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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Clyde's View of the Gospel

OK, I know I have written about Clyde's articles for the past few weeks. Hopefully after this one I'll put down this keyboard and never read another one. This week's was just too much. Here is a man who completely misses the category errors of descriptive texts as opposed to prescriptive texts. He targets the heart of the matter...the Gospel or at least what he thinks is the Gospel. He wrote,

When the question is asked, "What must I do to be saved?" Many will answer, "You need only to believe." Many think that is what Paul said in Acts 16:31, but he went further and told them they must do more than that.

If I did not know Clyde is a member of the Church of Christ, I would swear he is a member of the church of Rome, for the rest of his arguments are exactly the same. He offers what you must do to be saved.

Salvation comes only after obedience to God's commands, to believe, (Heb. 6:11) repent, (Acts 17:30-31); confess Christ, (Rom. 10:10); and be baptized, (Acts 2:38).

In case you might be thinking that Clyde believes in Justification by Faith Alone he then cites James 2:24 and concludes, (Here is the kicker!)

When one has been justified by obeying God's commands, he has not earned his salvation, rather, he has simply fulfilled God's requirements for what God has required of us, God having already done His part in our salvation by sending His Son to die on the cross.

First, I want to admit up front, that it is true to say we must obey the Gospel. But, again, he misses the descriptive verses the prescriptive. Nobody is able to obey God commands. If we say that we are merely cooperating with God's grace, then we are right back at Rome, and we lose the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement. This causes Clyde's reference of Jesus dying on the cross to be meaningless.

Second, is this all we have to do? Is the assumption here that perhaps we could have obeyed the Old Covenant Law and been saved? Is it possible to be saved apart from Christ?

Third, this point ties in with the last one. Is Clyde saying we are saved by obeying commands? We do our part, Christ does His part, then we get saved? We get saved by obeying commands, but then we don't earn salvation by obeying the commands? Fulfilling our part is not grounds for earning our justification? Can anyone truly follow this logic?

Fourth, Clyde clearly misses the different aspects and definitions of Justification. What is his justification for appealing to James 2 when Paul deals with this particular topic in Romans 4 & 5. James is not speaking about Justification in the manner Paul is. Therefore, to never even discuss Paul's doctrine in Romans 4 & 5, is to miss the heart of the gospel. It is a proper method of interpretation of Scripture to go to the primary texts that speak to particular issues that are under discussion. Clyde simply does not do this. Instead, he runs to different verses that appear to support his position. This is caused by his Tradition.

Allow me to illustrate. In my car manual, there is a section that talks about my car tires. If I want to know how to change a flat, the manual gives enough information as to do just that. However, if I want to know much more about the subject of tires, perhaps a Chiltons manual would be a better resource.

Yes, James mentions justification. But James 2 is hardly a discourse on the subject, much less the particular aspect Paul addresses in Romans 4. The same is true for the doctrine of election. We don;t run to texts that talk about repentance and believing when there are texts that address election clearly and specifically. Yet this is the method of many today.

Fifth, unless you are truly anti-nomian (against law), if someone accuses you of preaching a Gospel that appears anti-nomian (So you just believe and now you may kill people and still be saved response), you know you are preaching the Gospel. It is odd that Clyde and many others take the position of the Apostle Paul's objector in Romans 6:1. Paul wrote a proper response.

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
Rom 6:2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
Rom 6:3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

Lastly, I need to comment that no one is able to obey the Gospel. It is the preaching of the Gospel that creates faith. So when Paul speaks of our obedience to the Gospel, he is speaking descriptively. Our Evangelical faith and obedience is a result of His grace.

Faith does not save you. All of the Reformers are unanimous on this point. It is the object of our faith that saves us. It is the righteousness of Christ and His Substitutionary work in our place. The London Baptist Confession of Faith states,

Those whom God effectually calls He also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting them as righteous, not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone. They are not justified because God reckons as their righteousness either their faith, their believing, or any other act of evangelical obedience. They are justified wholly and solely because God imputes to them Christ's righteousness. He imputes to them Christ's active obedience to the whole law and His passive obedience in death. They receive Christ's righteousness by faith, and rest on Him. They do not possess or produce this faith themselves, it is the gift of God. (emphasis mine)

You might be asking, "Why pick on Clyde?" When many in our Evangelical churches think inconsistently about these issues. This opportunity provides a great means of explaining the Biblical nature of Justification and the Gospel itself.

