New Blog
September 13, 2009
Faith & Life is up and running. The tagline is Reformed theology, politics, family and whatever else comes to mind.
This blog will continue to be updated automatically with my posts from Faith & Life. BE ADVISED that videos usually do not come through when auto posted from the main blog. If you would like to comment, please go to the Faith & Life blog.
Does God Exist? debate between PCA Pastor Randy Martin and Eddie Tabash, LA lawyer and life member of American Atheists
March 15, 2010
Posted via email from Faith & Life
Vimeo apparently doesn’t come in to WordPress. Click here to see the debate.
Parent Advice – Facebook Privacy Settings: What Parents Need to Know – Common Sense Media
March 12, 2010
What parents need to know
Facebook continues to update its privacy policies. Every time Facebook makes a change, parents and kids should immediately take the time to redo or review their privacy settings.
The changes themselves can be a mixed bag. In the most recent overhaul, many of the Facebook privacy options have been set to defaults that allow broad access to what your children post on their pages or on their friends’ pages. And the default for many privacy options for minors is “friends of friends,” which could be thousands of kids that your kids don’t know. In other words, your kids’ privacy settings must be redone. Our step-by-step video shows you how to do it.
Let us parents beware.
Gulf Shores Restaurant and Grill
March 11, 2010
Sent from my iPhone
Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ prayer in 1969 at McIlwain Presbyterian Church ((MLJ Quotes, Martyn Lloyd-Jones Quotes))
March 11, 2010
"O Lord our God, have mercy upon us. Forgive us especially, we pray thee again, for our folly – for our foolish talking about our century and the 'modern man', as if anything had changed. Awaken us, we pray thee, and bring us to see that thy method is still the same, that the truth remains unchanged and unchanging, and that the power of the blessed Holy Spirit is in no sense diminished. Lord, hear us. Revive thy work O Lord, thy mighty arm make bare. Speak with a voice that wakes the dead and make the people hear. And unto thee, and unto thee alone, shall we give all the praise and the honour and the glory, both now and forever, amen."
Mark 7:4 and baptized dining couches. Dr. Shaw again.
March 11, 2010
And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.
Taking a break…
March 1, 2010
Al Gore’s Nine Lies
February 27, 2010
The godfather of climate hysteria is in hiding as another of his wild claims unravels — this one about global warming causing seas to swallow us up. We've not seen or heard much of the former vice president, Oscar winner and Nobel Prize recipient recently as the case for disastrous man-made climate change collapses.
Whatever it takes. Dems will do it. Repubs should do whatever it takes to stop them!
February 27, 2010
And what Obama wants is to transform our economy into a West European-style economy where free enterprise is minutely regulated from the central government and extraordinarily high marginal tax rates are used to feed government redistribution of wealth in the form of social programs. The fact that West European economies have chronic double-digit unemployment rates as a result of these policies matters not.
Obama has signalled that he will do whatever it takes legislatively to get his foot in this door.
Republicans in Congress need to do whatever it takes legislatively to slam the door shut. Any and every legislative tactic must be used to stop the Democrats.
Anti-abortion. What’s wrong with that?
February 26, 2010
Move over Carrie Prejean. Enter Lauren Ashley! Beverly Hills not so happy. Homosexual marriage is a sin.
February 26, 2010
Miss Beverly Hills Lauren Ashley is making headlines. And “tolerance” demanding Beverly Hills is not so “tolerant. Seems Miss Ashley has a problem with gay homosexual “marriage.” From an interview about her controversial comments:
“My message is that I love everyone. But the bible is pretty black and white about homosexuality [being] a sin. As a Christian, that’s what I believe.”
Ashley, who says she’s a virgin and brought her own bible with her to the interview, made sure to point out that despite her strict Christian beliefs, she has plenty of gay friends.
“A lot of my gay friends tell me, ‘that’s your belief, I still love you,’” she said. “They know how much I love them and they know I still believe in them.”
Beverly Hills Mayor Nancy Kranse recently expressed outrage that Ashley would associate the city of Beverly Hills with anti-gay sentiment and issued a statement saying that the Miss California USA hopeful does not speak for the city when she condemns gay marriage.
“Beverly Hills has a long history of tolerance and respect,” the mayor wrote, adding that she was: “Shocked to see statements made by a beauty pageant contestant under the name of Beverly Hills.”
Tolerance? Oh wait. But not for Miss Ashley’s views and her right to voice them. Ashley’s response to the Mayor? “I believe in the rights of the individual and their personal beliefs, and I believe in tolerance and respect for all sides of the issues,” Lewis said on Wednesday. “I hope Beverly Hills exercises the same inclusion.” (source) Ouch! The National Organization for Marriage responded: “I’m not surprised that Miss Beverly Hills, Lauren Ashley, opposes gay marriage — after all 45 percent of young Californians voted for Prop 8, as did 7 million Californians generally,” the organization’s president, Maggie Gallagher, told us. “But I have to say, I am impressed with her courage in coming forward and for speaking up for Carrie. The elected officials of city of Beverly Hills are not demonstrating tolerance or kindness by continuing the avalanche of hatred against supporters of Prop 8.”
