Jason's Jibes

My first seminary paper - "For Pete's Sake -- Lesson from the Life of the Apostle Peter from the Gospels"

2011-10-11T17:57:00.000-07:00

COVER PAGE

(For Pete's Sake: Lessons from the Life of the Apostle Peter in the New Testament)

Setting: Men's Small Group Bible Study
Length of Delivery: 40 minutes for each lesson

Name of Student: Jason Gaertner
Student ID: L23711718
Class: NBST 521
Instructor's Name: Dr. Olufemi Adeyemi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

OUTLINE.................................................................................................... 3

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 4

Lesson

1. MEANING AND IMPORTANCE OF PETER'S NAME............. 4

2. CALLING OF PETER AS ONE OF JESUS' DISCIPLES......... 7

3. PETER'S DENIAL OF JESUS...................................................... 9

4. PETER'S CONFESSION AND RESTORATION........................ 12

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................... 15

OUTLINE

“For Pete's Sake: Lessons from the Life of the Apostle Peter”
I. Lesson 1: Meaning and importance of Peter's name
1. One name, three languages (Matt. 16:18) “here the context (of church) points to a particular group of Jesus' disciples, two or three gathered together in his name and invested in him with disciplinary authority and the right to prevailing access to God in prayer.”1
1. “Peter” comes from Greek, “petros” meaning, “rock”
2. “Cephas” is Aramaic, meaning, “rock” (John 1:42)
3. “Simon” is Hebrew name
2. The fact that the Bible mentions Peter's name in three different languages is significant because Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic were three of the most common languages in ancient Palestine, and the three languages in which the Holy Scriptures were written.
II. Lesson 2: Calling of Peter as one of Jesus' Disciples (Matt. 4:18 & Mark 1:16-20; Luke 5:1-11, John 1:40-42)
1. Humble beginnings
1. As a fisherman
2. Called with his brother, Andrew
2. If Peter was called to be the rock upon which the church was built, then it was important that his name be translated into the three most common languages in the area during that time, so that when the Gospel spread throughout the region, those who spoke the major tongues would understand.
3. Peter as the Rock of the church (Matt. 16:18).
III. Lesson 3: Peter's role in Jesus Betrayal and subsequent arrest
1. Jesus predicts Peter's denial (Matt. 26:21-25; Luke 22:31-34; Mark 14:18-21; John 13:21-26)
2. Peter's denial of Jesus (Luke 22:54-62; Matt. 26:57-58 & 69-75; Mark 14:53-54 & 66-72; John 18:15-18, 25-27). “In three stages the disciple has proceeded from the mildest to the gravest form of denial.”2
IV. Lesson 4 – Peter's confession and restoration (John 21:15-19)
1. Jesus' questions to Peter - “Do you love me?”
2. Peter's response - “You know that I do.”
3. Jesus' commands to Peter “Feed my lambs.”
4. “Mark does not depict a rehabilitation of Peter, but he implies one.”3
Conclusion:
We must see Peter's importance in each of the four Gospels, and especially in the Synoptic Gospels. “It is more difficult to describe the role of Peter in Matthew and Luke, since both evangelists preserve many features found in Mark One must concentrate interest on the modifications each evangelist makes to the Markan texts and to the additions each makes to Mark's text”4
There is no doubt that the Apostle Peter, as one of the twelve disciples, plays a prominent role in the New Testament, and particularly in the gospels. Peter was called by Jesus to be one of the Lord’s first disciples, and was also privileged to be a part of Jesus’ “inner circle,” along with the Apostle John. The meaning of Peter’s name is important in the building of the church and in the shepherding of the congregation. However, Peter, in the weakness of the flesh, denied Jesus, before the Lord graciously and mercifully restored him as an apostle.

Lesson 1: The meaning and importance of Peter's name.

Names in the Bible often have very significant meaning, and Peter's is no exception. The three-fold usage of Peter's name, in the three different languages in which the Bible is written, and particularly in the gospels, is important in the later roles which Jesus will bestow upon him.

