Racism #2

In this second post I must again confess that I think most white Americans may never truly grasp the plight of African-Americans in our nation's history. The idea that men went to Africa and kidnapped black men and committed them into slavery is simply unfathomable to me. How that could possibly be legal in any nation that considers itself Christian has to be one of the greatest hypocrisies in all of the so-called Christian West.

Although the Bible has permitted certain kinds of slavery in order not to overthrow complex economic institutions, I believe the Bible provides the foundation for the justification of ridding the world of evil practices. So again, it amazes me that slavery could arise within a Christian community. With passages such as Ephesians 2 that describe Christ breaking down the barriers between Jews and Gentiles or Acts 17 "and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation...", it would require the Christian to act against the Word of God to defend such evil practices.

Although I am certain much more could be said against slavery from the Bible, I wanted to approach this with the stated perspective that I believe the Bible condemns such practices. With that as my starting point I would like to comment on the video.

The video shows a white man arguing against Affirmative Action. Now the video doesn't show the entire context of the "conversation". I am not certain why these things are considered "conversation" anyway. Bringing people before a national TV audience that looks for emotional heated fights for ratings is silliness. By the look of Chappelle in the video, this conversation was leading nowhere.

Now I must disagree with Chappelle. I am against Affirmative Action. Yet I say this knowing that I never experienced the evils of the South's Jim Crowe Laws. I have never been turned down for a job simply because of my skin color.

A few reasons against Affirmative Action. First, how are we going to rid this country of racism if we simply reverse it. Second, there are other groups who are now running circles around all of us, despite racist tendencies in all of us. Third, I think the Racism Industry is never going to end using tactics like this. Fourth, I think Affirmative Action could cause problems similar to Welfare. It takes away the incentive to work hard and become the best one may be.

Having stated just these few reasons against Affirmative Action, I have to say that the complaints of white people of reverse discrimination rings hollow. Now I don't live in the south, but it seems to be that racism still exists. For white people, especially in the South, to complain is like a bully who is now getting a taste of his own medicine. So I just don't buy the reverse discrimination is as bad as they complain.

Nevertheless, I wonder if Affirmative Action is the best solution. I see that the purpose of it was to give opportunity to the oppressed that would otherwise never happen. But was/is there really no other way? Have Black/African American communities reaped the benefits of this program? Perhaps it was a needed response in the beginning, a response that needs to be looked at again.

For example, the same people who are for Affirmative Action are against breaking up the Public School monopoly. Inner city public schools are nothing more than prisons. The inner city welfare culture has destroyed the black family. All of these programs have simply moved the black family from one plantation to another. I would argue this latter plantation may be worse than the former. At least in the former, there were black leaders that understood what freedom and liberty need, a solid family foundation and a Creator that defines morality. Is that the case today?

My opinion is that Conservatism has the answer. The promotion of personal liberty and responsibility and less government. Real opportunity as opposed government sponsored welfare produces the best that people have to offer. When men do not look to government as the solution but instead look to their God, family and community, I think we will see a real difference.

Now on the flip side, I am not thinking government has no role. Government should promote good citizenship among its citizens. When injustices occur, government ought to judge righteously. The purpose of government is to maintain justice (in the historic sense of the term).

However, America is a melting pot. People in time will come together. Policies that force multiculturalism and constantly divide us will not help but harm. I am afraid that Affirmative Action has now run its course. Whatever help it would have done should have happened by now. Now is a time for change. Now is a time for new policies that will really help the black family. School choice and vouchers is one example. Just as the white man's complaints sound hollow, so do the complaints the Left when it says "no" to school vouchers and freedom while decrying constant racism.

I know I have said a lot. Much of what I think is outside of the mainline experience. I have not experienced the Jim Crowe south as a black man. I have never been called a nigger in its meanest derogatory sense. However, as the video shows, racism doesn't seem to be ending. I doubt it ever will. There must be better policies than what is be offered now.

