority. On Inauguration Day, January 20th, 2009, five of the nine Supreme Court justices will be over 70 years old. The two most liberal, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, will be 76, and John Paul Stevens will be 88. The next president is going to have in the first term, in all likelihood, two at a minimum, maybe three or even four, Supreme Court appointments to fill. That is just too important to let fall to the other side here.

So now that we have 3000 and 5 good reasons to vote for McCain, Will seems to say something that keeps politics in perspective.

We tend to get so fixated on the presidency, and the reckless rhetoric of all sides, where will the president take us, what will the president do to manage the economy…presidents don’t take this country places. Presidents don’t manage the economy. This country and economy is driven by the free choices and decisions and energies of 303 million people making choices and starting businesses and raising children. Politics isn’t quite as important as we sometimes think it is.

Although Will seems to be sending mixed messages about McCain and whether or not Conservatives should vote for him, in the end this country is great because the American people make it work. At the moment, we still have freedom and liberty based upon a foundation that God has given to men certain unalienable rights...even with McCain as President.

McCain Shoot Conservatives, Will Shoots Back

When I first heard McCain start talking about certain people being fired if he were President (that he would have no authority to fire in the first place), my thoughts that McCain's philosophy on the economy and government may not be much better than Obama's were confirmed. I have to agree with Rush Limbaugh's statement yesterday that somebody needs to tell McCain that he is running against Obama...not Wall Street!

George Will's Blog column McCain in Wonderland at simply nails McCain as being ignorant on economics as Barack Obama. The column states,

Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked The Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle -- had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."

Now McCain wants to replace Cox with Andrew Cuomo. Why? Because McCain thinks he has respect and prestige...whatever that may mean.

Under McCain's leadership, true Conservatism could be destroyed. Rush Limbaugh may want to win, but McCain certainly is not the path back. Limbaugh fears that without McCain we could end up with Liberal Judges. But Will goes on to assert,

"Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either."

In conclusion I must agree with Will's claim that

The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain's party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale.

This is the problem when Republicans accept the premises of the Left and try to solve problems after having done so. After many years, Left-wing ideology of government control of the free-market has finally taken it toll. During these next few weeks McCain has the greatest opportunity of a life time to defeat his political enemies. It is just too bad his political enemies happen to include me.

Monday, September 22, 2008

Robertson On Priesthood of Christ

In the third chapter of the Israel of God, Robertson deals with the topic of worship. Under the Old Covenant God defines what worship is, and God is also the One who commands the means by which He is to be approached. Under the New Covenant God also defines how we are to approach Him.

The two Covenants have a radically different approach in worship. Under the Old Covenant God gives the Levitical Priesthood as the means by which men may approach God. Under the New Covenant, God has established a new High Priest according to the order of Melchizadek. Robertson spends much time explaining from Hebrews chapter 7 that Jesus has changed worship forever.

Robertson's conclusion of his exegesis of Hebrews 7 demands we come to a sound and consistent view of worship under the New Covenant.

As the writer to the Hebrews has indicated, Jesus cannot exercise His priesthood according to the old order. He belongs to the tribe of Judah, and cannot function as a Levitical priest. For this reason, He will never function as a priest in a temple built in Jerusalem according to an order that has passed away. His priestly ministry is located in the temple of the heavenly, eternal realities. He cannot fulfill His exalted ministry in the shadowy, temporal forms of the old covenant.

Any restoration of temple and sacrifice according to the order of the old covenant would supplant the high priesthood of Jesus. The idea is unthinkable. No priesthood on earth could compare with the perfected priesthood of Jesus in heaven, and it would be an insult to His perfect sacrifice to suggest that any subsequent offering by other priests would be able to reconcile the sinner to God.

Dispensationalists have argued that the Old Sacrificial order would be a memorial. Jesus however gives only one memorial to His sacrifice that He commands us to follow. That is the Lord's Table or Communion. To go back to the old system, even as a memorial, is to go back to the shadows and types.