Covenant Children Today: Physical or Spiritual?

In the past I have disputed with Baptist pastors that deny Particular Redemption (Limited Atonement) for the simple reason that a consistent definition of Substitutionary Atonement demands a consistent application of Jesus' death to believers only. This logic and reasoning would also be consistently applied to believers baptism.

Over the years, I have sought to be more consistent with my own theology. As a Baptist I have grown in my understanding that Particular Baptists of the past saw the inconsistencies of their own day and sought to correct them.

With a return to a more consistent Covenant Theology among some Baptist churches, an interesting problem has occurred at one church in Oklahoma. According to Pastor Alan Conner (I don't remember where I read this) members of his church were beginning to be converted to the Reformed Paedo-Baptist (infant baptism) position. The reason is two-fold. First, many that are becoming Reformed in theirs views and going back and reading the great Reformed theologians such as John Owen and Jonathan Edwards. Since these men are paedo-baptists, then to be consistent with their views, so it would seem, many are embracing their views of baptism.

A second aspect of this so-called problem is that modern Reformed writers have written a slew of books in the last decade defending and promoting paedo-baptism. There has been very little in response by credo-Baptists. Due to Dispenationalism, most Baptists would not be able to write a consistent rebuttal or critique of the paedo-Baptist position, since they would refuse to apply the same logic and reasoning to other aspects of their own theology.

Pastor Alan Conner has stepped up to the plate with an excellent book. As a Covenantal theologian, he is able to write about the New Covenant and it application in a broad scope. Each chapter is fairly short and very readable to the average layman. The book's length is little over a hundred pages.

I recommend this book to any and all Baptist churches that are seeking to be consistent with their theology. It is also a great book for pastors that live in areas that are heavily dominated by churches that practice infant baptism. How often do we receive new converts with an infant baptist background and are forced to explain our views over and over again. This book will serve the church of Christ for years to come and equip our members to think consistently and Biblically.

Who Is Greedy?

Just thought this was interesting. The New York Times has reported

BIG corporations, buffeted by widespread economic pain and heightened scrutiny of lush compensation packages, appear to be paying attention to a longstanding complaint from shareholders: When it comes to executive pay, greed — even the appearance of it — is not good.

So here the Times refers to executive pay as possibly being greedy. In this NY Times post they list Executives and their performance. Yet notice one company that seems to be missing, or I missed it. Read here.

The Huffington Post has reported,

At a time when New York Times managers are forcing all employees to take a five percent pay cut, and demanding even larger sacrifices from the NYT-owned Boston Globe, top executives of the beleaguered newspaper received substantial bonus and fringe benefit payments over and above their salaries, according to a proxy statement released on March 11.

So we have the Pot is calling the Kettle black...I mean "greedy".

According to the New York Times proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, corporate president and CEO Janet L. Robinson received a total compensation package valued at $5.58 million in 2008, up well over a million from the $4.14 million she received in 2007, and the $4.4 million she received in 2006.

I wonder if the New York Times' workers will start protesting at the homes of the Execs?

Mr. Perez Is a Creator-o-phobe

According to CitizenLink, "The U.S. House Judiciary Committee is expected to take up the legislation — H.R. 1913 — this week."

Democrats in Congress are pushing to create a new class of crimes based on the victim's "actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity."

Under such "hate-crime" laws, pastors could be prosecuted for preaching the biblical view of homosexuality. Similar laws have been used to prosecute religious speech in the U.S. and abroad.

We know for a fact that secret tribunals exist in Canada that specifically go after Pastors that are faithful in the preaching of both Law and Gospel. Since the Secret Tribunals of Canada are coming this way, it should not shock us that Miss California should lose simply because she said that states have the right to choose (contrary to what Perez said in his video) and that she personally believes marriage is defined as a man and a woman (Yes, she was in the lead and lost solely due to Perez's purposeful controversial question).

