Its Supply and Demand Silly

It seems strange to me. He said, "The government needs to get out of our lives. They screw up everything with their bureaucracy." This was in reference to taxes and policy. Recently he complained about the price of oil. "The government better put a stop to this or the economy will have problems."

OK, I just don't get it. Why do people see the government as a problem and then see it as the solution to the problems the create? How many times do I need to explain the law of supply and demand? Anyway, I thought Rush's monologue about the oil industry was excellent. You may read the entire transcript here.

Let me tell you how the Democrats and the American left look at this energy business. The thing that you have to understand is, it ain't about America. All this talk about alternative energy and hybrids, that's not about making America better. All this talk and conversation is not about making America cleaner. The way they think: power votes, getting as many people in their base to vote for them as possible, as many independents. By keeping the oil that we have, that we could drill and would decrease dependence on foreign oil. By keeping our oil in the ground and untapped, they become heroes to the environmentalist wackos. Then when the shortages, the necessity to import and that suppression of supply is depressed, what happens to price? Look at the price of oil now. Some of it's speculation; some of it's supply and demand. The price is going to continue to go up. And what happens then? When the low supply, the artificially low supply -- there needn't be a low supply given our reserves that are untapped -- that low supply drives up the price, they become the heroes of the poor and the freezing. How do they do that? Because they then attack Big Oil for gouging. And, of course, everybody hates Big Oil, just like they hate the boss.

So you've got people in the Northeast who use home heating oil and the price is going up because we've got an artificially depressed supply, thanks to Democrats. Those people have to pay through the roof for their heating oil, and the Democrats become their champions. They don't solve any problem unless Hugo Chavez comes to the rescue and sells it cheap. So the very people that are causing rising prices benefit twice from causing it. A, the environmentalist wackos love them and give them lots of money, and B, the poor, the hungry, the thirsty, the freezing, think the Democrats are the ones standing up for them. That's the way they look at it. They're not interested in improving America's lot in the world, particularly not when a Republican is in the White House.

In the end, Democrats place themselves in a win/win situation. Simple economic education ought to fix such things. Perhaps I am being overly simplistic in my little mind?

Anyone Want To Be President?

Normally I would say that Democrats are guilty of following the Socialism of Europe, yet I simply do not hear anyone, Republican or Democrat, speaking of the greatness of our own ideals that has made America great. After listening to much of this speech I simply have to wonder if there is anyone wanting to be President of the U.S.. Whoever speaks like this man will gain the American populace. It is to bad that a Frenchman has to remind Americans of what America is about.

He Takes Us By the Hand

Hebrews 8:9

"Not according to that covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, says the Lord."

John Owen's massive commentary has an excellent paragraph commenting on the phrase "I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt".

"And indeed no heart can conceive or tongue can express that infinite condescension and patience which God exercises towards every one of us, while He holds us by the hand to lead us to rest with him. Our own hearts, in some measure, know with what contrariness and perverseness, with what wanderings from Him and withdrawing from His holy conduct, we exercise and are ready to weary His patience continually; yet do not mercy and grace let go that hold which they have taken on us. O that our souls might live in constant admiration of that divine grace and patience on which they live; that the remembrance of the times and seasons in which, if God had not strengthened His hand on us, we had utterly destroyed ourselves, might increase that admiration daily, and enliven it with thankful obedience!"

Indeed!

Female Pastors

Yesterday, Al Mohler blogged about the controversial subject of female pastors. He noted:

"The feminization of the ministry is one of the most significant trends of this generation. Acceptance of women in the pastoral role reverses centuries of Christian conviction and practice. It also leads to a redefinition of the church and its ministry."

To which he concluded in the same paragraph:

“Once women begin to fill and represent roles of pastoral leadership men withdraw. This is true, not only in the pulpit, but in the pews. The evacuation of male worshippers from liberal churches is a noticeable phenomenon.”

Now this is something I have noticed for a long time. I remember when I first sat in a Baptist church in where a woman stood in the pulpit. To say this event in my life shattered the stereotypes and images of what a Baptist church is would be an understatement.

What really was interesting was the fact that there were only three men in the congregation, two of which included visitors, my friend and me! The congregation was far too small to be able to sustain a pastor. Yet, they seemed to trudge along.

ABPNews reported in June of 2006:

“About 28 percent of the chaplains and counselors in the CBF and ABC-USA in 2005 were women…”

American Baptist Women in Ministry states on the website:

“This year there are a total of 374 women senior/solo pastors. Last year there were 361 recognized. The information provided demonstrates a steady increase in the placement of women in ministry in ABC.”

I spoke with an American Baptist pastor a year ago (via email) as to why his church was leaving the denomination. He stated that there are more women in seminary than men. That was enough for him.