At the consummation Christians will sit with Christ at His table and partake of the only memorial established by Christ. That is what Christians ought to look forward to, not an earthly temple or an earthly sacrificial system.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Reformation Weekend

Reformation Weekend

October 31, November 1-2, 2008

First Baptist Church

420 S. Scott

St. Francis, KS

Calvinism and Missions

Meeting times:

Friday 7:00 pm (session 1) The Calling of Abraham Genesis 12:1-3

Saturday 10:30 am (session 2) The Calling of Moses Exodus 3:1-4:12

12:00 pm (dinner is provided)

1:30 pm (session 3) The Calling of Jeremiah Jeremiah 1:1-10

3:00 pm (break)

7:00 pm (session 4) Going for His Glory Psalm 96

Sunday 10:30 am (session 5) Teaching Them Matthew 28:20

12:00 pm (dinner is provided)

Lodging is available in homes on a first come basis. For more information call: 785-332-3921 or 785-332-2959, or email: In St. Francis there is Cook's Empire Motel, 785-332-2231. In Goodland (35 miles south) there are a number of motels; including Comfort Inn, 785-899-7181, Howard Johnson, 785-890-3644, Super 8, 785-890-7566, and Best Western, 785-899-3622

Our conference speaker will be Dr. David Sills, Professor of Christian Missions and Cultural Anthropology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He also serves as Director of the Doctor of Missiology program, Director of the International Church Planting program, and Director of Great Commission Ministries. Dr. Sills joined Southern Seminary after serving as a missionary in Ecuador. While with the International Mission Board, he served as a church planter and general evangelist among the Highland Quichua people in the Andes and as a seminary professor at the Ecuadorian Baptist Theological Seminary. He also served as Rector and professor of the Baptist seminary as a missionary with Global Outreach International. In addition to leadership training and seminary ministry that has taken him throughout Latin America and as far away as Nepal, he has started and pastored churches in both the United States and Ecuador. As an author, his latest book is The Missionary Call: Find Your Place in God's Plan For the World (2008). David and his wife Mary have been married for over thirty years and have two grown children. For more information about the ministry if Dr. Sills go to


Saturday, September 20, 2008

McCain's Radio Address

Senator John McCain has given a weekly radio address which you may read on here at

McCain says about the current banking crisis:

At the center of the problem were the lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats who succeeded in persuading Congress and the administration to ignore the festering problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

McCain saw this corruption and sought to do something.

Two years ago, I called for reform of this corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress did nothing. The Administration did nothing. Senator Obama did nothing, and actually profited from this system of abuse and scandal.

Please notice who he blames. He tells us that the problem includes President Bush. This is simply not true. The New York Times wrote 5 years ago that

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

I am troubled that McCain wants to destroy even further the First Amendment because of money in politics. He targets those of his own party in order further his own political career. McCain is an opportunist, and he is making every opportunity to destroy his own party and conservatism.

The Constitution gives the American citizen one huge way of dealing with corrupt politicians...VOTE THEM OUT! To add more government is adding fuel to this fire. McCain has already begun to dismantle the First Amendment. This will only further his destruction of it.

There is one major idea that Conservatives offered in 1994 that would truly do the reforming McCain wants. That is term limitations. This would have truly brought reform to corrupt politicians. McCain opposed this idea as reported here.

McCain hewed to his signature theme of campaign finance overhaul. When asked whether he supported term limits, he objected, “My problem is that we throw out the good people as well as the bad.” But he said that overhauling the campaign finance system would have an effect similar to a term limit’s by ending the “the incumbency protection racket.”
Source: New York Times, p. A17 Jan 25, 2000

This demonstrates McCain doesn't want reform. In fact, McCain wants to increase the problem by increasing government oversight. He would rather throw out the First Amendment than throw out the corrupt politicians.

McCain is leading a charge down a dark path. The problem is not being solved...only delayed.

Friday, September 19, 2008

Homosexuality In the Church

Tim Challies has blogged about Ray Boltz's divorce and admission that he is gay. Ray will be singing at the Metropolitan Community Churches (I assume in Texas). You may link to this information through Ray Boltz's website.

I decided to read a pamphlet written by Dr. Mona West in which she defends modern homosexuality. She explains:

"The word ‘homosexuality’ is a modern term and did not exist during biblical times. Biblical writers had no concept of sexual orientation or sexual development as we understand those today. Therefore, passages that reference same-sex sexual activity should not been seen as comprehensive statements concerning homosexuality, but instead should be viewed in the context of what the ancient world that produced the Bible understood about sexual activity."

So what is this context that makes homosexual acts different today from then? She quotes Professor Mary Tolbert:

"The single most important concept that defines sexuality in the ancient Mediterranean world, whether we are talking about the kingdoms of Egypt or of Assyria or whether we are talking about the later kingdoms of Greece and Rome, is that approved sexual acts never occurred between social equals. Sexuality, by definition, in ancient Mediterranean societies required the combination of dominance and submission. This crucial social and political root metaphor of dominance and submission as the definition of sexuality rested upon a physical basis that assumed every sex act required a penetrator and someone who was penetrated. Needless to say, this definition of sexuality was entirely male—not surprising in the heavily patriarchal societies of the Mediterranean."

