Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Which God Will Save Mr. Black

If you bothered to watch Lewis Black's routine, then you basically know that Biblical creationists are "[bleeping] nuts". So be it. The fairy tale story made for adults called evolution is just plain fact. No dispute. You must cast off any thought and follow his dogma. So I'll skip that portion of the routine. His next part is so commonly repeated by those who do not carefully read either the Old or New Testaments, that I think it needs to be looked at. He says in this clip [be warned, he is vulgar and blasphemous].
Now there is a big difference between the Old Testament and New Testament and that is the New Testament God is really kind of a great guy. He is. Especially when you compare Him to the Old Testament God...

I don't know what happened to God you know over time. How He matured. If He went to an anger management class...
Basically, this is the idea usually put forth by atheists [who originally got it from liberal scholarship] that the God of the Old Testament is a different God from the New Testament. Now there are scholarly reason for thinking this. In fact, there are scholarly reasons for thinking there is a different God portrayed in different parts of the Old Testament. So the unbelieving scholarly views of the number of gods in the Old Testament could possibly never end depending upon the never ending false presuppositions every scholar could evaluate the text by.

In the popular realm, basically what is argued is that the God of the Old Testament is just a meanie. Just look at all of those passages in the Old Testament where God has the Israelites wipe out entire groups of people including every dog and cat they may have possessed. However, the New Testament God is just all-loving and wouldn't hurt a fly.

Now in order to think this way, we must only produce those texts which support our view. We must ignore the vast amount of texts that clearly show the opposite. For instance, in the Old Testament God promises to send mankind a Savior. We have seen this in the protoevangelium.
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."
In speaking to Abraham God promises salvation.
Gen 12:2 And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing;
Gen 12:3 And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."
Perhaps Mr. Black missed Deuteronomy 28 and the blessings promised to those who do what God commands. I have no doubt he is aware of the cursed part. Perhaps he missed all of those passages where the people cry out to God for deliverance in the Exodus and throughout the book of Judges.

What about the passage that speaks of God sending a suffering servant to bear the sins of His people in Isaiah 53?
Isa 53:5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.
Isa 53:6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.
Of course, this has no meaning for Mr. Black since he obviously does not realize his own wickedness.

In Psalm 37 God promises to rid the land of the wicked. Wouldn't it be a fantastic world in which evil no longer exists. Unless of course you are a blasphemer like Mr. Black.

God promises to renew the heavens and the earth in Isaiah 65 and bring justice at the end of the age. How terrible He is for doing such great things.

Mr. Black does not seem to realize that God has been very patient with him. Does Mr. Black truly think he is so righteous that he could stand in the Day of Judgment? Of course not. So what is Mr. Black's solution. Let me give you a hint. His atheistic evolutionary view of the world helps him to explain somebody away.

However, Mr. Black's erroneous view doesn't stop there. He also misses chunks of the New Testament. For instance in Peter's second epistle (a Jew by the way), he wrote,
2Pe 3:3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."
2Pe 3:5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,
2Pe 3:6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.
2Pe 3:7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
I wonder if Mr. Black has ever considered this text. God certainly doesn't sound like someone he could bear hug and give sloppy kisses. Perhaps he would consider the words of Jesus (yikes, another Jew!).
Luk 13:3 "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
Luk 13:4 "Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem?
Luk 13:5 "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."
We could sit here all day and produce text after text to demonstrate that the God of the New Testament is a meanie as well. There is something more important, though, than just citing texts. We must understand the contexts of these texts. The destruction of nations in the Old Testament are all shadows of a coming Day of Judgment. All of these texts have as their background that man is a wicked rebellious sinner needing a Savior. It is God who takes the initiative to save man from his true problems, sin and death.

It truly is my hope and prayer that those who think in this worldview as Mr. Black does, would by the grace of God come to recognize their sin and guilt in Adam. That death is approaching. That evolution is not true, and that they will face the wrath of God in the Day of Wrath.

There will be a New Heavens and a New Earth in which only righteousness dwells. There is a Day coming when the Son of God will appear in all His glory and raise the dead, judge the world and make all things new. I will end with Jesus' words.
Joh 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
Joh 5:25 "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
Joh 5:26 "For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;
Joh 5:27 and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.
Joh 5:28 "Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
Joh 5:29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Black's Red, White and Screwed

In Lewis Black's routine Red, White and Screwed, he makes fun of George Bush for believing in a literal 7 day creation interpretation of the Bible instead of the theory of evolution [you may watch the unedited version from you-tube here starting at about the 6 minute mark]. Now obviously Black has the great ability to use humor to wipe out anyone who would dispute his view of science without ever having to defend his beliefs. Men like Black never feel the need to justify their presuppositions, which is something I am willing to bet he has never been challenged to do.