Racism #1

A friend of mine has one of those cell phones that shows videos. He had shown me this one.

Chappelle's Show

Dave on Donahue

Charlie Murphy Clips
Buy Chappelle's Show DVDs

Black Comedy
True Hollywood Stories

One of the things in my life that needs desperate sanctification is my humor. For instance I find Dave Chappelle extremely funny. There is just one problem. At times Chappelle may become very vulgar, and you never know when he will do so. Although, I don't see the world from his perspective, I think listening to the humor of men like him helps those of us who live in a different world to grasp how they see us.

In this video we see "angry white men" decrying Affirmative Action as an evil being forced upon them. I don't think I have ever written about racism or our Nation's Public policies regarding the topic. I grew up in an area of the country where you could literally count the number of black/African Americans with a hand that is missing fingers.

The irony of growing up in a white suburb south of Boston is that one of my first friends in kindergarten was a black girl. I really don't remember much else from that school year. I don't really remember anyone else. Her name was Grace Adams. We would sit and listen to records and music together. After kindergarten, we pretty much went our separate ways. I hung out with the boys as boys tend to do. In fact, I rarely spoke with her for the rest of our school years. Not that I avoided her. I just didn't hang out in the same circles.

One day in high school she approached me and basically accused me of not being willing to talk with her. She seemed to say that I would not because she was black. I must confess that that deeply saddened me. Here was a girl, who thought I had become some kind of racist. Why did she think so? What was it that I did that gave this impression? Could I have lived my life differently? Did I choose to not talk with her when I could have? She wasn't in any of my classes. She didn't hang out with my friends. She lived in a different part of town. Yet there she was accusing me of racism. Why?

I say all of this because I would like to make some comments on the above video knowing full well I am walking into territory that I am unfamiliar with. I know that I have never faced the world in a way that a black American does. So with fear and trepidation I hope to post on the video with thoughts that attempt to express a consistent biblical view knowing that many may disagree.

Happy Thanksgiving & Plimouth Plantation

During this Thanksgiving season, I truly have many things to be thankful for. This past summer, I went on one of the best vacations ever. We traveled across this great land. While staying in Plymouth, we visited Plimouth Plantation.

In this artist's depiction of the First Thanksgiving we see William Brewster offering thanks to God for His care and provision. This summer, my family and I were able to meet this "Ruling Elder", as he referred to himself.

Apparently, he ages very well. Then again, it was the year 1627. I had the opportunity to ask him many questions. What a great conversation. I only wish I had written down more questions and had more time to spend there. Taking kids to a living museum may not be all that exciting for the kids, but I sure loved it.

Here is a video taken from the upper floor of the Meeting House. There were also canons. So I guess we have an example of the "church militant". ;-)



Anyway, it certainly gives some context to history. They also had a Native American portion of the museum. Although the Native Americans don't "play the roles" as the Pilgrims do, it was very informative. To see how both sides viewed each other makes for interesting discussion.

The woman below in the right side of the video had some interesting comments about the "Indians" (not in this video). She likened them to children who had all of this land and not working it as its potential could yield. It was interesting what these Anglicans had to say about the "Separatists". They spoke of them as being lazy. When I brought this up to William Brewster, he was able to tell the names of the Anglicans that complained about this. Apparently, they had people problems too.




Don't these guys look like they are having fun?

Of course you have to have the Mayflower and Plymouth Rock. Unfortunately, the rock was having construction done. But the tide was out so we managed to go down along the shore. But then the battery on the camera ran out. /so you will just have to take my word for it. The Rock was still there.


HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

Confidence In Atheism Waning?

Not only has the public's trust of the Stock Market gone down but apparently Atheism's trust in science is also waning. This weekend I spent a few minutes in a Christian apologetics chat channel talking with an atheist. Within about 30 seconds the atheist said, "Whatever".