A few years later I asked a godly Christian woman (my wife’s grandmother) what she thought of female pastors. The idea of female pastors is nothing new and certainly is not restricted to Baptists. Yet I could only see churches being decimated by the trend (of course there are always exceptions). Her response validated what seemed intuitive to me. She basically said churches generally would not flourish. I asked her why she thought this to be the case. Her response again was simple. God didn’t ordain things to function with women over men. It doesn’t work in marriage. It doesn’t work for the church to think it is equal with Christ. It doesn’t work within the church membership either.

Over the years, I have grown to agree. The Scriptures are certainly not able to support the idea of female pastors. The hermeneutic is flawed and doesn’t take the Word of God at the level which conservatives generally view it. I think Mohler is right when he continues in his next paragraph:

“Furthermore, the issues of women's ordination and the normalization of homosexuality are closely linked. It is no accident that those churches that most eagerly embraced the ordination of women now either embrace the ordination of homosexuals or are seriously considering such a move.

The reason for this is quite simple. The interpretive games one must play in order to get around the Bible's proscription of women in congregational preaching and teaching roles are precisely the games one must play in order to get around the Bible's clear condemnation of homosexuality.

Put another way, once one is satisfied to relativize the biblical texts limiting the congregational teaching office to men, one can (and almost surely will) be satisfied to employ those same strategies on texts condemning homosexuality. In both cases, the texts are relativized by postmodern ideologies.”

“Relativize” seems to be the keyword. Again, hermeneutics or how we interpret the bible will certainly give away our true belief about God’s Word. Men do not want a female pastor. I certainly do not think men want mushy gushy theology. I am not sure why a denomination such as the American Baptists push for a trend they know is losing members in droves. Liberalism in general and Feminism in particular want to change men as to how they think. Odd that the church is 20 years behind in failed philosophical fads.

Jer 13:23 "Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots?

PBS Wanting Religion Taught?

PBS is obviously not just some morally neutral organization. I don't ever hear of them having Dr. White on their programs explaining topics such as the transmission of the bible when they are all too willing to allow apostates such as Bart Ehrman spew their false conclusions about the the bible. Now we are seeing their desire to "equip" teachers with arguments against Intelligent Design as being reported by CrossWalk News (here) as being unconstitutional and violating the First amendment. Why is this unconstitutional? Because they are attempting to promote religious viewpoints.

At first glance I had to wonder why religious people desiring prayer in school and creation science would argue against PBS on grounds that teaching evolution from a religious standpoint violates the First Amendment. If Christians want to use creation science, would not the PBSers be allowed to do the same in reverse? The article states,

"The Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas that the government must maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion,'" said Randal Wenger, a Pennsylvania attorney who filed amicus briefs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover School District case.

"Because the briefing packet only promotes religious viewpoints that are friendly towards evolution, this is not neutral, and PBS is encouraging teachers to violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause," Wenger added.

So here I am still asking myself, "So what?"

However the article articulates that the ID "theory is not an argument based on what we don't know, but rather an argument about what we do know..." I take this to mean they (Intelligent Designers) do not argue for religious conclusions? So IDers would never point out there must be an Intelligent Designer?

I guess my thinking is that both sides are going to run into this problem. It is interesting that PBS would take the idea of mixing religion with Evolution when they have attempted for so many years to separate science and religion and their mockery of Christianity every chance they get.

"'The NOVA/PBS teaching guide encourages the injection of religion into classroom teaching about evolution in a way that likely would violate current Supreme Court precedents about the First Amendment's Establishment Clause,' said John West, vice president for public policy and legal affairs at the Discovery Institute, in a news release."

I say go for it PBS. When they do, I hope Christians take every advantage of the situation. Of course, I am probably being superficial in my understanding of this case. I hardly think PBS really wants to get into the religion wars in such an obvious way. Certainly they know they would lose if there truly was Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and academic freedom.

Raising Godly Children in an Ungodly Age

Some people wonder why I do what I do. Some wonder why I teach my kids the way I teach. Some wonder why I have taught the High School Sunday School class in the past the way I did. Every once in a while, I get a comment from a former student telling me that everything I warned them about came to pass. They only wished that they had actually paid attention while I was teaching.

I suppose college life is surreal and off in to the future. The challenges a student will face are immense, but hey, they are invincible. The thought of some professor ripping their Christianity apart or out of them isn't a concern for them nor many parents. It is, however, a concern I have for our youth. Yes, the arrogant, mean, hard teacher thinks youth are too important enough not to waste time with entertainment.