What is interesting is that he starts to use a Jewish interpretation of the Bible as the basis for his argument. Now, this part is funny. But when you sit back and think about what he says, is he really saying that Jews have always believed in evolution as currently taught or that the theory of evolution is compatible with Jewish interpretations for the last several thousands of years? This just seemed odd? The theory of evolution requires no God whatsoever. The writers of the Bible assumed the necessary existence of God to explain and justify the creation and how we are able to know things including scientific theories.

Be that as it may, he then mocks Christians for not being satisfied with the Hebrew Scriptures. Instead we had to have more books. In this portion of the routine Black says,
Every Sunday I turn on the television set and there's a priest or a pastor reading from my book [Old Testament] and interpreting it. And their interpretations, I have to tell you, are usually wrong. It's not their fault because its not their book.

You never see a Rabbi on TV interpreting their you?

If you want to truly understand the Old Testament, if there is something you don't quite get, there are Jews who walk among you.
Now this last line was extremely funny. While being caught up in the moment in watching him and his humorous ability to say all of this, it is quite easy to forget what is really being said and more importantly, what is being assumed.

Is he still arguing that Jews are all unified on the interpretation of the Old Testament not only among modern Jews but with the Jews of the first century? Is he still referring to the creation/evolution debate?

The biggest problem I have with this statement is that it seems to assume that either the New Testament was written later by Gentiles or some other theory. He just seems to pass by the obvious and by his humor marginalizes all those who would disagree as being stupid and irrational (ie: the Scopes Trial is over as if all scientists are in agreement).

At this point I really would love to sit with him and ask for clarification. Perhaps he missed the fact that Jesus was a Jew. He seems to miss that Peter, James, John, Matthew, Paul and the writer to the Hebrews were all Jews. He seems to miss the fact the the majority of the very early church was Jewish. In all of this, is he really going to argue that Jesus and His Jewish Apostles don't have the right to interpret the Old Testament?

The fact is, there are Jews for Jesus today who would interpret the Old Testament in a similar fashion as the Gentiles he so despises. The reason should be obvious to all. Apparently, the obvious is missed by Lewis Black.

Now to be fair to Mr. Black, perhaps he is referring to something else that these priests and pastors are interpreting than the normal Apostolic Gospel message. If this is the case, this is his problem. He is the one, who chose to speak in a blasphemous manner against the God of Scripture. He is the one, who chose to mock and ridicule Christians for following a Jewish Rabbi. If he has a problem with Christians, perhaps he should talk to one. We are still walking around as well.

Lewis Black and Religion

Years ago, a friend of mine took me to the Comedy Connection in Boston. A small little club where comedians from all across the country would come and perform. From the first time I went I was hooked. I have always been amazed at how comedians take everyday things that we do and make them funny. Quite often I felt as though they were making fun of me personally. My aunt Ramona once told me that if you can't laugh at yourself, then you are taking yourself way too seriously. I still agree and quite often find myself laughing at myself.

For the last few years I have been watching a comedian by the name of Lewis Black. I doubt I would ever go to see Black in person. I prefer to watch him on Comedy Central where his vulgarity may be edited out and made much more tolerable to listen to. At times I find him extremely funny. At times he may be quite blasphemous and down right ridiculous. So why watch him? Because Lewis Black helps me to try to understand those who reject Christianity from an atheistic viewpoint. He tries to act as if he has all the common sense in the world and Christians are just stupid morons. I have no doubt that at times we are, but I wonder if Lewis Black would ever consider looking at himself in the way he looks at others.

Recently Comedy Central showed one of his performances where he spends time making fun of George Bush and the Christian religion. Although making fun of Bush is not difficult, there were several things that Black had to say that were just basically wrong. So in the next post or two, I'd like to interact with a few things that he said.