Mancakes…cupcakes for “manly men.”
February 26, 2010
"It was time to combine a masculine aesthetic to a traditionally cute product – the cupcake," declares the bakery's website. "Our objective is simple. We're men. Men who like cupcakes. Not the frilly pink-frosted sprinkles-and-unicorns kind of cupcakes. We make manly cupcakes. For manly men."
The cupcakes come in a dozen flavors, with names like the "Jackhammer" (chocolate cake with chocolate hazelnut filling and hazelnut buttercream) and the "Beer Run" (chocolate beer cake with beer-infused buttercream and crushed pretzels). Others, like the "Rum and Coke" and "Old Fashioned," take their inspiration from the world of cocktails.
You won't find any pink and green among the company's products. Each cupcake comes topped with a chocolate disc festooned with a decidedly masculine design: woodland camouflage, wood grain, houndstooth, plaid, checkerboard, or marble. Pictured above is the "B-52," a Kahlua-soaked vanilla cake with a Bailey's Bavarian filling, decked out in camouflage.
Butch Bakery features a line, "Where Butch Meets Buttercream." They even have The Butch MAN-ifesto. How can we guys not like this situation?
Dr. Shaw answers Arthur’s question on infant baptism
February 25, 2010
So based on your line of reasoning, someone who is elect but not baptized by their believing parents is not part of the covenant community but someone who is not elect and will spend eternity in hell is part of the covenant community because their parents sprinkled them with water as an infant?
I will want to see his answer there. But meanwhile I think the answer is the same as in the OT: no sign, not seen as part of the visible church (the covenant community). I suppose it may be similar to an un-immersed professing adult. He makes a profession of faith and then neglects Baptist immersion. Is he part of the visible church? But then we have to suppose there are such things as the "visible and invisible" church.
In short, yes. But in order to avoid possible confusion, let me add a word of explanation. By “covenant community” in the prior post, I mean the visible church. There are, as it were, two churches of God: the invisible church, “which consists of the whole number of the elect,” and the visible church, which “consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, and their children.” (For a fuller, but brief statement, see the Westminster Confession of Faith, ch 25, available with appended Scriptures at WCF.) Baptism, as a sign of the covenant properly belongs to all those who are legitimate candidates for membership in the visible church; that is, those who profess the true religion and their children. The children have the right to the sign, which God considers very important. But if the parents withhold the sign from them, God considers them no part of his visible church. On the other hand, a child of parents who profess the true religion may be baptized. In that case he is legitimately a part of the visible church, with all the rights and responsibilities of its members, and subject to its discipline, even though he may not be elect. Nonetheless, because he has rightly received the sign of the covenant, God considers him to be rightly a member of the visible church.
Just to make it clear, the visible church is not identical to the invisible church. That there is overlap between them is certainly the case, as in those intersecting Venn diagrams that plagued us all as children in early math classes. But one may legitimately be a member of the visible church, even if non-elect. Likewise, an elect person, for various reasons, may not have received the covenant sign of baptism.
Now to give a couple of illustrations. Jacob and Esau both received the sign of the covenant, and were legitimately members of the visible church. Esau, however, was not of the elect (see Mal 1:2-3 and Rom 9:13), hence not a member of the invisible church. Judas Iscariot had received the sign of the covenant, and was legitimately a member of the visible church. He was even legitimately one of the twelve apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ (see Matt 10:1-4). But he also was not elect, and his betrayal of Jesus and subsequent suicide proved that he was no member of the invisible church.
Of course, great answer.
Health Care Reform Summit: Obama not happy!
February 25, 2010
Obama is flummoxed. The president simply can't defend the Cornhusker Kickback (which has since been removed), the Louisiana Purchase, and the Gator Aid that exempts Florida seniors from cuts to Medicare Advantage. So his voice rises, he attacks political gamesmanship, and he lectures. "The campaign is over," he told John McCain, as though the 2008 election decided political debate for all time. McCain's reply was classic. "I'm reminded of that every day, Mr. President," he said.
The Health Care Debate and Social Justice
February 25, 2010
Just to be clear, I am not against working for societal change, helping the poor, or ministering to the sick. I am hugely for all these things. But the idea I’m toying with is that maybe these things do not constitute the mission of the church. Certainly, we love our neighbor as ourselves in obedience to Christ, which will entail different individual callings and different responses depending on the situation. We are called to do good to all people, especially to those of household of faith (Gal. 6:10). So we need no excuse to love others. Praise God for Christian doctors, teachers, and relief workers all around the world. But it seems to me the mission of the church, what God wants to accomplish on earth through us, is not the meeting of all human needs nor the transforming of all cultures, but the discipling of all nations.