The most common usage seems to be the Greek form, “Peter,” (from petros and also petra).45, which is found in Matt. 16:18. Jesus uses the name “Peter” in the midst of the revelation to his disciples about the person of the king, the church, and his death. Jesus singles out Peter, the leader and spokesman of the disciples, for a special calling: to be the “rock” on which the church is built. These words occur just prior to Peter's denial of Jesus, which will be explored in more detail later. John MacArthur says that Matt. 16:18 is “best interpreted as a simple play on words in that a boulder-like truth came from the truth of the one who as called a small stone.”6(MacArthur, 1423). F.F. Bruce notes, “here the context (of church) points to a particular group of Jesus' disciples, two or three gathered together in his name and invested in him with disciplinary authority and the right to prevailing access to God in prayer.”7

In Matt. 16:18, Peter could be considered the Abraham of the New Testament, in terms of how God used Abraham as a rock on which to build a covalent with Israel (Gen. 12:13). Krentz notes that in Matt. 16:18, Jesus might have in mind Isa. 51:1-2, in which the Israelites are commanded to “look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the hole of the pit from which you were dug. Look to Abraham your father.”8 (NKJV). “Peter is to be for Christ's assembly what Abraham had been for Israel, the patriarch from whom it takes its foundation, i.e., beginning. As Abraham's response to God's call was the starting point for Israel, so Peter's confessional response is the starting point for Jesus' people.”9

According to Mantey, the the Greek word for “stone” in 1 Pet. 2:4-8 is lithoi. 10 Mantey also says, “This is proof that the words for 'rock' were used interchangeably. But petros and petra were never used interchangeably. Petra, however, according to Liddell and Scott, was used most frequently as a mass or large number of rocks. For that reason I suggest translating Matt 16:18 as follows: 'You are a rock [petros], and upon such/this-type-of rock [petra] I will build my Church.'"11 Sproul, however, says that the linguistic difference between petros and petra is insignificant for the context of Matt. 16:18.12

Peter's acknowledgment of lithoi is later seen in his first epistle (1 Pet. 2:4-8), where he says that all Christians have become “living stones” through believing in Christ. Jesus describes Himself as the builder of the church, whilst Peter and the other apostles are the foundation. (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14).

Some scholars see the name “Peter” as a pun. This is demonstrated in Peter's acknowledgment that Christ is the rock upon which the church is built (Matt. 16:18). Obviously, Christ has the primary role as the chief cornerstone (Acts 4:11, 1 Cor. 3:11) of the church, however, Peter, as spokesman for the disciples, was a type of building block, and certainly played a unique role, as will be mentioned later.

John (1:42) is the only place in the gospels where Peter's Aramaic name, “Cephas” is used. John gives no indication of the implication of Peter's name change as it relates to his role in the church, as Matthew's Gospel does. “John refers to Peter thirty-four times, to Simon twenty-five times, and uses Cephas only once (John 1:42) in the Johannine call narrative.”13

“When Simon's name is changed to Cephas, the Rock, no indication is given that the change carries implications for his place in the developing church, as Matthew suggests (16:17-19).”14 In modern times, God still works in the lives of average, ordinary believers, and it is not necessary for one to hold a high apostolic office in order to help become a stone which helps build the church.

Luke uses the name, “Peter” nineteen times, and “Simon” ten times (4:38; 5:3, 4, 5, 8, 10; 6:14; 22:31; 24:34), but never uses Cephas.15 By contrast, Mark uses the name, “Peter” nineteen times, “Simon” eight times, but never uses “Cephas.”16

Simon Peter's Hebrew name, means, “stone.”17 Mark switches from using the name, “Simon,” to “Peter,” in 3:16, and continues its use throughout his gospel, except in 14:37, where he records Jesus using the name “Simon” perhaps because in that incident, Peter's slumber during a critical time shows that he is failing to live up to the name, “Peter.”18 This usage is reminiscent of when a parent calls their child by his or her full legal name, In order to draw their child's attention to, a particular type of negative behavior.

