You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September 2008.
I was recently confronted by a passionate Christian. This individual was disturbed by a brief discussion I had offered on the three uses of the law. This person could not reconcile my audacious comment that the law leads us to Christ for our salvation and then Christ leads us back to the law for our sanctification (the moral use of the law; traditionally the third use). Though I had explained in the most clear and explicit fashion that keeping the law perfectly is impossible and that the grace of God under girds all our efforts, this parishioner found the idea of walking according to the precepts of the Lord to be anathema. “We are no longer under the law,” she argued. “Christ fulfilled the law, so that we do not have to follow it anymore, rather we follow Christ.” This form of thinking generally stems from a misunderstanding of the purposes of the law. Unlike many traditions, Reformed Theology emphasizes three uses of the law. If our only emphasis were on the first use, Luther would have won the day.
In a book written some years ago by Norman Geisler and Frank Turk, the authors sought to convince the readers that legislating morality was morally wrong. However, as many have pointed out, what is there to be legislated that is not moral? The common assumption– particularly from non Van Tilians– is that certain laws can be neutral. This is the dilemma of the parishioner. To affirm the abiding validity of God’s law is to place oneself under a moral standard. This moral standard, of course, is condemnatory, they argue; or worse: graceless. This picture–of course– is less than Biblical for David’s love for the law of God was sweeter than honey.
In the words of Vern Poythress the shadow of Christ is imprinted all over the law of Moses. However, this does not mean that Christ rejects or abolishes what He fulfills (Matthew 5:17). Instead, His coming and incarnation gives it (the law) greater meaning and crystallizes its true purpose. What the parishioner could not grasp is that in order to love Christ you must love His commandments.
Jeffrey Tucker celebrates:
House rejects the bill. A magnificent repudiation of the Fed, the Treasury, Bush, Wall Street welfarists, inflationists, and stabilizers of all sorts. The costs of what the Fed has already done are going to be massive and felt for many years. But at least Congress has so far, and this time, not participated in the evil.
It’s a great birthday gift for Ludwig von Mises.
According to St. James, the law of God is an expression of God’s unchanging character and the royal law of liberty. Paul says in Romans 7 that it is God’s good gift to humanity. And this is only the New Testament! When we go back to the pages of the Older Testament, particularly in the Psalms of David, we find in the longest chapter in the Bible: Psalm 119, David’s perpetual love affair with the law of God. If I began to read of David’s love for the law you would think I was talking about the love of a man for his wife. Rather, David is speaking of words, life-giving words. Not just life-giving words, God’s words, reflecting His character.
Though there has been some dispute on how the law of God is understood, for our purposes, Reformed theology has summarized this matter in terms of three valid ways of using the law.
The first way to use the law is pedagogical, that is, the law reveals the holiness and righteousness of God and consequently our shortcomings that drive us to Christ. One powerful way to tell those outside God’s grace of His Gospel is to teach them that God is holy and that they fall short of His glory and are therefore in need of His Son.
The second use of the law is civil. It serves to restrain evil through threats of punishment. It means that the law of God serves to stop evil men from being as bad as they can be. If there were no threats of punishment, our society will quickly fall into anarchy and pure lawlessness. We have seen from our study of history what happens to societies that refuse to punish evildoers. But according to Romans 13, the civil government serves as God’s sword to execute judgment upon those who live for evil.
The third function of the law is the moral use. The moral standards of the law provide guidance for believers as we seek to live in humble gratitude for the grace God has shown to us. Perhaps the most evident place we see this is in Exodus 20, which is the giving of the Ten Commandment on Mt. Sinai. Instead of God beginning directly with the law, rather He prefaces the 10 Commandments with the kindness of His grace: I have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. The grace of God was shown to the Israelites in redeeming them from bondage. So now, God tells the Israelites that if they want to live peaceably with all men, then they must follow His perfect standard by His grace.
In a sense we can understand the law as driving us to Christ and Christ in turn driving us back to the law for our sanctification. For the modern church to despise so great a law is to despise what David considered sweeter than honey. Indeed if we teach others to despise God’s law we will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. God forbid.
The most valuable thing the Psalms do for me is to express the same delight in God which made David dance.–C.S.Lewis
After the sparring over what Kissinger said concerning engaging foreign leaders with or without preconditions, the world was waiting to hear from Dr. Kissinger. The Weekly Standard speaks first on Kissinger’s reaction:
Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says: “Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.
But again, as Sullivan notes “Kissinger was prepared to meet with Mao,” and he did say on Monday that the next president should initiate high-level discussions with Iran “without conditions,” ABC News reported. Will the real Kissinger please stand?