Let's face it. Political Leftists like Black use their positions to marginalize Christians and using humor is a great way to make your political enemies go stand in the corner. Black at times is very serious about his comments. I think he really believes some of the nonsense he says. He is not just trying to use humor to get us to look at ourselves and reflect on some of the wrongheaded things we do or the inconsistencies in our beliefs. He is in fact trying to use humor to persuade people that Christianity is stupid while making Christians feel stupid about being stupid.

Monday, May 25, 2009

A Few Things

Just a couple of things. First, my pastor preached an excellent sermon from Acts 2. The Heart of Biblical Preaching. This sermon explains what Biblical/Apostolic preaching is supposed to be. I was blessed. I am certain you will be as well.

Second, I finished The Case For Amillenialism by Riddlebarger. The book gets better as it goes. The "Final Thoughts" in the conclusion are worth the read. Since I am in eschatology mode, I have decided to keep going with his other book on the subject, The Man of Sin. So far the book is an easy read and very helpful in light of the current "popular" understanding of the Antichrist.

Lastly, today is Memorial Day. Once again, this is a great opportunity to not only teach our children our national history, but while we are at the cemetery it is also an opportunity to explain to our children the meaning of life and death and the resurrection.

Monday, May 18, 2009

It Should Be Gut Wrenching To Murder Children

Many years ago I had a conversation with a prolife/prochoice person. She was literally both if that is possible. I asked her why she took the position she did. She responded by saying that she was personally against abortion but thought Washington should mind their own business.

I then asked her why she was personally against abortion. Really! What is wrong with abortion. She didn't want to say what she was thinking because the answer would demand that abortion be illegal. For the same reason she was personally against it should be the same reason it should be illegal. This same person would be for lawmakers to save animals from abuse, yet not babies. The contradiction was glaring.

Rush said what I have been thinking for years on today's program in response to Obama's Notre Dame speech.
Obama has now just said that both sides of the argument feature people who are advocating decency. And then he said we need to work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. This is right out of Bill Clinton's mouth back in the nineties where abortion needs to become safe but rare, or something like that. Now, my question is, if President Obama at Notre Dame yesterday says that everybody on this debate is decent and we gotta work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, is he not admitting there's something wrong about it, then? If there's nothing wrong with an unwanted pregnancy and if there's nothing wrong with abortion, why do we have to limit them?

Why do we hope it's rare, if there's nothing wrong, if it's really nothing more than an issue of liberty and freedom for women, then why do we have to make liberty and freedom rare for women? So I think he bastardizes his own argument here, while trying to sound triangulated, above the fray, understanding both sides.
Rush then plays an audio clip of Obama's speech at Notre Dame.
How do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles and fight for what we consider right without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side? And of course nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion. Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision, for any woman, is not made casually. It has both moral and spiritual dimensions. So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions. (applause) Let's reduce unintended pregnancies.
To which Rush responds,
You see how that got applause? Why? I ask again, why do we want to reduce the number of women seeking abortions if there's nothing wrong with it? If a position of pro-choice is just as valid as the pro-life position, if we shouldn't demonize, what's wrong with it? Why limit it? Why reduce unintended pregnancies? What's wrong with it? " Even though the decision to have an abortion may be gut-wrenching..."? What's wrong with it? I always thought it was a matter of liberty -- a matter of liberation, a matter of independence. So why in the world go through the farce here of wanting to reduce the number of pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions?
If it is merely a matter of liberty, why do we need to reduce the number of Abortions? What a simple and great question. Why is this decision gut wrenching? If it is murder, and it is, then how is it a liberty issue? Gut wrenching...yes. But deciding to consciously murder someone is gut wrenching and ought to be. It is our conscience telling us, "Hey! Stop it!"

Oh how difficult it must be to remain a liberal and a murderer. To claim you love the little guy while defending the rights of women to murder the little guy must make it terribly difficult to look in the mirror.

As creatures made in the image of God, we must stand against this tyrant who seeks to spread the business of murder around the world. We must bring to bear upon this evil man's conscience the coming wrath in the Day of Judgment. Let us all pray for President Barak Obama that God would be merciful to him in this regard.