“Matthew refers to Peter as Simon five times in his call (Matt. 4:18). He refers to Peter twenty-three times, but never uses Cephas. Matthew largely reproduces the Markan references to Peter.19

Ironically, the term “rock” is used in another way in Matt. 16:23, when Peter rebukes Jesus and tells him not to go to the cross, Jesus called him a “stumbling block.” On this occasion Peter was Satan's mouthpiece and a rock of offense. Christians must be careful not to become a stumbling block or hindrance to others, and must not stand in the way of God's plan for others.
“Simon Peter is called "Simon son of John" (Σίμων Ιωάννου) earlier in the Gospel only at his call to discipleship in John 1:42, suggesting again that this scene is the restoration of Peter to discipleship following his denials in the high priest's courtyard. The name 'Simon son of John,' which occurs only in John, is repeated each time Jesus addresses Peter (21:15,16,17).”20

Lesson 2 – The calling of Peter as one of Jesus' disciples.

After Jesus began his ministry in Galilee (Matt. 4:12-17; Mark 1:14-15; Luke 4:14, 31), he needed to call disciples to whom he could teach, and equip them to help carry out his kingdom agenda. Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, and he encountered two sets of brothers, one set of which happened to be Andrew and Simon Peter, both of whom were fishermen by trade. Their occupation would play a critical role in Jesus' later commands to them to become “fishers of men.” (Matt 4:19, Mark 1:17).

All three Synoptics contain fishing scenes (Mark.1:16-20; Matt. 4:18-22; and Luke. 5:1-11). Fishing was typical in ancient Palestinian life, and Jesus used an everyday, ordinary occurrence to call everyday, ordinary men to join his assembly, and to do the extraordinary duty of becoming one of his disciples. Andrew and Simon Peter specifically, (along with James and John, the sons of Zebedee of course), had the humble, unglamorous, difficult and dirty job of daily extricating fish. That could serve as an illustration of the humility and meekness needed to corral people out of the worldly system and to bring them into Christ's kingdom. In this particular instance, Jesus did not call some well-educated sage, or some well-known leader to be his disciples, but lowly fishermen practicing a common trade. The lesson to be learned by this scene is that God often uses what a culture or society might consider to be a menial or lowly task, or a person of such position, to sovereignly accomplish his purposes, as he ultimately did with Peter.

Peter's frustration in Luke 5:5 with the futility of his fishing efforts, is a faith lesson. After Christ miraculously places fish into Peter's net, Peter suddenly realizes that he is in the presence of the glory of Christ's divinity, and is acutely aware of his own sin, and becomes aware of what Jesus wants him to do, and that is to, by faith, fling a net out into the sea of the world, and bring people to Christ. However, by doing that, Peter is probably concerned that he will have another shortage of fish, metaphorically speaking, and that he needs to have faith that Christ will again supply his catch. “The drought of fishes is typical of the calling of the Gentile world by Christ.”21 (Flower, 238).

In Matthew's account of Jesus' calling of the disciples, it is important to note that in 4:18, the text says “immediately they left their nets and followed him.” Notice the importance of the word “immediately.” The call to follow Christ is urgent. There should be no delay.

In Mark's version (1:16-20) it is possible that since Andrew had been a disciple of John the Baptist, that Peter had been also. After John the Baptist's imprisonment in Mark 1:14, apparently Andrew and Peter had returned to their fishing duties. In this text, Jesus is calling the brothers to make an enduring, permanent commitment to discipleship.

The fact that Peter was, along with John, was a part of Jesus' inner circle, does not necessarily mean that Peter has superiority over any of the other disciples. The text quite clearly demonstrates, “that what we are dealing with is the first call of the disciples and not the confirmation of a former...Andrew sought out Peter, and helped bring him to Christ. Believers are to follow such an example, and bring those whom we know to Christ.”21

Lesson 3 – Peter's Denial

Despite the significance of his name, his foundational purpose in the church, his calling as a disciple and his humble occupation, Peter, in the weakness of his sinful humanity, still denied the very Lord who had given him such esteem.

