Preaching at Shallow Water

Once again, I had the priviledge to prwach at Gospel Fellowship in Shallow Water, KS It truly is a blessing to proclaim the Gospel. If you're bored enough, you may listen here.

Caesar Is Lord

Rush played a clip of Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee,

The Fifth Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process.  That is what HR-2 does and I rise in opposition to it, and I rise in opposition because it is important that we preserve lives, and we recognize that 40 million plus are uninsured.  Can you tell me what is more unconstitutional than taking away from the people of America their Fifth Amendment rights, their 14th Amendment rights, and their right to equal protection under the law?  This bill is constitutional, and it protects the constitutional rights of those who ask the question, "Must I die, must my child die because I am now disallowed from getting insurance?"

Apparently, medical insurance has been Constitutional right all of this time (see here). For consistency sake, would not car insurance also be a Federal Right? After all, it was the Left that compared the two to begin this debate. Why stop there? Why not insure every home owner? In fact, don't I need a home, and therefore the government should buy me one?

Whether you are Prolife or Prochoice, if she is going to be consistent, why does she stand with the party that takes away the Fifth Amendment rights of unborn children. So apparently, the Media and the Left get to control the frame of the debate by arguing that it is unconstitutional to repeal Obama Care. So if it is repealed, does that mean she could take the Right to court because the Constitution is being violated?

It is quite ironic that the number of murdered children in this country that could have received proper medical care, the right to due process and the right to life, reached 53 million as opposed to her made up number of 40 million uninsured. But as my friend likes to say, "Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument."

But all of this only critiques her own inconsistencies. The fact is, the Left can't even begin to justify their assumptions and presuppositions. For instance, why is Caesar Lord? Where did the Right to Life come from? How did the State become the source for the right of insurance or life? Why do insurance companies have to insure anyone?

What is stopping Left-wing owned companies from doing the very things the Left wants the government to do? I have a friend who believes that companies should do business differently by doing things like profit sharing, etc. That's fine. So why not start a business doing just that instead of forcing by law his ideas of how things should be? Why is it just assumed the government has the right to do what the Left wants and force the rest of us by the power of taxation to pay into their giant insurance scheme? (which would be illegal in any legitimate company)

But in all of this, my same friend can't even begin to explain why government has the right to exist. It is just assumed because to attempt to justify his position would bring him to a reality that he must suppress. The answer is simple. God exists, but we don't like God. Since man is an idolater, we must replace God at all costs. In this case, it is with the State.

Quote of the Day

Things are good when you know your wife enjoys listening to things like the White Horse Inn. Today my wife shows me at lunch time a clip of John McArthur's rebuke of Joel Osteen. In it McArthur says something about your best life now.

"In his definitive book, Your Best Life Now, and that ought to be a dead give away since the only way this could be your best life is if you're going to hell.

Lord's Prayer Messsage

Once again I have had the priviledge to preach at Gospel Fellowship in Shallow Water, KS. The message is on the first half of the Lord's Prayer. Click here to listen if you are so bored you have nothing else to do.

Where Sin Abounds by Robert Gonzales

After many interruptions, I have finally finished Robert Gonzales Jr.'s book, Where Sin Abounds. Since I do not have the ability to write a real book review, I won't. Instead I will just offer a few comments both positive and negative.

Robert Gonzales is Academic Dean and Professor of Old Testament Studies at Reformed Baptist Seminary. He contributes to the school's blog and also to the Reformed Baptist Theological Review. His style of writing may raise the bar of our reading level, but never to the point where he loses the reader.

In the positive, although the book at times quotes Hebrew terms which may perhaps scare the reader, the book is a fantastic read for anyone wishing to gain insight into the Book of Genesis. Most commentaries overlook the spread of sin among the Patriarchs while blasting away at the primeval world. But as the first sentence says in the Introduction,

A primary function of Scripture is to impart a proper understanding of sin.