Riddlebarger on the Age to Come

Riddlebarger's discussion of the "secret rapture" is very helpful. He wrote,
The pretribulational rapture is not, contrary to the Dispensationalist claim, inductively developed from the biblical text. It is based upon a selective and a priori-laden use of the biblical data. And, if fundamental assumptions are false, it is highly likely that any conclusions reached based upon them are also false.
One of his major arguments against the Dispensational view is that,
It is clearly prophesied in the Old Testament that God's redemptive purposes include Gentiles (Gen 12:3, 22:18; Isa 49:6). Therefore, the church is not a "mystery" during this age because the mystical body of Jesus Christ, the church, is the fulfillment of God's eternal purposes.
Riddlebarger further argues that the Apostle Paul was not awaiting some new dispensation where physical Jews get some special kingdom other than the one promised to the church, but instead something totally different.
According to Paul, creation will be liberated from its bondage when the sons of God are revealed, demonstrating that Jesus Christ will not only deliver His people from eschatological wrath but also will deliver the created order as well.
Riddlebarger is right.
Paul was not postmillenial. He was not a preterist. Nor was he a dispensationalist or a premillenarian. Paul looked for one climactic future event, the return of Jesus Christ, the blessed hope.
This is so obvious throughout the New Testament, I am surprised how we all miss it. This shows the power of traditions and their ability to blind us. Perhaps listening to our forebears in the faith would be wise. All of the ancient and reformational confessions speak about the second coming. It is quick, and final. As the Nicene Creeds states,
Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Jesus is coming to judge the "quick and the dead". This coming will bring eternal life and the eternal age to come.
Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

The Lord Is My Shepherd

The Dean of RBS has posted this video/song on the RBS Blog. May your Lord's Day be a blessed day of rest as we meditate on His Word.

We Won!

We won! Of course it is of great advantage when the team you are playing against in the finals has just played 3 overtimes just before they advanced, but hey, I'll take it.

I truly had a great time coaching my daughter's soccer team. The parents were great. The kids worked hard. This year's team was by far the easiest to coach. I must confess that I have no idea how to play soccer. Nevertheless, the kids made it easy.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Culture Wars and False Premises

Again, I really don't care about the Miss America pageant. I think the whole thing is just stupid. I have never actually watched a pageant, at least not for more than 5 minutes. Yet this Prejean thing just won't go away.

Now John Tantillo believes Trump should have "fired" Miss California. He actually makes a good case. His major argument basically says that Prejean violated the rules of being Miss California. As a marketer, Tantillo argues in his editorial on the FoxNews website,
The best brands follow their own internal rules and demand that those involved with them also follow those rules. When Vanessa Williams was caught out with photographs as Miss America, she resigned. No question about it. She hadn’t followed the rules; she had to go. This raised the prestige of the Miss America brand and in the long run even propelled Vanessa Williams to an outstanding career few, if any, Miss America’s have ever enjoyed.

Sticking to the rules and the resulting prestige of the brand is one of the reasons the Miss America organization was so dominant for so many years. It had standards and everybody knew it — even the people who made fun of it as only a beauty contest.

So he is right. Prejean violated the rules. She should go. But he also says at the beginning of his article why Trump was wrong for keeping Prejean.
He simply did not make the tough decision he needed to for the sake of the Miss USA brand and that alone will relegate the organization to second-rate status.


Because Miss Prejean is still representing Miss Prejean not California and she is certainly not representing the organization that chose her. The problem goes far beyond the photograph question.

So if the issue goes far beyond the photograph, what is the real issue?
As far as I can tell, Donald Trump didn’t demand that Ms. Prejean stop using the Miss California platform to promote herself and her agenda, nor did she make any promises to stop doing this. In fact, according to one news article, the Miss California organization is using the runner-up to make appearances that Miss Prejean is contractually obligated to make as the winner of the crown.
Again, Tantillo may be right. Prejean may not be representing California properly. Yet who forced this issue? Tantillo also says,
A better approach for the Miss USA organization would have been to have strongly “encouraged” Miss Prejean to resign –- along the lines of her ultimately announcing something like: “the media attention surrounding me has made it impossible for me to carry out my duties as Miss California.”
Too much media? So let me get this straight. The judges of the contest ask a question directly and purposefully attempting to inflame the culture wars is Prejean's fault?

Tantillo is right that the issue is not about racy pictures from years ago. The issue is the culture wars entering a pageant contest via a wicked homosexual activist. It has been my observation that the political right quite often is the reactionary side. Prejean did not pick this stupid fight. The radical Left did. Prejean was forced by the very organization that claims to be neutral to take a side. She did, and now she is being punished for it.