I must confess that that is a bit unusual. Most of the time atheists that would take the time to come into a Christan apologetics channel put up a pretty good fight. I usually have to really think about their arguments. This guy just seemed to not have the energy of love for atheism in him.

Dinesh D'Souza has written an article for Townhall.com offering a interesting viewpoint. He writes about the fact that science, especially in astronomy and molecular biology, has been showing the universe to be fine tuned for life. The coincidences are just too much to handle.

The appeal of multiple universes—perhaps even an infinity of universes—is that when there are billions and billions of possibilities, then even very unlikely outcomes are going to be realized somewhere. Consequently if there was an infinite number of universes, something like our universe is certain to appear at some point. What at first glance seems like incredible coincidence can be explained as the result of a mathematical inevitability.

The only difficulty, as Folger makes clear, is that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of any universes other than our own. Moreover, there may never be such evidence. That’s because if there are other universes, they will operate according to different laws of physics than the ones in our universe, and consequently they are permanently and inescapably inaccessible to us. The article in Discover concludes on a somber note. While some physicists are hoping the multiverse will produce empirical predictions that can be tested, “for many physicists, however, the multiverse remains a desperate measure ruled out by the impossibility of confirmation.”

You got to love it when atheists are now defending a position that places them outside of the scientific realm. Keep in mind that this is exactly what they have been accusing Christians of for as long as I can remember.

Albert Mohler, President of SBTS, has also noticed this quite some time ago (read article here). The "New Atheism" is on the move. In my opinion, atheism is like that proverbial animal that is dying and backed into a corner. The leaders are attempting to fight back with one last stand. However, I am sensing the lay-followers have lost their zeal.

Pope Agrees With Luther...Double Talk

In this second post I want interact with the Pope's understanding of the Law verses the context of Scripture's use of it in Galatians. The article explains,

But in order to understand this Pauline teaching, Benedict XVI affirmed, "we must clarify what is the 'law' from which we have been freed and what are those 'works of the law' that do not justify."

So here we see that some aspects of the Law justify and some that do not justify. But what are they?

Instead, the Pope said, the law to which Paul refers is the "collection of behaviors extending from an ethical foundation to the ritual and cultural observances that substantially determined the identity of the just man -- particularly circumcision, the observance regarding pure food and general ritual purity, the rules regarding observance of the Sabbath, etc."

These observances served to protect Jewish identity and faith in God; they were "a defense shield that would protect the precious inheritance of the faith," he remarked.

By making this distinction between ethnic (Jewish Identity) laws and moral laws, Rome is able to say that justification occurs with a faith that works [moral laws] in love, not a faith alone that simply looks outside of one-self, looks to another and rests solely in the work of Christ alone.

In Galatians we read,

Gal 2:15 "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles;
Gal 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

With the Rome's definition of law smuggled in, many Protestant will readily accept Rome as simply another denomination. The irony is that there is a movement among Protestants called the New Perspective On Paul (NPP). This movement interprets Paul's letter to the Galatians and sees that Paul was arguing against the Judaizers that were wanting to have Gentile Christians keep the ethnic laws that were used as boundaries for the Jews. In other words, Paul, according to this view, simply wanted to break down the cultural ethnic barriers of the law that separated Jews and Gentiles, not the moral law. But is this all Paul meant by the term "law"?

Jeffery Smith's article in the Reformed Baptist Theological Review (vol IV, No.1) demonstrates that the NPP is in serious error. His arguments I think apply equally strong here against the Roman Pontiff. He writes

...an examination of Paul's use of the phrase "the works of the law" demonstrates that he saw in this insistence a much deeper problem that goes far beyond the mere issue of boundary markers or the social function of the law. Paul argues that to insist that justification is dependent on obedience to any aspect of the law means that we must be obedient to all that the law as a whole demands in order to be justified.

Now how do we know that Paul is referring to the entire law? Smith goes on to explain verses 3:10-14 and cites Venema's comments,

Those who would be justified by the works of the law are reminded that the law pronounces a curse upon everyone who fails to keep "all things" that are written in it.