Therefore, Dr. West concludes that when the angels appeared in Sodom and Gomorrah, "they want[ed] to rape them in order to show their social and cultural dominance over them".

So when we read the Leviticus texts that read

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (18:22)
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; the shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.” (20:13)

We must understand that what God was saying is not that homosexuality is wrong. It is only wrong in their context of having dominance over one another.

"In light of the previously mentioned sexual practices of Israel’s neighbors, it becomes clear that this prohibition in Leviticus was an attempt to preserve the internal harmony of Jewish male society by not allowing them to participate in anal intercourse as a form of expressing or gaining social and political dominance. These verses in no way prohibit, nor do they even speak, to loving, caring sexual relationships between people of the same gender."

Traditionally, most people read these texts with the understanding that a man shall not lie with another man in a sexual manner since that is what a man does with with a woman. Dr. West challenges this assumption. A man shall not have dominance over another man as he does with women.

This raises a couple of questions for me. First, is she saying that God did not want men to lie with men as they do with women? This seems to strongly imply that God at least permits men to have dominance over women. Why is there no command by God telling men they should not lie with women with a sense of dominance over them? Why is that not an abomination to God?

If the story of Sodom is merely about inhospitality and domination, why does the New Testament lump all of these sins together. Are they not all selfish perversions of what God has commanded of men including sexual desires (1 Cor 6:9-10)? In the same text, God calls fornication sin. What if the couple that are fornicating truly love each other?

The Holiness code also forbids sex with animals. Is this merely a dominance issue? Should we have loving equality relationships with our pets?

I suppose we just have to wonder if our traditional understanding of what it means to "lie with a woman" is correct. Would a Hebrew living in Moses' day really have heard "Don't lie with another man with dominance as you are doing with your wife."? Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

I am saddened for Ray Boltz's self deception at the clear teaching of Scripture. If you read the church's website, there is a sense in which they seem to take the Bible seriously. However, I must agree with Albert Mohler. Where a church accepts feminism, homosexuality is sure to follow. That is exactly what you have in this case.

Sexual sins are powerful sins, and no one is above them. I pray that God's grace would fill the lives of all those that have been deceived by false teachers such as the church Ray Boltz is now fellowshipping.

If you are struggling with the particular sexual sin of homosexuality, may I recommend to you Love Won Out ministry. Christ came to save sinners through His life, death, burial and resurrection. That includes homosexuals.

Islam Invading Europe

Diana West has written an interesting post on Islam's invasion into Europe. Read here.

I thought these 2 comments were particularly helpful.

A Far Too Optimistic Report
Unfortunately, Europe is almost certainly lost.

I state this for three reasons. First, the vast majority of Europeans are completely oblivious to the threat. They have been brain washed by multi-culturists who continually lie about Islam. They overwhelmingly believe that there is no danger.

The Europeans don’t understand that Islam’s long term plan is to take power at the ballot box. The Muslims have a weapon that the Europeans surrendered a long time ago, DEMOGRAPHY. The Muslims plan to out-copulate the Europeans.

The only way to reverse this situation is for Europe to force their Muslim populations to return to their home countries. There is zero political will to do this. In addition, Europe’s dependence on Middle East oil makes them hostages to the Arabs.

Second, the Europeans reject their own Christian heritage. The European Constitution rejects the fact that Europe’s history, culture, and identity are Christian. The Europeans have lost any sense of who they are. Therefore, they have nothing to fight for.

Third, the Europeans have become dedicated pacifists who may fight when faced with an attack by a foreign power on their own soil, but they will not fight an internal subversive enemy. The rot is systemic.

The incorporation of Sharia by the British government is the beginning of the end.

President Bush also has lied to the American people. He has stated,

“Islam is a religion of peace. Islam means peace.”

Islam translated into English means,


This comment explains why Obama is liked in Europe.

A Far Too Optimistic Report
Is Europe lost?
Yes, and here's why. Europe when challenged with facing Arabic terror head on throughout the world joined WITH the Muslim anti-Americanism, joined with Muslim anti-Israelism, and joined with their Arabic leftists populations which was and remains a natural fit for socialist Europe. England, under a leftists government, brought in Sharia courts as the latest example. There is no going back now. This process can only accelerate for Europeans because the masses themselves have chosen who they wish to be associated with and who they wish to support. For many of us on this side of the pond it should come as no surprise to anyone that the Europeans worship Obama because they believe Obama is like them. He believes as they do, he is one of them. Ironically, Russia will be the sole holdout in this madness.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Evolution Must Be Fact

"Evolution is not a theory of the origin of life."