The Sarah factor is only a factor because evangelicals have made it so. In my opinion, which by God’s grace will continue to be shaped by a Biblical view of life, there has never been a better time to vote on principle alone. For us Reformed theologians, I offer a sixth sola: Sola principium. I am continually befuddled by how evangelicals are amused by the perpetual trickery of their politicians. On one side, James Dobson argues persuasively that he will not vote for John McCain, and then “wallah!” the Palin factor walks in and Dobson alters his ever-changing mind. On the other side, the Republican media machine, which castigated McCain for his unwavering commitment to bi-partisanship, now praises him as the agent of change. When the “moral” force of a party and the entertainment side of a party join forces, it is time for Christians to abandon the GOP ship.
Biden was chosen after all because of his foreign policy experience. This is turn ought to balance Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience. The reality, however, is that Biden’s experience consists is perpetual inconsitency. His ideology is not sustained by any amount of conviction. As Stephen Zunes writes:
In fact, his positions have sometimes been so inconsistent as to defy clear explanation. For example, Biden is one of the very few members of Congress who voted against authorizing the 1991 Gulf War – which the UN Security Council legitimized as an act of collective security against the illegal Iraqi conquest of Kuwait – but then voted in favor of authorizing the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which the UN Security Council didn’t approve, and was an illegitimate war of aggression.
Whatever sympathies paleo-conservatives like myself may have towards Biden’s opposition to the war, it is far outweighed by the dangers of Biden’s future decisions in wartime: a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.
In light of the many tasks ahead and some travelling in October, blogging will be minimal in the next 8 weeks.
A true conservative cherishes prudence and believes in fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and a self-reliant republic. He believes in saving for retirement and a rainy day, in deferred gratification, in not buying on credit what you cannot afford, in living within your means. –Patrick Buchanan
Meyers makes an excellent observation in his discussion of worship as experience. Modern gatherings on the Lord’s Day (none dare call it that anymore) have become nothing more than “religious sentimentalism” (The Lord’s Service, p.28). Parishioners enter the sanctuary (none dare call it that anymore) expecting to feel, sense and imagine a gentle Jesus. As Meyers observes: “It is almost as if the greatest achievement of corporate worship is to engineer within the worshipers some kind of praise-induced emotional or psychological ecstasy”(28). Thus, this experience becomes merely internal. This gnosticizing of worship is contrary to the many texts that call upon us to offer praise, to prostrate, to kneel, to bring gifts and to sing. Meyers concludes by noting that “worship is evaluated not according to the affect it might have on worshipers, but whether it is ‘acceptable’ to God or not.”
Add eleven more books to my library and the thought of moving one day becomes frightening. I am at a stage where buying a book that I already have is not uncommon. Three of my newest purchases are The Schilder Trilogy on the Sufferings of Christ.
“Politics, under democracy,” Mencken wrote more than 80 years ago, “resolves itself into impossible alternatives. Whatever the label on the parties, or the war cries issuing from the demagogues who lead them, the practical choice is between the plutocracy on the one side and a rabble of preposterous impossibilists on the other.” And in a declaration even apter now than it was at the time, he concluded that what democracy “needs beyond everything is a party of liberty.”
The trouble is, however, that now, even more than then, the American people have little interest in liberty. Instead, they want the impossible: home ownership for those who cannot afford homes, credit for those who are not creditworthy, old-age pensions for those who have not saved, health care for those who make no attempt to keep themselves healthy, and college educations for those who lack the wit to finish high school. Moreover, they want it now, and they want somebody else to pay for it.
If you think that Fannie and Freddie’s bust is a big deal, just wait until Medicare comes crashing down. Then, the wailing and gnashing of teeth will be truly unbearable. As that day rapidly approaches, however, you’ll notice that the politicians are doing utterly nothing to forestall it.–Robert Higgs
The apprenticeship of Sarah Palin is an object lesson in how the neocons took over the American Right and saddled the GOP with their agenda of “big government conservatism” and perpetual war. Her brainwashing limns the experience and fate of the larger conservative movement, which has been reduced, these days, to a militaristic cult that remembers nothing of its origins – a movement of neocon pod-people.–Justin Raimondo
This is not the first time that the US has prematurely taken sides only to later find out that they were on the wrong side of a war. Spiegel Online reports that the US gave too much credit to President Saakashvili of Georgia. Though “a friend and ally, (he) could in fact be a gambler — someone who triggered the bloody five-day war and then told the West bold-faced lies.” This of course is nothing new to Justin Raimondo and Patrick Buchanan who foresaw such a scenario. Neo-Conservatives are quick to judge mother Russia, but slow to look at herself:
The attempt to reconstruct the five-day war in August continues to revolve around one key question: Which side was the first to launch military strikes? Information coming from NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) now paints a different picture than the one that prevailed during the first days of the battle for the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali — and is fueling the doubts of Western politicians.