The reference makes plain that the entire Old Testament Law must be kept or the curses of Deuteronomy would be fulfilled in the law-breaker. To make this passage refer to only "boundary markers" is to miss the point of the text itself. Paul not only includes circumcision, but also the Ten Commandments.

Think about it. Are we going to say that we may by faith keep the commandment "Thou shall not commit adultery" as justifying while circumcision is not? Who in the world keeps that commandment? I'll bet you broke that commandment within the last fifteen minutes. Are we really going to say that Christ has only freed us from the "boundary markers"? Why was it necessary for Jesus to die on the cross for circumcision? The problems with NPP and Rome's understanding of these passages in order to get round the plain teaching of Scripture only worsens the problem. God truly becomes the "cosmic child abuser" if Jesus' death on the cross is merely for racism.

To put it another way Smith writes,

...If this is the meaning of Christ being made a curse for us, then the Jews themselves had no need of a cross. The cross was only for the Gentiles, to show them that God is for them [is this not what Benedict basically says?]. The only need, then, that Jews had of the cross was with reference to their unwillingness to receive Gentiles. Thus the cross was only for those Jews who were racist and only for those Gentiles who were unhappy with the idea of having to become Jews.

Smith's comments on Romans 7 are helpful.

Some argue that it's only a legalistic obedience to the law that Paul excludes from being the ground of justification. It is only obedience out of the sinful motive of seeking to bribe God. However, they argue that evangelical obedience, or believing obedience, is not excluded from being the ground of our justification or from in some sense being the condition of our justification. But it is not merely a legalistic obedience that Paul excludes. That, of course, is excluded. Paul excludes obedience to the demands of the law period, whatever the motive.

Man is always attempting to insert himself somewhere in salvation. We just can't let go of the idea that we must do something. The common objection raised by all religions including Roman Catholicism is the same objection that was raised against Paul's teaching of Justification by faith alone.

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?

Or as one RC asked me, "So you believe that we are fully and completely justified by faith alone apart from any works of any kind? So you may get saved and then kill people without any possibility of losing your salvation?"

Paul's answer in the rest of chapter 6 is something I will let the reader decide. For now I will agree with Lloyd-Jones. You are not preaching the Gospel unless you are accused of preaching the free-grace of God. This Rome denies and will not do. Therefore Rome is an apostate church. She has redefined faith and the law and ultimately the Gospel, which is really no Gospel at all.

Anne Milgram Terrorizes Private Business

According to Michelle Malkin, "the New Jersey attorney general intervened on behalf of the gay plaintiff and wrangled an agreement out of eHarmony to change its entire business model." They now have to provide a service to homosexuals that the company was never designed to do.

This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a rib-eye, or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services.

Malkin informs us of other law-suits.

For three years, the company battled McKinley's legal shakedown artists -- and staved off other opportunists as well. The dating site had been previously sued by a lesbian looking to force the company to match her up with another woman, and by a married man who ridiculously sought to force the company to find him prospects for an adulterous relationship.

As I argued with Nolan T, once you allow homosexuals super rights, how do you argue against these kinds of suits.

Basically the Attorney General's office in NJ headed by Anne Milgram will now terrorize private citizens and businesses if they don't abide by their political correctness. Their personal views of the world will now be forced on anyone they choose. So once again, the Nolan T style ignorance runs a muck. Not only do Americans have foreign enemies that hate our Constitution, we have domestic enemies as well.

Michelle Malkin offers a potential strategy. Start suing the private companies of homosexuals. There is just one problem with that idea. Most Conservatives have lives.

Pope Agrees With Luther...Not

Yesterday, the Pope announced that "Martin Luther's doctrine on justification is correct..." You may read an article by Zenit here (thanks to Algo for pointing this to me). I guess we can all close our Protestant churches and go back to the true church Jesus founded. We Protestants have been wrong for the last 500 years. If only the Pontiff of Luther's day would have said this. We could have avoided all of this misunderstanding.