This just cracks me up. I know they really believe evolution is just science, but I wasn't born yesterday. None of us have ever seen this image in any text book...ever.

Evolution Is an Unjustified Foundation

Oliver Kamm has written a Blog post on Sarah Palin and creationism on the TimesOnline you may read here. In one paragraph he writes:

Christianity has proved compatible with literally any ideology, even in recent history: consider the racist justifications for apartheid offered by the Dutch Reformed Church; the Social Gospel preached by the Baptist reformer Walter Rauschenbusch; or the strong Tory pro-appeasement sentiments of Cosmo Lang, Archbishop of Canterbury in 1930s. I'm not concerned in public affairs with people's beliefs about first and last things, but only with whether they accept the implict social contract on which a free society depends. Moderate religion, whether or not you find its doctrines credible, accommodates itself to secular education and secular government, and is thereby a matter of private conscience. [emphasis mine]

The bold sentence is interesting because it is supposedly the morally neutral viewpoint of the author. It seems to be that secularism must be the foundation for a free society. He wrote earlier,

On the contrary, one of the most vital principles of liberalism is the secularist insistence, codified in Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom of 1786, that there be no religious test for public office.

For some reason, Thomas Jefferson is some kind of atheist that wants no religious view at all. This myth of secularism is just plain false. I am not trying to make an argument that Jefferson was some kind of Christian, but I think it is absurd that Jefferson was morally neutral in his views or that is was religiously neutral or even held the correct one. Also, Jefferson's view of God and how religion relates to public life is hardly the majority viewpoint. Just so you don't think me anti-Jefferson, as a Baptist, I happen to agree much with Jefferson. The Federal Government should do just a couple of things. Maintain a strong defense and deliver the mail. Nevertheless, to have a government one must have a solid foundation upon which to build and maintain it. A free society may not be morally or philosophically neutral.

After arguing that basically no one held to Young-earth creationism in the past he concludes:

Intelligent Design hasn't arisen because of some crisis in evolutionary biology. It's arisen as a strategy to introduce religious dogma into science education under the dishonest guise of teaching a "controversy" that, as far as science is concerned, does not exist. That's a fundamental assault on liberal values and the constitutional principles of the world's leading democracy. It's completely reasonable to ask where Sarah Palin stands on the issue.

I beg to differ with Mr. Kamm on who believed what prior to the rise of evolution in the scientific realm. The fact is, history gives rise to new movements that define themselves due to the debate of the day. Darwinism did not become the norm until the 1800's. Therefore to find Christian scientists arguing for a young earth may be difficult since it was not an issue just as the forensic language of the Protestant Reformation for the doctrine of Justification waited for 1500 years.

In response to Melanie's claim that there are many scientists who are converting from Evolution Kamm asks,

"If there are, as Melanie tells us, "growing numbers of scientists, some of great distinction" (and I'm suspicious of that obsequious honorific) who accept ID, then why do they not publish their work in the scientific journals?"

But earlier he writes a statement about creationists:

"Its banner reads "Christ Above All", and it has a Center for Origins Research, "the world leader in creationist biology research". It doesn't take much to be world leader in that field.)"

Isn't it obvious as to why they are not publishing in certain circles? To act as if Evolutionists are morally neutral and want their world view challenged is absurd. Ben Stein I think has more than sufficiently demonstrated that.

Evolution is important as a foundation to our government. When Evolution first came became popular, it was noted that the theory would not only affect science but the entire legal system. He actually wrote:

"Evolution is not a theory of the origin of life."

What a crock. It perhaps has single handedly challenged the belief in the existence of God more than any other idea. Without Evolution atheism has nothing.

Evolution is now the foundation for law. Evolution by definition excludes God. We may sit around and try to pretend it doesn't, but we all know it does. The Framers of the Constitution laid a solid foundation that has managed to give us a society that was able to eliminate slavery and defend life. It is only since the erosion of this foundation that abortion and communism and Moral Relativism and other evils have managed to gain legitimacy.

My point is that Creationism is important. It not only affects our legal system, but it affects the way in which we view the world. If we believe that there is no Creator or that He is not necessary for the foundation of Law, then man becomes the measure of all things. That is exactly what we have.

So now we have people like Kamm arguing for a particular belief system that they can't even begin to justify. His position that is argued for doesn't even begin to justify if there were any Evolutionists or old earthers at the founding of our nation. He doesn't tell us why Evolution can't be challenged in academia other than Creationism is religious dogma as if Evolution were pure science. He simply buys the line that Evolution is pure science (as if Creationists never noticed natural selection or even deny it). Yet this assumes a definition of science that he again can't even begin to justify. We must simply accept their views because might makes right. Evolutionist currently have the might, therefore they are right.