I know statistically that no matter what any teacher does, students will fall away from the faith. I pray that God would be merciful to my children. I pray that my children will understand the issues that will be brought to bare upon their lives. I pray that my children would see the wolves as they approach them in sheep's clothing.

Dr. White and his daughter Summer White were recently interviewed by Gary DeMar on the Gary DeMar show (listen here). Summer White is a brilliant young lady who has a firm grasp of the Christian faith (read her letter to the President that actually was read by the President! She also wrote this when her teacher accused her of plagarism.). She understands philosophical issues as well the Biblical ones. She understands issues of original languages and Biblical transmission. She understands how to understand the Bible and interpret it accurately. She just plain understands sound Christian doctrine. I pray my own children will too!

Edwards Still Speaks

Several years ago I read the sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, by Jonathan Edwards. After hearing a portion of it via the internet, I am convinced that this sermon could bring true revival in Evangelicalism.

Back in September, Chris Arnzen, host of Iron Sharpens Iron, had some interesting guests on his radio program. David Hauser, founder of this site http://www.thesermon1741.com/ has made an audio recording of the famous sermon by Jonathan Edwards, Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God.

The sermon title often causes Christians and non-Christians alike to wince that someone would write such a sermon. When most pulpits are preaching "Become a Better You", Edwards' sermon really drives home the nature of grace and mercy in contrast to the fierce wrath of God.

The program definitely helps in setting the background for Edwards' sermon. It was mentioned that it is inappropriate to preach a message of God's mercy and grace that saves sinners if sinners do not know what they need salvation from. However, I personally agree with the First London Baptist Confession (1646), which states:

XXV. The preaching of the gospel to the conversion of sinners, is absolutely free; no way requiring as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, or terrors of the law, or preceding ministry of the law, but only and alone the naked soul, a sinner and ungodly, to receive Christ crucified, dead and buried, and risen again; who is made a prince and a Savior for such sinners as through the gospel shall be brought to believe on Him.

Sometimes people hear the Gospel and already intuitively knowing their own sin come to Christ through the call of the Good News.

Edwards wrote the sermon to warn those who know not their sin. As the website says:

The purpose of this terrifying subject is to wake up the unconverted people in this congregation. What you have heard is true of every one of you who do not believe and trust in Christ. That world of misery, that lake of burning brimstone is spread right beneath you. There is the dreadful pit of the glowing flames of God's wrath. There is Hell's wide open mouth. And, you have nothing to stand on or to grab onto, nothing between you and Hell but the air. Only the power and mere pleasure of God holds you up.

Perhaps if more preachers relied on the power of the Word instead of gimmicks, in time men would see their true need. Edwards being dead could still speak to our lost generation in ways we have forgotten.

If you have trouble downloading it, I have made a lower bit rate version here. This just makes the file size smaller by about 1/3. Just download it and listen. You will be blessed!

Prayer For the Kasselmans

Every once in a while I get a concerned e-mail from the Kasselman family in the Republic of Georgia. For those of you who don't know them, Joel and his wife Anya do evangelistic work with Campus Crusade For Christ.

It seems that there is another large protest rally that has many concerned. Here is an article from the Georgian Times. Joel wrote, "At the same time there is a lot of going in the separatists regions (Asetia and Abkhazia). Again last week Russian troops crossed the borders with Abkhazia and attacked the border guards. At the same time the regime of Edward Kokoity continue to torture the people of Asetia, by closing the roads, shutting of the electricity and water off."

They simply ask for prayer. We know our Lord is faithful and has warned us such things must happen. May He keep season of proclaiming the Gospel to the Georgians open.

Morris On Justification

Okay, I finally finished it. It has taken me several months to read this difficult book by Morris. So I thought I’d share a few thoughts from the last chapter on Justification. So many want a self help gospel that is presented by the Joel Osteens. However man doesn’t need help. He needs the righteousness of Christ.

From page 287

“G. O. Griffith reminds us, ‘It is often said that to speak of “justification by faith” is to use language which, to the modern man, is meaningless. What is often forgotten is that such language was as meaningless to ancient man also, apart from the Gospel which gave it significance…the heart of the Christian gospel is that, while no works of our hands will avail to make us acceptable before God, we are acceptable if we come in faith on the grounds of God’s own action in Christ. And this great truth St. Paul delighted to express in the forensic language of justification.”

Now many object to the forensic language of Paul citing other passages to override his plain teaching of the imputed righteousness of God in Christ. On page 291 Morris quotes Halliday:

“it has not always been seen that no man can be justified before God unless his nature is so changed that the assent of God is the assent to a reality.”