John McCain, seeking to gain political points, wasted no time in calling “my fellow Americans” to embrace the Georgian flag against the evil Russian empire. But once again this has proven to be a presumptous move from the war party who glories in fear. If Western politicians are doubtful about the brief blood bath in the Caucasus, shouldn’t this cause skepticism when America supports a nation over another.
The perception in the US that the tide has turned in Iraq is in part because of a change in the attitude of the foreign, largely American, media. The war in Iraq has now been going on for five years, longer than the First World War, and the world is bored with it. US television networks maintain expensive bureaux in Baghdad, but little of what they produce gets on the air. When it does, viewers turn off. US newspaper bureaux are being cut in size. The result of all this is that the American voter hears less of violence in Iraq and can suppose that America’s military adventure there is finally coming good.–Patrick Cockburn
A Hobson’s choice is a choice without an alternative. Many first-time voters are treating this election as if it were one. The lesser of two-evils argument has begun to circulate again as it did in late 2003 before the elections that placed George W. Bush in the oval office for another four years. I dealt with some of these issues in a post in 2004.
In 2004, the Bush/Cheney ticket seemed bearable when compared to the Kerry/Edwards ticket. Back then the war still had some support and there were still many questions unanswered. As a result of the skepticism of the population and the fear imposed by the Bush Administration on the population, Kerry and Edwards fell short and Bush regained the confidence of the people in the war on terror. As some have suggested the election of 2004 was one based on fear. So what is the election of 2008 based on? The answer once again is fear. The context, however, of this election is diametrically different than the previous one. In 2004 Bush was still somewhat popular. Some viewed his actions after 9-11 heroic. His 90% approval ratings in 2001 held well until his re-election in 2004 where his approval ratings were at 50%. But now his ratings are an abysmal 20% or less. In 2004 the economy was re-bounding to the applause of George Will. In 2008, we are closer than ever to Ron Paul’s predictions of a major recession (not just a minor recession). The war continues to be a catastrophic failure, and the war party continues to hail their decision to go to war. Of course, their arguments today are much more subtle since no one dares make the same arguments of 2003…well, Bill Kristol is. One wonders why the Republican Party still allows Kristol to be a voice of reason to their candidates. So once again fear reigns over the corridors of Washington and throughout the United States, and Republicans continue to erect and resurrect the 9-11 towers, reiterating once again the same propaganda that led us into war in the first place.
But what about the Democrats? Are they a better option? Any Biblical Christian knows they are not. They speak of murder in the womb as if it were another day at the park. They advocate feminism that has led to millions of broken homes, they stand on their welfare programs that perpetuate hunger and poverty, they oppose the free-market thinking that taxing the rich will balance out society, they say they oppose war, but in reality they oppose only one war. Their leaders can’t wait to have the military in their hands to send them to the far reaches of this world: Darfur, Haiti, and every other place under the sun for “humanitarian reasons.” Once again, they borrow the Neo-Conservative slogan of “bringing democracy to the world via militaristic adventures.” Democrats do not oppose war, they oppose Bush’s war.
What are we to do in light of this absurd dilemma? Should we not vote, write-in, or succumb to the pressures of a major party? There are a few ideas to consider before one casts their votes in less than two months:
a) The first thing we are to realize is that there are no perfect parties. All parties–major or third parties–are sinful parties. They are flawed options to achieve what we as Christians desire: a nation where God is honored.
b) Though all parties are flawed, it does not mean that they are all worthless. Just as churches are flawed, they are not worthless. God uses men in both spheres to accomplish His purposes.
c) Christ is Lord over all things, including the political sphere. Therefore, it is unbiblical to say that if we do not vote for the Republican Party we will be handing our future over to evil forces. Just as when Bill Clinton was in office, Christ was, is, and will continue to be Lord. Likewise, if Obama wins, Christ is still Lord and He will bring justice to the nations in due time (Psalm 2).
d) In a Republic such as this one, we have the honor of considering other options beyond the major parties. Third Parties have been a tremendous force in American politics. After all, the two big parties were once small parties.
This is not a Hobson’s Choice. In the end, the lesser of two evils is still evil. As the Scriptures say: Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter (Isaiah 5:20)!
The London Telegraph reports:
“Comments by the governor of Alaska in her first television interview, in which she said NATO may have to go to war with Russia and took a tough line on Iran’s nuclear program, were the result of two weeks of briefings by neoconservatives.”
“Sources in the McCain camp, the Republican Party, and Washington think tanks say Mrs. Palin was identified as a potential future leader of the neoconservative cause in June 2007. That was when the annual summer cruise organized by the right-of-center Weekly Standard magazine docked in Juneau, the Alaskan state capital, and the pundits on board took tea with Governor Palin.”