"It's completely reasonable to ask where Sarah Palin stands on the issue."

I agree. It is completely reasonable to ask Sarah Palin this question. I think her holding up her Down's Syndrome baby in light of Natural Selection being controlled artificially by scientists who would use their evolutionary world view to murder the child is her answer. If he doesn't see the plain and simple answer, then he fulfills Romans 1.
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Again, in Kamm's mind there is no controversy in science. In the enlightened mind of Kamm is science settled. The rest of us must follow his understanding. What a fool!

Monday, September 15, 2008

Jesus the Democrat, Killed By a Republican

This is just too much. I could not have asked for a bigger mistake from the Left. Their hatred for Sarah Palin truly has risen to the forefront. To contrast her and her position with one who killed Christ (Obama?) is just mind boggling. I wonder if the Local New York Times Opinionator will repeat this stuff, or does he have some semblance of sense?

What is interesting about this is that I think the Religious Left that may call themselves Christian really believe this stuff. The problem with Theological Liberalism of the past couple of centuries is exactly this. They really believe Jesus came to help man out, to give him a lift, to organize communities in order to show him the way to a better neighborhood.

If Conservatives don't pay closer attention, they will end up doing the same thing. The Gospel is not about making bad sinners into good sinners. It is not about ending racism or poverty or better education or better health care or ending class envy or fixing marriages or solving drug abuse addictions. The Gospel is God reconciling to Himself wicked rebel sinners in Christ by His death, burial, resurrection and ascension.

The Kingdom of God comes upon the hearts of men. It informs men how they not only live in God's Kingdom, but how they are to live in the kingdoms of this age. However, the the two kingdoms are not the same! This point can not be over emphasized. We must always keep before us what is the duty of the church and what is the duty of government. To centralize government power in order to accomplish something God did not command for governments to do, is to enter an philosophical and economic system that takes us backwards. Rush pointed to this article by Robert Higgs during his show. I think it is a helpful read.

My point is simple. Both sides want Jesus to endorse their campaigns. Be very wary of those who do!

Sick Minds On Display

Our Local New York Times Opinionator wrote a funny satirical piece against the Republicans (what a shocker). I just love this stuff coming from Left Wing kooks. They simply just don't get Conservatism.

He spends the entire time taking up much of the Internet nonsense about Sarah Palin and combines it with what he perceives as inconsistent Republican positions. Here is a great example.

"Her ultra-conservative background also puts her in a strong position to tout the success of abstinance only sex education," points out a GOP strategist.

"But what of her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy?" I inquired.

"That's so like you Liberals to bring our families into the political arena," he fired back. We saw this same underhanded tactic four years ago when you had to remind everyone that Dick Cheney's daughter is one of those people."

"You mean a lesbian?"

"Can't you people leave personal stuff like that out of politics?" he fired back.

We have no problem with her choice," I explained. "It's your party that is opposed to same-sex marriage and claims gay people will be condemned to hell. And it's your party that claims abstinence programs in our schools are enough."

This stuff pouring from our Local NYT's keyboard is just great. In attempting to demonstrate what he perceives as hypocrisy, the Opinionator only demonstrates his total inability to think and be rational.

If he were to be consistent (and Leftists don't have to be since they are above us all), he would apply the same standards to himself. For example, I tell my children it is wrong to steal. I use certain programs to help teach and reinforce the truth that stealing is wrong. But according to the Opinionator, if my son were to ever steal, that would be evidence that we should have used a program that gave him condoms for his sticky fingers. If he is going to steal anyway, he might as well not get caught? Right????

So Sarah Palin's daughter happens to be of an age where she might have relations with a young man. It just so happens she might give in to temptation. It just so happens she might even sin.

The point is that the Left has no idea that many on the Right believe that human nature is sinful and may commit acts of sin. But here is the kicker! They also believe people actually could be forgiven of their sins. Yes! The Great Community Organizer (not Barak) might have even provided the means for forgiveness.

I am really curious as to what is the moral basis for the Opinionator's opinions. I would really like for him to explain the moral basis of telling me I am wrong when he stands for a party that doesn't believe in a right or wrong.

I say keep writing this stuff Mr. Opinionator. While arrogantly telling us we are all wrong and lying to boot (ie: where is the Republican's Party's stance that says gays go to hell?), you obviously stand for something. I just wish I knew what that something was.