At the close of the article the Pope is quoted.

Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love."

"Paul knows," he added, "that in the double love of God and neighbor the whole law is fulfilled. Thus the whole law is observed in communion with Christ, in faith that creates charity. We are just when we enter into communion with Christ, who is love."

What modern Protestant would disagree with this? As a Protestant who has spoken over the years with many different sects that claim to be Christian but are not, I have learned one thing. There is a "language barrier" that must be scaled.

First, let's look at what the Pope is actually saying. Then we will look at what the Reformers taught in their confessions. Tomorrow's post we shall look at the meaning of "law" as defined by Scripture.

If you read the article carefully, you will notice there are significant qualifications that Benedict the XVI stipulates.

Martin Luther's doctrine on justification is correct, if faith "is not opposed to charity." - [emphasis mine]

What does the Pope mean by this. He clarifies with the same old Roman Catholic trick. He redefines "law".

What is law

But in order to understand this Pauline teaching, Benedict XVI affirmed, "we must clarify what is the 'law' from which we have been freed and what are those 'works of the law' that do not justify."

The article then explains the meaning of this,

Instead, the Pope said, the law to which Paul refers is the "collection of behaviors extending from an ethical foundation to the ritual and cultural observances that substantially determined the identity of the just man -- particularly circumcision, the observance regarding pure food and general ritual purity, the rules regarding observance of the Sabbath, etc."

So what the Pope gives with one hand, he takes away with the other. It is true that Jesus' work on the cross takes down the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles, such as circumcision, pure foods, and ect..

"The wall -- so says the Letter to the Ephesians -- between Israel and the pagans was no longer necessary".

This is often the argument used by Roman Catholics to explain Paul's use of the Law in Galatians. According to Rome, Paul was not saying that men are justified by faith alone without works of love. They were just not justified by keeping ethnic barriers of circumcision (perhaps also eating certain clean foods and keeping certain rituals) that the Judaizers were forcing upon churches. So Rome teaches that we must keep the law of love by faith in order to be Justified. But is this the only meaning of "Law" Paul is speaking of or is this really what Luther meant by faith?

The Lutheran and Protestant Confessions as a whole reject what the Pope defines as faith that Justifies a sinner. Luther's Lectures On Romans has an interesting paragraph that deals with the external nature of Justification.

The saints are intrinsically always sinners, therefore they are always extrinsically justified; but the hypocrites are intrinsically always righteous, therefore they are extrinsically always sinners....Hence, we are extrinsically righteous in so far as we are righteous not in and from ourselves and not in virtue of our works but only by God's regarding us so. For inasmuch as the saints are always aware of their sin and implore God for the merciful gift of His righteousness, they are for this very reason also always reckoned righteous by God. Therefore they are before themselves and in truth unrighteous, but before God they are righteous because He reckons them so on account of this confession of their sin; they are sinners in fact, but by virtue of the reckoning of the merciful God they are righteous....

One must wonder if the Pope would agree with Luther. Obviously not.

The Augusburg Confession states,

1] Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 2] Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3] This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.

As the LBCF states defines the historic understanding of Faith Alone,

Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ, and his Righteousness, is the (f) alone instrument of Justification: yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving Graces, and is no dead faith, (g) but worketh by love.

And again,

But the principal acts of Saving Faith, have immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, and resting upon (i) him alone, for Justification, Sanctification, and Eternal Life, by vertue of the Covenant of Grace.

These quotes demonstrate that for historic Protestantism including Luther that faith without any works whatsoever saves a man. The reason is simple. It looks to Christ. It looks to another's work and righteousness alone. Yet obviously saving faith is never without works, but those works have no justifying power in any way, shape or form. This is what Benedict denies in his qualifications of faith. The Reformers did not misunderstand Rome. They knew full well the stakes involved. Once works entered into the definition of faith that justifies, then resting in Christ's work alone is not possible.