With this in mind Dean Gonzales surveys the depths of sin and its downward spiral in the book of Genesis. The strength of this book is that he does not stop at Genesis 11 simply because the narrative seems to narrow in on one particular covenant family in the history of redemption and break from the earlier chapters. Instead, Gonzales shows the many parallels and surveys the depth of sin in the patriarchal family in a thought provoking and refreshing way. There were many times I found myself saying, "I never saw that before, but isn't that just what I do today!" As Gonzales states on pages 258-9,

But the reader should equally note that the seeds of human sin planted in Eden's garden grow into vines that spread beyond the parameters of the primeval narrative and bear much evil fruit in the patriarchal narratives. Adapting Fretheim's own language, it is striking the extent to which the more emphatic themes of chs. 1-11 are further developed in chs. 12-50, wherein human society in general and the patriarchal community in particular continue to sin and experience God's curse.

He also makes a concluding statement on page 256,

The patriarchal narrative leaves the reader with the impression that not merely humanity but even God's people left to themselves would eventually come to ruin. Only intrusions of divine grace (common and special) or judgment (punitive or remedial) can stem sin's rising tide.

You will learn much about your own sin as you look at the lives of the patriarchs.

The negative in this book is the foot notes. Almost every page is filled with them, and I mean filled. Many pages have more foot notes than the main book. What is difficult is that many of the foot notes are worth reading while many simply offer more technical information. This can be quite frustrating if you are one of those, "I just have to read every word on the page," type of person. Nevertheless, this negative may not actually be a negative for people who love that kind of thing.

All I really can say about this book is that you need to go buy it and read it and enjoy it. It is most certainly worth your time.

Obama: Repeals Don't Ask, Don't Tell

The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy instituted byPresident Clinton and now being repealed by President Obama has some interesting coverage. In this WashingtonPost story, we are told in the very first paragraph,

The results signal continued widespread public support for ending the military's 17-year ban on gays in the military and come as Congress prepares to vote again on legislation ending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law.

First, the Clinton policy did not prevent homosexuals from serving in the military. This is just an outright lie. It has always been illegal for homosexuals to serve in the military. In fact, it has always been illegal to commit adultery in the military (whether or not it is being currently enforced is another question). Clinton's policy just allowed homosexuals to serve secretly in the military because the policy forced the military to not be allowed to ask a potential recruit.

Second, notice this is seen as a victory for Obama. Why? Well, apparently, as this article states over and over again, the American public is not against the idea. Yet did we see reporting of polls about how the overwhelming number of Americans were against Obamacare? The fact is, Obama couldn't care less what the American public thinks.

A third observation I have made over the years is this polling issue. How could it be otherwise? Seriously, who would goes against the politically correct driven argument for homosexuality? You are called hateful. You could easily lose your job. You could be charged with a hate crime. You will probably have to go to a gestapo style camp to reorient your mind to the Left's thinking.

After years of indoctrination or moral relativism, after years of the sexual revolution and the perversion of God's created order for marriage (adultery and fornication), how could homosexuality be anything other than just another "don't judge us" issue? Why would it be surprising that 77% of Americans don't care what gays do in their bedrooms? I would argue that most Americans (including myself) don't care what men do in their homes from a legal perspective. Yet no matter how accepting people may think they are, I am still convinced (based on private talk) that Americans still think homosexuality is wrong. They simply tolerate it, and they always have. Now they are just being forced to tolerate in ways they never have before.

I have written about the homosexual issue in the past and have yet to have a serious fundamentally sound moral argument for its acceptance. The military is not the place to fight the culture war. Yet the homosexual movement knows that to win there is to win big. But even Saturday Night Live once quipped that that is not the role of the military. For once, I happen to agree.

Preached At Shallow Water

Just a quick note. I had the priviledge of preaching at Shallow Water this past Sunday. I decided to press on with Matthew 6. I fully realize that I need to write a sermon for Christmas. One of these days I just might. Here is the link to the message.

Todd Friel and Youth Groups

Hey Todd, don't hold back. Tell us what you really think abot Youth Groups.

WT: Why Did They Reject the Messiah?

Once again, Russell dropped by and gave me another Watchtower magazine. He stressed that I read the article, "Why Did They Reject the Messiah?". So I did.