Again, I really don't care about Carrie Prejean and whether or not she is stripped of her crown as Miss California. The issues that bring this about point to a much deeper problem. Instead of writing about Prejean, Tantillo should have some testosterone injected in himself and be "speaking about real marketing." He cares "about marketing and what makes brands -– be they people, organizations, political parties or companies— work or not work in both the short and long-term."

Tantillo should be complaining about how Trump should have gone after a radical Left-wing judge who nearly destroyed his product. Tantillo missed the obvious problem (a homosexual activist) and instead goes after and beats up the girl. What a wimp.

Tantillo is inconsistent in his own argument. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. But then again, that's what happens when you grant the other side false premises and bogus presuppositions.

Friday, May 08, 2009

Should Obama Pray With Dobson?

Over the years, there are two events that have caused me to scratch my head, See You At the Pole and the National Day of Prayer. I scratch my head because on the one hand I see nothing wrong with praying for our nation or even the President signing the proclamation for a National Day of Prayer. I think we all should pray, but on the other hand, why do we have to turn something religious into a state matter that is unbiblical? A CitizenLink article has cited Dr. Dobson as being "disappointed".
Dr. Dobson said he was disappointed by Obama's lack of involvement in this year's National Day of Prayer.

"There are tens of millions of people praying across this country — 40,000 prayer events — and yet for the first time since 1993, the White House did not even send a representative of the Cabinet to the National Day of Prayer," he said at a news conference following the prayer event.

"When the professional baseball team wins the World Series or when the Super Bowl is played or when college teams win the national championship, they are invited to the White House to celebrate," Dr. Dobson said.

"That's important, apparently, but celebrating prayer, which is our heritage, which is what these people are talking about, is ignored. We are disappointed in that. We are not angry."

I struggle simply because Dr. Dobson's theological approach to this is simply shallow. Would he welcome President Obama into his prayer gathering? Would he have Obama speak at his prayer gathering on the topic of prayer?

If Dr. Dobson did have Obama speak or pray with him, here is a problem as I see it. Would Dr. Dobson have a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon speak or lead prayer at one of his events? If so, that would say quite a bit about Dr. Dobson.

The fact is, President Obama was not a part of a Christian church. Obama's pastor for the last 20 years has been Jeremiah Wright. Jeremiah Wright is a heretic, not a Christian. Jeremiah Wright is as confused on religion as he is politics, which leads me back to my questions.

Why should we expect a man of a different faith, such as President Obama, pray with Christians? If Obama, chooses to pray for our country, why does it have to be with Christian ministers (keep in mind, Dr. Dobson is not a Christian minister). Should we all rejoice if Obama decided to pray to Allah or some other god?

Let me be clear. I am not against the National Day of Prayer. Nevertheless, prayer is an act of worship. From a Christian perspective, it is to be done in accordance with the New Testament and Scripture as a whole. If we wish to gather in our churches and pray that God would grant our nation repentance from evil, and bless our nation in other ways as well, fine. If we do this, we must always keep in mind the Biblical Two-Kingdom model and keep it at the forefront. The United States is not the Church.

President Obama should not be expected to go against his religious beliefs. He should not be forced to pray with Christians, nor should he be expected to come to a rally with Dr. Dobson. I would no more pray with Obama in the White House than I would allow him to speak at a prayer breakfast in my local church or local community. I would not pray with Obama just as I would not pray with a consistent Roman Catholic in a public worship service (assuming they would be leading in prayer). Obama happens to have a more consistent idea on the separation of church and state when he states that the United States is not a Christian nation, than does Dr. Dobson.

Perhaps over the next few years, Christians will be forced to re-think through this difficult issue. This debate is not new by any means and much could be learned from christian history. Perhaps God has indeed blessed the church by forcing the situation upon us.

Here is a passage of Scripture from 1 Timothy 2:
1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

May all Christians pray for their government and its leaders. This is a duty of the church, not the state.

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

Coxe On Interpreting the Old Testament

Richard Barcellos posted a quote from Nehemiah Coxe on the MCTS Blog.

God, whose works were all known by him from the beginning, has in all ages disposed and ordered the revelation of his will to men, his transactions with them, and all the works of his holy providence toward them, with reference to the fullness of time and the gathering of all things to a head in Christ Jesus. So in all our search after the mind of God in the Holy Scriptures we are to manage out inquiries with reference to Christ. Therefore the best interpreter of the Old Testament is the Holy Spirit speaking to us in the new. There we have the clearest light of the knowledge of the glory of God shining on us in the face of Jesus Christ, by unveiling those counsels of love and grace that were hidden from former ages and generations.