Peter's denial obviously changed his relationship with Christ, and was a form of betrayal, although, on far less of a magnitude as that of Judas' betrayal of Jesus. Peter, the “rock” has now become a “stumbling block” to himself and an apparent hindrance to Jesus' earthly ministry. “By his treachery Peter has taken himself out of the story. Jesus is left alone. He is repudiated and handed over to the Roman governor. With that the story can proceed.”23
Jesus' omniscience as God's Son enabled him to foretell the Peter's three-fold denial.

In Matt. 26:69-75, we can see the progression of Peter's sin in his denial. His fear and anger gradually build and climax with him eventually cursing and swearing (Matt 26:74), and concludes with him weeping. “Its seriousness increases in order that the demand for 'confession before men' might be made all the more urgent.”24
Gehardsson notes that Jewish rabbinic tradition taught that public denial in front of many witnesses was much worse than a private denial. The rabbis delineated that shunning and ignoring an individual or group of individuals was not as serious as a straightforward or more direct denial.25 Evidence of such distinctions are seen in Mark 14:66-72. In that passage, the reader can make such distinctions by seeing how Peter confesses first to the servant girls privately, and appears to not comprehend the question. The same can be observed in Peter's second denial to the maid, in which he gives an evasive answer. However, she questions him in front of the bystanders, which results in the dramatic conclusion mentioned above.

However, in Matt. 26:69-75, the final two of the three denials appear to be in public. Despite the fact of Jesus' very public trial, it appears as though it would have been possible for Peter to answer the servant girl's question very discreetly if he had so desired. Yet he chose to “deny it before all of them,” (Matt. 26:70). It would have been difficult for Peter to answer the second girl privately, since she drew the attention of the others around her, to the matter at hand. Peter's Galilean accent gave him away, and proved that he was lying to the bystanders.

According to Gerhardsson, “the Greek verb άρνευσθαυ implies that one is denying his attachment to someone he is supposed to belong with,”26. It literally means to deny knowing someone, and to absolve oneself of any attachment to another.27
Matthew and Mark both use the Greek verb, “deny” (άρνευσθαυ).28

Peter shows contrition and remorse in Matt. 26:75. The rooster crowing brings Peter to his senses, and he realizes what a horrible mistake he made in denying his Lord. Perhaps Peter was thinking of Jesus' words in Matt.10:32-33 about denying Christ before men, and then Christ denying such men before our Heavenly Father. Peter certainly had denied Jesus before men, and now seemed worried about the eternal implications of his actions.

The Apostle John (18:15-18, 25-27) also records Peter's denial. In John 18:16, “Peter stood outside at the door,” evokes Jesus words, in Revelation 3:20, “behold, I stand at the door and knock.....” After his denial of Jesus, Peter was now on the outside looking in. Christians need to make sure to remain inside God's will, instead of being excluded and shutout from it due to their own poor choices in denying Christ's purpose for them.

Some scholars treat Peter's denial in John 18:15-18 as three separate occasions, rather than just three contiguous statements made during one event.29 30
Mark's account of Peter's restoration is implied (Gerhardsson, 62), rather than directly stated.31 In Mark 16:17, Jesus commands the women to go tell the disciples, especially Peter, that Christ has risen. This implies Jesus' forgiveness of Peter.

Luke also does not make direct mention of Peter's restoration. However, Luke 22:34 notes that the risen Christ first appeared to Peter, and, as with Mark's account mentioned above, Peter's restoration is implied.

Lesson 4 – Peter's confession and restoration

Peter saw the risen Lord, and realized the sin he had committed in denying Christ. Jesus' grace, mercy and forgiveness is seen even in the midst of Peter's denial. Jesus reestablished Peter, by bestowing upon him, a shepherding role.

Matthew's and Mark's accounts of Peter's restoration of Jesus are nearly identical. The differences are minor and insignificant to the overall context, however, this paper's space constraints do not allow for the explanation of such things in greater detail. Despite the Apostle John being, “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” (John 20:7, 20), John shows no Petrine primacy, and also shows Peter as a model disciple.