The article uses three major arguments for why men rejected Jesus. The first is "unfulfilled expectations", followed by "rejected by Religious leaders", and finally that there was "community prejudice and persecution". Now these reasons for the most part are basically true in and of themselves as why men reject Christ. What I find interesting is sin is never mentioned. Basically, the reasons offered are how men remain in their unbelief and sustain their unbelief, but they are not the deep seated reason that would be the true culprit, slavery to sin.

Another interesting observation I noticed in the supporting arguments for the "unfulfilled expectations" is the citations of passages of the disciples such as John the Baptist. This section refers to John's questioning of Jesus, "Are You the Coming One, or are we to expect a different one?"

Yet it is obvious John does not "reject" Jesus as the Messiah. He is never recorded as having done so. Yes, John was confused due to his own expectations and understanding of how the Kingdom of God comes to Earth. Yet this is more evidence that his prophecy is from God and not men since even he could not understand how his own prophecy would be fulfilled.

The Watchtower then cites to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus.

"We were hoping that this man was the one destined to deliver Israel."

Once again, as confused as they were, there is no evidence they "rejected" Jesus. They simply thought he was killed (which He was) and therefore was not the Messiah by simple logical deduction. Let's face it. Jesus was supposedly dead at this time! The article falls short in making the proper distinctions between rejection, belief in a natural sense and saving faith.

The conclusion of the article also includes some problems. It again assumes that man is a morally neutral creature that may be reasoned into the Kingdom by appealing to his objective justice. It even goes to far as to say:

Today, erroneous ideas about Jesus and His teachings can have a similar effect. For example, many have been taught that God's Kingdom is in their heart or will come about by human efforts.

Now I agree with the latter thought. God's consummation of the Kingdom does not come about by human effort. And yes, the consummated Kingdom is not merely in our hearts. Yet by not seeing that the Kingdom of God comes in two stages, the Watchtower misses the need for the work of the Spirit in this age. For instance, notice Jesus' words in Luke 17,

20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed,
21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."

Men are blind by their sin and are unable to see the Kingdom of God. The solution is not more evidence, but a work of the Spirit as stated by Jesus in John's Gospel.

3:3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
3:4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

In conclusion, the Watchtower is only right in how men remain in their unbelief. It falls short of addressing the Biblical passages that deal with man's truly fallen nature and the remedy that the Triune God has provided in the redemption of His elect.

Noah's Ark In Kentucky

I saw on Yahoo News this little statement,

Noah's Ark Tourist Attraction Sparks Debate
Tue, 7 Dec 9:01 PM EST - ABC
News 2:25 10 views

Some believe using state funds to build a Bible-themed attraction is wrong.

So I decided to look around and found this on this site.

Kentucky Offers Tax Breaks for Ark Project Kentucky's Democratic governor has signed on to the plan, promising almost $40 million in tax breaks for a project that is expected to create 900 jobs. According to a feasibility study for the park, 1.6 million visitors could show up in the first full year alone, and the project could generate $250 million in state revenue.

So which is it? Tax breaks or using State Funds to pay for a museum? Knowing how the Left loves to assume that all money belongs to Government, and if someone doesn't pay the amount of taxes they want, then they are "losing money".

Disinfo states a similar argument,

...should the state be subsidizing what is clearly a religious venture?

There it is again. No citation. No evidence offered that the State is actually giving money to this venture. It is simply assumed in their world that if someone wants to do something, the money already belongs to the government. That is just sick thinking. Windmills are subsidized. Turning corn into gasoline is subsidized. Not taxing something is not subsidizing. It is freedom.

Another interesting thing I have noticed is the flat Earth comments. All the atheists are just unable to allow another perspective of origins because it doesn't fit their dogma. At least the Governor understands free speech and freedom of thought.

"The people of Kentucky didn't elect me governor to debate religion. The elected me governor to create jobs, and that's what we're doing here," said Beshear. "Our laws don't allow us to discriminate as to entertainment subject matter of a theme park. And as long as it is legal and meets all of our criteria, I think it's clearly constitutional."

Personally, I don't care about trying to rebuild Noah's Ark. It doesn't prove anything, and only gives visitors some kind of "Bible experience". Nevertheless, if the Smithsonian can build their monuments to their religious views of origins and get actual State funding, tax breaks for the museum, which only means they get to keep their money, then certainly the Creationists have their right to build their monuments too.