In conclusion, it is apparent that man is not morally neutral. Thinking like the Local NYTs editor is simply hostile to the plainly revealed Law of God. While attempting to hi-jack the morally superior ground, he must do so by borrowing from the very foundation he is assaulting. Only a truly sick and demented mind would defend a system that demands the murder and slaughter of millions of innocent children per year while claiming to be moral. Sick! Sick! Sick!

Saturday, September 13, 2008

The Israel of God

As I become more and more entrenched in the Amillenial camp of eschatology, I am only further persuaded by O. Palmer Robertson's, The Israel of God. After finishing the first chapter which deals with the land of Israel in her experience under the Old Covenant, the Land in the Psalms and Prophets and the Land From a New Covenant Perspective, I am convinced Robertson establishes the best hermeneutical approach to view the land promises throughout the Old Testament.

Having been a Christian in churches which believe the dispensational view that one must take the Bible literally, I had been accustomed to seeing prophecies and the New Testament in general from a viewpoint that blinded one to the clear scope of Scripture. Yet, this assumption that Amilenarians were spiritualizing the Bible while Dispensationalists took it literally is simply untrue

Let me offer an example. I had often heard it said that Ezekiel 37 was referring to National Israel's return to the Land in 1948. This was somehow a literal interpretation. Notice the text:

Then he said to me: "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They say, 'Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.' 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the LORD have spoken, and I have done it, declares the LORD.'

Is the 1948 return to Israel a literal fulfillment as Dispensationalists have said? Allow me to cite Robertson to those who would say the resurrection in Ezek 37 takes place in 2 parts (physical then spiritual):

"But the obvious parallel between this account of the infusion of life in Ezekiel and the creation account in Genesis 2:7 makes it plain that Ezekiel's vision of a return to life refers to a single event. First, God formed man of the dust of the earth, and then He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Only after this second action of the Creator was man declared to be 'a living being.' In a similar fashion, the skeleton formed by the coming together of the bones in Ezekiel was a totally lifeless being, still lying at the foot of the valley. Only after the breath of life from God entered the skeleton did it come to life.

From this perspective, it would seem evident that the return of the Jews to Palestine in the twentieth century, leading to the formation of the state of Israel in 1948, should not be regarded as a fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy. Israel's twentieth-century rebirth as a nation did not involve any opening of graves, resurrection of the body, inpouring of the Spirit of God, or renewal of life. However the establishment of Israel may be viewed, it does not fulfill the expectation of Ezekiel as described in this vivid prophecy. Instead, this picture of a people brought to newness of life by the Spirit of God leads to a consideration of the role of the land in the context of the New Covenant."

In other words, Robertson is taking this resurrection literally, not spiritually as Dispensationalists do! The question about eschatology should include hermeneutics, but it should also included the broad scope of Scripture and our presuppositions among other considerations.

If the rest of the book is like the first chapter, I will be certain to mention again that this is a must own for your library and studies.

(Please note there are lectures on the link with the picture on Covenant Theology. Kuddos to

Thanks For Dinner

Some of you know that my wife had her gall bladder removed earlier this week. She is recovering well.

I would like to offer a big thanks to the Browns for bringing all kinds of food the first night. They brought food even before the surgery. This allowed my kids to eat throughout the day of the surgery. Breigh, my wife's sister, brought a casserole that was immediately eaten (I think if she stayed a few more minutes she could have taken her glassware home). Meredith Kitch brought chicken noodles and mashed potatoes. That was simply delicious. Last night Mike and Tracy Hess brought her famous cheesy potatoes and dessert, and Suzanne Griffith brought meat loaf that was so good I sat and had 2 plates with plenty left over.

It truly was a blessing that my family was not forced to eat my cooking. God truly provides.

Friday, September 12, 2008

They Live In Fear of Truth

California's Episcopal Bishops gave a statement.

As Episcopal Bishops of California, we are moved to urge voters to vote “No” on Proposition 8. Jesus calls us to love rather than hate, to give rather than to receive, to live into hope rather than fear. On Tuesday, November 4th, voters in California will be given the opportunity to vote for or against Proposition 8, which would amend the state’s constitution to reserve marriage as only between a man and a woman. Since the California Supreme Court’s ruling in May that civil marriage should be provided to all of the state’s citizens whether the genders of the couple are different or the same, faithful gays and lesbians have entered into marriage as the principle way in which they show their love, devotion and life-long commitment to each other. Furthermore, marriage provides these couples the same legal rights and protections that heterosexual couples take for granted.

It is always amazing how people will switch categories when using language in order to cause confusion and doubt. Notice the Bishops state, "to live in hope rather than fear". This is the language being used to force political correctness upon Christians that believe God has the right to define sexuality and has done so. It is used to say that those who oppose gay marriage do so out of fear and to manipulate the ignorant into siding with them.