And thus you shall greet him: ‘Peace be to you, and peace be to your house, and peace be to all that you have.
I Samuel 25:6
This debate occurred recently. Scott Horton is a bright apologist for a foreign policy of non-interventionism. Kushner is a terror analyst committed to the neo-conservative ideals of the Bush administration.
This is a clear debate on the differences between both policies.
If invading Russia is an option, I guess so is Iran and Venezuela. Bill Kristol must be proud.
When Gibson said if under the NATO treaty, the United States would have to go to war if Russia again invaded Georgia, Palin responded: “Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.
“And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable,” she told Gibson.
In this Christianity Today article, Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra points out that the Vatican has made a decision to excise the name Yahweh from worship. John Witvliet, director of the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship, says that evangelicals have been debating this point concerning not only the word Yahweh, but also Jehovah. In fact, “both Yahweh and Jehovah have been removed from the Christian Reformed Church’s Psalter Hymnal, turning “Guide Me, O Thou Great Jehovah” into “Guide Me, O Thou Great Redeemer.” Are we letting superstition get in the way of a proper use of God’s revealed name?
Two quick points:
a) The challenging of Palin over the experience issue is absurd; even Arianna Huffington agrees. Palin will always be surrounded by the greatest intellects and military strategists in the country before she makes a decision on any issue–whether for good or bad.
b) The Democratic Party is falling apart. I wonder if Obama is re-considering his Biden pick. Why not Hillary? That’s a question even Biden wonders.
Note: This sermon was preached by Rev. Steve Wilkins at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian (CREC).
Steve Wilkins
Proverbs 1:20-33
The overarching purpose is to communicate wisdom to the hearers. Wisdom brings skills and mastery in some field. This same word is used when dealing with artistic skills in the Old Testament (Exodus 28). Wisdom does not mean the ability to foresee the future. Wisdom is not some secret insight into God’s decrees. In Proverbs to have wisdom is to have skill; to do what is fitting and appropriate in the situation God has placed you, so that you produce results that are beautiful. The goal of Proverbs is to teach us to live skillfully. This is to be applied in the body so that the world may become beautiful.
Wisdom is based upon the fear of the Lord (1:7). To fear is to respect and reverence. If you fear the Lord, you do not want to displease Him. The wise man knows that though he cannot understand all of God’s ways, He understands that all happens for the good of His people. The wise man trusts in Yahweh.
Wisdom is a matter of relationships. It is very personal, not abstract. Wisdom comes through relating and communing with God and His people. If you isolate yourself from the church, you will perish.
Christ is the One who gives us wisdom and this is why He is called the wisdom of God. The Scriptures describe Jesus as the Word incarnate and wisdom incarnate. Read the rest of this entry »
According to Stephen Spruiell:
Liberal bloggers are attributing the network’s decision to the fact that “the right complained enough,” and while I’d love to take some credit here, I think it had a lot more to do with Keith Olbermann’s outrageous behavior toward his colleagues during the week of the Democratic convention. What is most objectionable about Olbermann is not his politics but his attitude. He has to be a jerk about everything. By all accounts, his rising popularity went to his head and he started pulling the same stunts he is notorious for pulling at every other place he has worked: treating everyone around him like dirt and pushing the envelope further and further on the air.
Yes, I’d like to say conservatives had something to do with it, but the truth is probably closer to what a longtime MSNBC employee told me when I spoke to him for this NR cover story (I didn’t end up using the quote, but it’s a great one): “Sooner or later, Keith is going to collapse under the weight of his own insanity.” This isn’t a total collapse, of course — he’ll still have Countdown — but it’s a big setback for the man who nakedly aspires to be this generation’s Edward R. Murrow. And it happened a lot sooner than anyone thought.
Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, grant them rest.
I have two blogs to recommend:
The first is Dee Dee Warren’s Preterist Blog. Dee Dee also has a podcast where she works her way through Matthew 24. This is an excellent resource for Orthodox Preterism.
The second is the American Conservative blog. This is a blog dedidated to paleo-conservative thought in the tradition of Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul.
After the Colbert bump, the Ron Paul Revolution, the Rally for the Republic, Ron Paul is back to the Colbert Report.
McCain and his top advisors are ideologues who care about one thing and one thing only: war. The glory of it, the utility of it, the necessity of it. It’s the McCain panacea, like “free silver” was to William Jennings Bryan and socialism was to Eugene Debs. It’s his answer to everything: it solves all problems, and, more importantly, stifles all criticism. If you doubt his veracity, question his good intentions, or point out his inconsistencies, you’re attacking a war hero, doubting the divine wisdom suffering is supposed to impart.–Justin Raimondo
Recent Comments