Nehemiah Coxe

The line I find interesting is "the best interpreter of the Old Testament is the Holy Spirit speaking to us in the new." If only we would consistently apply that hermeneutic.

Monday, May 04, 2009

Eschatology Matters Too

I am currently half way through Kim Riddlebarger's book, A Case For Amillenialism: Understanding the End Times. The importance of this book could not be more timely and overstated. Although I think Sam Waldron's book on the same subject is a much easier read for the average layman, Riddlebarger's book needs to be read. Although I would suggest listening to his lectures prior to doing so.

The ideas of his book may be new to many today, but as he writes in his book, it was just a few generations ago that Amillenialism was known as the Protestant position. I mentioned that his book is important for modern eschatology. Many Dispensationalists are looking forward to the Millenium and the restoration of the Temple and sacrifices. Many Dispensationalists believe that the sacrifices in the Millennium will be done as a memorial to the work of Christ. Riddlebarger responds on page 79:
Contrary to the view of Dispensationalists, the prescribed New Testament commemoration of the ratification of the new covenant will not be found in a new order of temple worship, which includes a new temple, a new priesthood, and further animal sacrifices, supposedly in an earthly millennial kingdom. At the Last Supper Jesus told his disciples, "This is my body given for you, do this in remembrance of me.... This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you (Luke 22:19-20). He instituted the divinely approved method of commemorating his sacrificial work, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. In this way, the people of God feed on the Savior through faith and commemorate his dying on their behalf.
I could not agree more. We are attempting to go backwards in Redemptive-History. So I am sitting here minding my own business going through my mail. I open up a Jews For Jesus newsletter. The main article is titled "How 'Christian' is Christian Zionism?" Although the article's conclusion doesn't go far enough, David Brickner wrote about the direction Zionism has taken since it has abandoned the central theme of proclamation of the Gospel for political expedience.
A new form of Christian Zionism emerged in the mid 1970s and early 1980s; it was more political and actually divorced itself from Jewish evangelism, contending that a Christian's biblical duty to the Jews and Israel was best carried out through providing material comfort, political support and helping fund Jewish immigration to Israel.
Later he wrote,
These newer "Christian Zionist organizations have set themselves against Jewish evangelism in ways that their predecessors did not.
Again, "theology matters". Eschatology matters as well. We live in a day when people are seeking to escape via the rapture. We are willing to leave the Jewish people to some future kingdom while forgetting that Christ is already ruling in His Kingdom. While many are looking to go back to shadows and types, we should be looking forward to the consummation of all things, the New Heavens and Earth, the resurrection of the body, eternal life in the age to come.

Brickner's conclusion states,
When those who stand by Israel are willing to bring the good news of Jesus to the Jew first, the Christian Zionism will once again be fully christian.
In a conversation with a Jew for Jesus that spoke at a local church, I asked him what he thought. He tried to be neutral on the subject but admitted that Dispensationalism causes more confusion than its worth. This conclusion by Brickner does the same. Although he tries to stay out of the eschatological argument, he simply can't avoid it. It is time for a call to Christians to make the Gospel central, and let Zionism be what it will be in the realm of politics. Zionism is no more Christian than the United States. May the church be what it needs to be.

Friday, May 01, 2009

Obama Is Just Plain Scary

Rush played an old audio clip of our President. Obama stated,
OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and -- and order and, as long as I could pay for it, I'd be okay, but the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society.

OBAMA: As radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.
If this doesn't bother you, it should. If it doesn't bother you, then that may even be more scary than Obama's viewpoint.

To admit that the Court wasn't radical enough is to admit that the Constitution needs to be thrown away. It is too "negative". It restricts his right as President to destroy your liberty. Solution? Just ignore it.

The Kansas City Star reported today:

On the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, Sept. 22, 2005. Obama voted against Roberts' confirmation:

-"What matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

"In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled - in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart."

I know the article has Obama saying he taught Constitutional Law, but I can only conclude...Constitution! We don't need no stinking Constitution!

God's Plan For You

I just saw this on John Piper's Blog. I couldn't agree more.


Corrective Tract for the Prosperity Gospel

April 19, 2009 | By: John Piper
Category: Commentary

Corrective tract for the prosperity gospel

Mark 8:34-36:

If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?