I do not fear gays and lesbians. I do not live day to day in fear wondering if someone that is gay lives next door. It is simply a morality issue. God says it is wrong. If we deny such clarity from the Creator about Truth and Law, then we have no basis for the Rule of Law in our society.

The truth is that gays and lesbians fear Christians that believe God's commands to mankind. The reason is simple and obvious by their behavior. They not only seek to have gay rights, they seek to impose their views as right upon those who disagree by the force of law. If there is any doubt to this, simply go north of the border. There you will find Christians being persecuted by secret tribunals.

Why does this occur? Simple. Christians are a daily reminder of their sin. Christians who would stand for truth must be removed from the public square. Ideas have consequences. Anyone who would oppose homosexuality would put forth competing ideas. Being reminded of the future judgment causes fear for the homosexual. God's truth must be removed at all cost.

The irony in all this is that homosexuals often say that Romans 1 does not describe them. Yet, is this not a fulfillment of their actions?

Resisting Islam is reporting that Iran is introducing a bill to punish apostates with the death penalty. What I find interesting about stories like this is the response of "good men". At the bottom of the article this is written,

“We call upon the British Government and the European Union to officially respond to this new development and urge the Iranian Government to reject the bill and guarantee the immediate release of all who are detained on the basis of their religious beliefs alone,” Papadouris of Christian Solidarity plead.

Now I hate to burst the bubble of Papadouris, but to plead with the British government on this issue is naive. England is being invaded by Muslims as we speak. They are seeking to establish Sharia Law. The West is falling to Islam right before our eyes.

My point is this. Many think their nice Muslim neighbors would never stand for the freedom of religion to become that of the Middle Ages...non-existent. If you think your Muslim neighbor would attempt to resist more radical Muslims, then your are simply lying to yourself.

Good Islamic neighbors can't resist Sharia Law. Britain can not resist Sharia Law. France can't resist Sharia Law. Liberalism in general can not resist anything with a strong will.

Speaking on a purely political level, the next President must be a President who sees the threat of the fast expanding Islam. If not, it will only be a matter of generations till Islam reaches our borders. However, I do believe that even if the West falls to Islam, Christians serve a King whose Kingdom will always advance. I just would hate to leave a world to my children in which advancing Christ's Kingdom would require their necks on a chopping block.

Monday, September 08, 2008

Biden Stands for Murder

On Meet the Press, Senator Biden answered a question about when life begins and his view on when babies should get Constitutional Rights.

I'd say, "Look, I know when it begins for me." It's a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths-Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others-who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They're intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life-I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society. And I know you get the push back, "Well, what about fascism?" Everybody, you know, you going to say fascism's all right? Fascism isn't a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks fascism is a good idea.

I have often asked Pro-abortionists what they think about slavery. Usually I get a good answer. Yet, if I play the Devil's advocate and respond to their anti-slavery stance, they have NEVER responded with a consistent answer. In fact, I don't know if I have ever received a thoughtful response at all.

Let's play that advocate and see what happens.

I'd say, "Look, I know when slavery is wrong." It's a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths-Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others-who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They're intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in slavery, and they have differing views as to when life-I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept when slavery is wrong. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society. And I know you get the push back, "Well, what about fascism?" Everybody, you know, you going to say fascism's all right? Fascism isn't a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks fascism is a good idea.

So I guess by his own logic, fascism is wrong and is so objectively. Yet, slavery would not be? Certainly there were strong convictions up until very recently that used religion to justify slavery. I have never heard religion used to justify fascism. Therefore his argument falls on its face.

Another problem is that life beginning at conception is not a merely religious belief. Anyone with a scientific brain knows that life begins at conception. That is not the issue. It is not even an issue with Biden for he admits the Roman Catholic church's teaching on the subject (which if he really did he would not argue this way).

In other words, if Biden really believed life began at conception, then for the exact same reasons he would become ardently Pro-Life. The fact is he does not believe it. You can not possibly believe babies are human beings and then allow them to be murdered.

So I now ask Joe Biden what all Pro-Lifers would like to ask. "When did your children receive Constitutional Rights, most importantly, the Right to Life?" For someone who is so willing to give foreign terrorists Constitutional Rights, I would think our own children deserve as much.

The truth is that all men are made in the image of God. If it is true, then all men deserve the Right to Life. You may think this only belongs in the religious realm. If this is merely a religious truth and not something in reality, then Biden no more deserves Constitutional Rights and the Right to Life than his own children. For Biden to speak this way is as maniacal and evil as anyone could be. Biden should be excommunicated from the RCC for knowingly and willingly opposing Rome's teaching as well as allowing murder.