In this clip, you can watch the normal comment that could have come from almost any American about Gay marriage.



Yet this judge (imagine him as a judge on your secret tribunal panel?) thinks he is so intelligent while acting like the very wickedness he think this lady is. How did this guy get to be a judge? Is he not a clear picture of Romans 1?

He tells us in this video how Miss California should have answered. Yet everyone knows homosexual activists don't believe in the Constitution as the law of the land. He most likely wants the Courts to rule when states don't go towards his view. So his pomp is just that...pomp. Her answer should have been:

What does it matter to you what Vermont or any other state does? You would just take it to the Courts and make the law go your way anyway.

Here is a good commentary by Dr. White that says what we ought to be saying.

Facing the Real Problem

Some time ago I had a problem with the right rear tire on my personal pickup. I diagnosed the problem. I saw that the tire was low. The cause seemed to be that more air was needed to be in the tire. So I drove my truck to my shop and pumped the tires with more air. Sure enough, that fixed my problem.

About a week later I noticed that the tire was low again. I diagnosed the problem and once again, I found the solution was to put more air into the tire. After several months of this, I began to realize that maybe I was not fixing the real problem. I took my truck to a mechanic, and he fixed my tire by plugging a tiny hole. From then on, my tire was fine.

In this week's article by Clyde Schinnerer, we have a similar problem/solution cycle. Clyde wrote,

It is often said, "Infants must be baptized to have salvation from Adam's sin." But let's see what the Bible says about that.

In some sense Clyde comes to a solution which seems correct. He states that salvation comes to those who repent. Since babies cannot repent, they need not be baptized. This is fine and dandy. Who disagrees that babies cannot repent? However, not only does Clyde have major category errors as to why many do baptize infants (he equates baptism with salvation), but he seems to outright deny Original Sin.

Now I must be fair to the Church of Christ. I do not know if Clyde's article accurately represents their church's viewpoint. Also, I do not know that if Clyde were pressed on the doctrine of Original sin that he would necessarily deny it. Yet this weeks article is at best inconsistent with the doctrine of Original Sin. I decided once again to interact with Clyde's theological viewpoint since many Evangelicals think inconsistently as well.

Clyde states,

Furthermore, sin is not transferred from one person to another.

He then uses the typical arguments from Ezekiel 18:20

The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son."

Due to length I will link to another article that deals specifically with the Ezekiel argument HERE by R.C. Sproul.

Since Clyde apparently denies that babies may inherit Adam's sin, he concludes,

Babies have no sin to be forgiven of, nor can they obey the commands given to adults, therefore they are not candidates for baptism.

So here we have a correct conclusion based on bad arguments. This in the end only leads back to Rome and needing the tire reinflated.

I have a couple of obvious questions. Does Clyde deny the imputed righteousness of Christ? If he does, then he firmly denies the entire purpose of the Reformation.

Another question is this. If Christ never came, would anyone be saved? If Christ never came, would all children still be saved (from what?)? If so, and since sin brings death, why do children die? For whose sin have the billions of children died?

This is exactly the Apostle Paul's point in Romans 5 when he wrote,

“Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin” (v. 12).
“By the one man’s offense many died” (v. 15).
“Through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation” (v. 18).
“By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (v. 19).

In conclusion, Clyde's theology has only been refilling his tires with air. He may cover his own personal guilt by doing certain sacraments such as being baptized in his church's fount. However, he seems to have never fixed the real issue. All men are born with Adam's guilt. If he has not been freed from Adam's guilt by trusting in Christ's finished work on the cross alone, and if he has never received the positive imputation of Christ's righteousness alone to his own life, then in the end, his tire will be flat. He will need more than air to fix his problem on the final day of judgment.

By Grace alone, through Faith Alone, in Christ Alone is the Biblical teaching on salvation. No amount of washing in someone's bath tub can take away sin.