Many use James 2 as a counter argument against Paul’s teaching in Romans 4. Morris says on pg 285:

“Moreover the epistle does not inculcate a demand for law-works in the accepted sense; there is no thought of an accumulation of merit by the performance of deeds in accordance with the letter of the law. Rather there is a stress on love, humility, and kindred qualities. The ‘works’ of James are very like the ‘fruit of the Spirit’ of Paul.”

Even the common Muslim argument (one that Shabir Ally raised in the debate with White) offers a similar objection raised on page 280:

“It is objected to this interpretation that the bearing of penalty by one in place of another is not really just, so that when Christ suffers for us it is not a matter of fulfilling legal requirements.”

To which Morris replies:

“There is some force in this objection, and there would be more if we were dealing with human law. But the fact is that we are not. The law in question is the law of God’s holy nature, and that nature is merciful as well as just.”

Morris spends much time studying the justification word group and sees that it is overwhelmingly used in the forensic sense. So much so, that even his conclusion at the end of the book leads him to the ojective view of salvation. While modern preaching leads many to look inwardly, Morris concludes on page 299,

“This examination of the evidence has, I think, demonstrated that there is much support for objective as opposed to subjective views of the atonement. None of the concepts we have considered fits naturally into a subjective view. Something happened on Calvary quite objective to man, and it is because of this that we can have the completest assurance of our salvation. In the last resort it depends on what God has done, not upon some effect of that action upon the human heart (which is not to deny that there is such an effect, and that it is important).”

As the White Horse Inn program has articulated so many times, the preaching of the Law brings men to look inwardly. It is the preaching of the true Gospel that brings men to look outwardly to a Savior who is perfect and will save perfectly. It is Christ’s full and complete alien righteousness that is forensically imputed to me by faith alone.

Pulpit Crime Prevention

If you were to ask me when I have grown the most in my faith I would have to say it has been when something in Scripture has confused or troubled me. The other student pastor, as well as our senior pastor would probably say the same. In these times we are forced to study God’s Word all the more fervently and it has made us better disciples.
Paul, Chris, and I have been in one of those times lately as we’ve been studying Galatians. We decided that Galatians was the perfect book to precede our study of Revelation. It has been an incredibly beneficial study for us personally as we have struggled our way through a very deep letter.
The purpose of this particular post is to provide a forum over the next couple of weeks as Paul and I prepare to preach our way through the later half of Galatians 3 into the first part of chapter 4. This is all really Paul’s fault. He always seems able to ask the questions that we never think of and throw us into an exegetical crisis.
The following is probably going to seem rather incoherent due to the fact that I can barely express what is plaguing us about the latter half of chapter 3, but, this is less about articulating our confusion and more about spilling our thoughts and getting input from those of you who feel you are able to contribute to the conversation.
So here we go…

Galatians 3:15-26

First, let me start with what we’ve all pretty much agreed on. Paul is directly referring to the covenant made with Abraham and how Christ was always the intended fulfillment of it.
He is the seed of promise according to verse 16.
The promise indicates justification (v. 24).
The promise applies to Christ as the literal seed of Abraham (v. 16).
We are heirs of that promise, adopted by God, through our faith in Christ (v. 25,26).

Further, a lot of the obvious objections to Paul’s assertions are answered within the text, all having to do with law. V. 17 begins with an implied objection, “This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. (18) For if inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by a promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.”

Paul continues with the most obvious objection – What was the point of the law?

Once again, here’s where we agree.
The law was never intended to impute righteousness (v. 21).
It was established to reveal our sinfulness and inability to please God (v. 19).
It served to point us to Christ (23, 24).

From this we believe we can preach effectively and consistently without committing any pulpit crimes. We also feel however, that we could understand more. This is because we continue to have a lot of questions about what this passage implies about God’s covenantal interaction with his people.

I think our confusion lies in the nature of the covenant made at Sinai and what blessing through obedience and cursing from disobedience truly mean and to what they are referring. What is the nature of this covenant? Is it a covenant of works? If so, how is it not contrary (as Paul says in Galatians) to the covenant made with Abraham?

Is there an evident distinction here between a “Capital C” covenant, as with Abraham, making the Sinai covenant a “little c” covenant?
Did the original audience understand anything of the covenant’s nature the way Paul did?
Does the law serve not as a covenant which maintains their relationship with God – but serves the three fold purpose of distinguishing Israel from the rest of the nations, reveal God’s law, and reveal that man is incapable of satisfying it?
How do any of these purposes serve Israel in the Old Testament? Is that even a good question?

This doesn’t even really begin to demonstrate how many different rabbit trails we’ve followed during our office time together – but it’ a start. So, I invite you to study Galatians 3 with us this week and contribute to the conversation if you think you can be helpful.
God bless!
Cory Kitch
Student Pastor CVCC