It’s no secret that social justice is a hot topic in evangelicalism, a popular pursuit and also controversial. Some see the renewed emphasis on the poor as nothing less than a rediscovery of a whole gospel. Others worry that an emphasis on social justice distracts the church from the primary role of evangelism. I’m not going to propose a third way between these two poles. I think a concern for the poor is essential to Christianity. And I think saving people from eternal suffering is more important than saving people from temporal suffering. That’s where I stand (and most evangelicals, I believe; the disagreement is in the details). (bold added)
Mercy ministries display God’s kindness, and they are good and appropriate for the Christian to do. But such actions are not evangelism. They may commend the gospel to others, but only if someone has told them the gospel. They need to have the gospel added to them. Helping others or doing our jobs well, whatever they are, in and of themselves are not evangelism. (bold added)
Hummers goners!
February 24, 2010
Is church membership biblical?
February 24, 2010
The question of whether church membership is biblical is a good one. The short answer is that church membership is a biblical concept that has found valid expression in many churches today. However, nothing in scripture directly commands what might be termed “formal” church membership, whereby members of the body of Christ are required to swear submission to a particular local church or board of elders, deacons, or bishops. To elaborate, lets begin by looking at a passage that deals directly with membership in the body of Christ:
Romans 12:3-8
1Cor. 12:12-20
For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.
The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body–whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free–and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
Notice in these passages that a person’s membership in the church is likened to the various parts of a body’s “membership” in a body. Paul is saying that, as Christians, we do not choose whether or not we are members of the church any more than your hand chooses whether it is a member of your body. Thus, if someone is a Christian, he or she is a member of the body of Christ.
What, then, are the implications of this unalterable reality as they relate to “formal” church membership? How should this area work itself out in an individual’s walk with Christ? Well, one way that this reality works itself out is through regular meeting with other believers. The writer of Hebrews 10:25 says “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another–and all the more as you see the Day approaching.” The “meeting together” to which the author of this verse is referring would probably correlate fairly closely to a regular worship service at a local church. So I think that the member of the body is therefore required to attend a particular church and to be with other members of the body of Christ. I think also that it is important that in light of Romans 12 and 1Corinthians 12, it is important for the members of the body to allow his or her gifts to be worked out within a particular church. This is not to say that believers are bound to worship with only one particular church, or that they must only serve one particular church, however, it is to say that they should have one local church as a central focus of their fellowship and of their ministry. This is because it is not possible to integrated and serving in a church on a regular basis if you are a stranger. Where then does this requirement of regular attendance and regular service intersect with “formal” membership in the local church? Well, looking again at the passages above, notice that some of the parts of the body are called to serve as leaders, or heads, of the body. Notice also that not everyone is called to leadership, which means that some must be called as followers, and some are called to submit to being “diligently governed” (Rom. 12:8). Hebrews 13:17 says “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” This call to leadership and call to submitting to that leadership is where the rubber meets the road in regard to formal church membership. Leaders in the church are called to govern and shepherd their specific flocks. One of the ways that they often have determined how do delineate where their flock ends and where another shepherd’s flock begins is by formalizing church membership. This is usually done by requesting a specific member of the universal church of Jesus Christ to formally place himself or herself under the formal authority of a particular local body. Thus, the leaders of a church agree to “give an account” for a particular believer, and a particular believer agrees to submit to particular leaders in the church. Because the church is designed to function with leaders and followers, and because the leaders are going to have to give an account for their service, formal church membership is a good biblical solution to the problem of accounting for the sheep. However, does this mean that formal church membership is mandated by Scripture? Well, I do believe that it is mandated sometimes at least in cases where becoming a formal member of the church you are attending is required by the leadership of the church. In most churches, however, it is not the case that the leadership requires all regular attendees to become formal members, and if this is the case at your church, then you are not required by scripture to formally join. However, it is important that you recognize that even if you do not formally join a particular church, you are still under the authority of “your churches” elders. The fact that this relationship has not been formalized does not mean that the relationship between sheep and shepherd does not exist. Answer by Matthew GrossJohnny Cash sings a love song
February 24, 2010
(3636 KB)
Listen on posterous
Oppose Obama’s Health Care Takeover Plan
February 24, 2010
The health care fight is coming to a head. We're in the 15th round, and the health care summit to be followed by budget reconciliation is Obama's desperate attempt to land a one-two knockout punch because he is down on points.
Now is not the time to mince words.
The health care plan put forth by Obama, based on the prior Senate bill, is so destructive on so many levels that it must be opposed without regard to political fallout
The Obama plan contains fiscal gimmicks and gamesmanship which will lead to crushing deficits and debt; sanctions government intrusion into our lives unlike anything we have seen before; will lead to the destruction of a private insurance system which, while not perfect, delivers coverage to the overwhelming majority of Americans in a satisfactory manner; will result in the demoralization of our most honored profession, reducing medical care to the lowest common denominator in the cause of a false sense of fairness; and reflects the ultimate hubris of ideological, power drunk people who have proven themselves unworthy of our trust and who express, time and again, their disdain for the people they claim to serve.
…
Now is not the time to hand Democrats the legislative rope with which to fiscally hang this nation. The Democrats' scheme needs to be fought every step of the way until the Democrats drop their plan to usurp one-sixth of the economy.