So why does the Pope say Luther was right, when he knows full well what Luther taught and knows full well that he disagrees with Luther? Deception. As Algo said to me last night, "This is double talk." Double talk is what you get with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. It is also what you are getting with Rome.

You may say, "This seems trivial." How a man is made right with God is anything but trivial. Of course if you see man as merely "sick" then, God's grace may be necessary, but it will not be sufficient until man cooperates with God. For the Reformers, God's grace is not merely necessary, but sufficient. This, tied together with man's total depravity, brings about faith alone in Christ Alone.

When a man sees he has nothing to offer God, even by faith in love, he will see salvation is By Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. To God alone be the Glory.

Court Flushes Constitution Down Black Hole

BPNews has reported that the California Supreme Court will see if the Constitution is Constitutional.

SAN FRANCISCO (BP)--The California Supreme Court agreed Nov. 19 to consider the constitutionality of Proposition 8, but -- in a win for supporters -- allowed the amendment, which prohibits "gay marriage," to remain in effect during the interim.

If you remember this was exactly my point to Nolan T back in May. Due to his ignorance of how our form of Government works, he was more concerned about whether I was homophobic than whether the basis for law was sound and solid. The fact is this case shows we have abandoned any sense of American government. If we overthrow the Constitution and allow men in black robes declare what is right and wrong, then we have truly fallen down the black hole. No one seems to know where this will end up at. Outer darkness is a dark place indeed.

Scalia and Foreign Law

Just got this from Citizen Link. I just love Justice Scalia. We need more men like him to stop Liberals from overthrowing the Constitution.


Scalia Warns Judges Against Relying on Foreign Law

by Jennifer Mesko, editor

He says the Founders of this country did not want us to emulate Europe.

The U.S. Constitution is not a "living document" and should not be filtered through foreign law.

That's the message U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had for a group of judges and lawyers in Houston this week.

"I fear the courts' use of foreign law in interpreting the Constitution will continue at an accelerated pace," the 72-year-old jurist told the local chapter of the Federal Bar Association.

Scalia called on judges to adhere to the constitutional authors' intent. He said the Founders of this country did not want us to emulate Europe.

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said Scalia is right to criticize his colleagues for relying on foreign law to justify their decisions.

"If judges are just going to make stuff up, they should have the courage to admit it," he said. "If we're not vigilant as citizens to protect our law-making authority under the Constitution, the judiciary will increasingly take that authority from us and use it to create a society in their own image.

"We must cry 'foul' whenever the court dabbles in its fondness for the use of foreign law to justify its own excesses."

Wendy Long, legal counsel at the Judicial Confirmation Network, agreed.

"The whole idea of America was that we were going to be a nation built on the consent of the governed," she told Family News in Focus. "That means we’re only governed by laws that a majority of us have assented to — that includes the Constitution."

BPNews John 3:16 Conference Part 6 Election

Richard Land spoke about election. The BPNews article states,

Reacting to Reformed commentaries that say "all" can't really mean "all men" because if God willed something it would have to happen, Land said, "I believe in a God who is so sovereign and so omniscient that He can break out of Calvin's box ... and He can choose to limit Himself and He can convict us and He can seek to bring us to conviction ... but He will not force us."

I constantly hear this God limiting Himself argument. This is the same mentality from the pagan movie Bruce Almighty. God creates a creature, man, in such a way in that the creature has more freedom than God does. This is simply a philosophy of man and love that is read into the Bible.

Please notice the phrase "but He will not force us." I thank God that God forced me to rise from the dead. I thank God that He recreated or regenerated my will in Christ to seek and follow Christ. I thank God that while I was a wicked rebellious God-hating sinner, He chose to convert me through the preaching of that wonderful proclamation of the Gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation.

Of course when I say these things, the other side hears "robot" or a chatty Cathy doll. They see the "free agency of man" being violated. Yet this is their Tradition speaking, not Scripture.