In conclusion, Biden may think that no descent person would think "Fascism is a good idea", but he can't even begin to defend that assertion without borrowing from the truth that God has created all men equal and grants them certain inalienable rights. The Right to Life being the most important.

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Where Does He stand?

During our trip to Boston, we managed to visit Bunker Hill. The tour guide showed us around the hill and explained to us the events of the day. The Patriots had heard that the British were making their way towards Charleston. So they decided to take a stand at Bunker Hill.

During the night the Patriots dug themselves into the hillside. By morning a Loyalist had noticed the Patriots digging and building some kind of fort. Realizing they were taking a stand against the British, the Loyalist reported to the British leaders what was happening. Of course the events of the rest of the day are well known.

What is of interest to me at the time was just how divided our country was. There were actually people who did not want to go to war with the British. They really turned over their fellow countrymen in the midst of fighting. Our Nation has always been a nation built upon ideas that not everyone agreed with. Yet Freedom and Liberty always managed to win the hearts of Americans. So we have always had to fight for our ideas not only outwardly but within.

So what does this have to do with anything. I am sitting here at 11:30 PM trying to catch up on the speech. Due to a gas leak call, I had to read about McCain's statements via the so-called news. Perhaps tomorrow I'll know more, but as of now McCain seems to be saying as much nothing as Barack.

Yahoo News quotes McCain as saying,

"I don't work for a party. I don't work for a special interest. I don't work for myself. I work for you."

Does anyone know what this means? Perhaps more ripping apart the First Amendment?

"Fight with me. Fight with me. Fight with me. Fight for what's right for our country..."

What does this mean?

"We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us..."

Again, what does this mean? This coming from a man who sides with his political enemies...or are they his enemies?

"'After we've won, we're going to reach out our hand to any willing patriot, make this government start working for you again,' he said, and he pledged to invite Democrats and independents to serve in his administration."

So here is an appeal to the moderates. Can anyone explain to me what the core values are of moderates? Can anyone explain to me what it means to invite "any willing patriot"?

So far, and perhaps this will change when I get a chance to read the speech or listen to it later, I have not heard a leader. I am only hearing a man who wishes to unite people. I truly wonder where McCain would have stood on June 17, 1775. Would he truly have been a Patriot, a Loyalist or somebody in the middle?

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Palin Should Be

Although most Evangelicals seem to be excited about McCain's pick for VP, I can see many of my Reformed Baptist brothers are not (read here). Mark Chanski writes his first point saying, "The Bible views it as a judgment and calamity upon a nation for it to be ruled by women."

I must agree in principle that I would rather see a man in positions of authority. However, the entire field of choices is so lame that Palin shines through. She clearly out does McCain. In fact, I would venture a prediction. If we could start this entire nomination process over again and Palin would run, she would be the Republican nominee (so-called scandal and all). She would also have my vote.

McCain's choice certainly causes some difficulties. On the one hand, he has managed to get the conservative base back in his camp. There remains only one problem. Vice Presidents do nothing. This is not new. John Adams complained that this position has no authority to do anything. I am now convinced McCain has picked someone for political purposes. I still want to know if he plans to stand against the Political Left when picking judges or not. I have heard absolutely nothing from McCain on the most important issues of the day. At least I have not been persuaded by empty promises.

I don't want a President that wants to work with the other side to accomplish some kind of legacy. I want a President that is a leader and has a vision. I want a President that is leading a movement. I want McCain to stop telling me he is pro-life and start telling me how he plans to lead the Pro-life movement to victory. I don't want to be told he is for fairer taxes, I want him to lead a revolt against Left-wing tax policy and bureaucracy. I don't want to be told he is not against homeschooling, I want to see a leader in the overthrow of the status quo of the public education funding and system.

In conclusion, McCain is a man that wants his name in a long forgotten list of names of Presidents. We don't need another name. We need a leader who will lead. Since there are no leaders (other than Palin), this contest is an up or down on Barak Obama. Nothing more.

Monday, September 01, 2008

Future Matt On TBN

Miracles really do happen if you just confess it and receive it. Not only that, TBN has truly performed a miracle. They have managed to get the future Matt Alexander to come back in time to give us his wisdom on how he has become wealthy in Christ.

Those of you who know Matt will certainly see that the future Matt has "made it". He obviously lives on a beach in sunny Florida. He clearly has money. So just follow Matt around and maybe his hem...I mean faith will rub off on you too.