Although the primary story and dialogue between Peter and Jesus occurs in John 21:15-19, Jesus sets up one of the key metaphors of the whole event in John 21:10 when he tells the disciples, “Bring some of the fish which you have just caught.” (NKJV). Peter obeyed the command, and brought out of the boat quite a large haul of fish. This was ironic in that Peter was literally catching fish, in similar fashion to Jesus' command to him, before his denial, and to the other disciples to become “fishers of men.” (Matthew 4:19; Mark 1:17).

The three questions that Jesus poses to Peter in John 21:15-17 seem rather innocuous on the surface. However, closer examination soon reveals deeper meaning and reasons behind the Lord's inquisition in John 21:15, of “Do you love me more than these?,” (πλέον τούτων)32 seems rather ambiguous. To what precisely was Jesus referring when he used the word, “these?” Was he referring to the other disciples, or to the nets and fish or to something else?

MacArthur33 says that the Greek verbs for “love” in this passage are synonyms, and that the Greek verb changes during the third question.34 35 While the Greek verb may be different, its change in this context is rather insignificant and does not distort the overall purpose and meaning of the text's general content. “Even if the verbs for love in verses 15-17 have different nuances, that difference is not central to the meaning of this dialogue.”36 Plus, John changes verbs quite frequently in the previous twenty chapters of his gospel, and there is no reason to think any differently here.

The changing of the Greek verb links together both the prior conversations in John 21:3, where Peter goes fishing, and the conversation to follow, where Jesus predicts Peter's death (John 21:18-19). The kind of love Jesus is asking for requires total commitment. However, Peter seemed reluctant to make such a commitment due to his previous disobedience, as mentioned previously, in lesson two. He loved Jesus, but wasn't wasn't ready to completely devote to Jesus, considering Peter's past transgression. Jesus pressed Peter on where his supreme commitment was. Peter had to be supremely committed to Christ in order to shepherd the flock.

Sheep and shepherds are used as a metaphor throughout the Bible. “The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep,” (John 10:11). Tending sheep shows love and respect for Jesus' commands to believers to love one another (John 13:34-35; 14:15,21; 15:12). Jesus' command to Peter to feed and tend his lambs is a command for Peter and the other apostles to follow Jesus' example as the Good Shepherd, which is the pastoral role that Jesus wants the apostles to take on, including the climax of dying for the sheep if necessary.

Culpepper points out the important connection between tending sheep and Jesus' repeated questioning. “The widespread use of the sheep, flock, shepherd image and its application to God's appointed leaders for Israel and the church confirm that Peter is being appointed as a shepherd in this scene. At the same time, other leaders were also regarded as shepherds.”37

The three-fold repetition of Jesus' question cannot be understated, especially in context of first-century Jewish culture. “Repeating a request three time, signaled earnestness (Ps 55:17; b. Yoma 87a, 'one who asks pardon of his neighbor need do so no more than three times').38 Jesus' thrice repetition of the question shows his restoration of Peter, following Peter's three-time denial of Jesus, and also emphasizes the important of a link between love for Jesus and tending the flock, as is seen in the Lord's commands in John 13:35 and 14:15.

Peter's example as an apostle, both prior to his denial of Christ, as well as post-restoration, should be an example to Christians everywhere of commitment and devotion to Jesus. It is important to note that Jesus' restoration of Peter was not merely elevating Peter to an office, but was actually restoring the love relationship between Peter and his Lord. Peter's restoration also serves as an encouragement to all believers that our shortcomings need not prohibit us from service to Christ.

In conclusion, we must see Peter’s importance in each of the four Gospels, and especially in the Synoptic Gospels. Despite Peter’s denial of Jesus after his calling as a key disciple, we see the grace of Christ in a restored Peter, on whom Jesus helped to build his church. The story and character of Peter, also known by his other two names, all of which mean “rock” in some form or another, can help us lead others to Christ, whom is the Rock of our salvation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bruce, F.F. The Message of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973.

Cousar, Charles B. 1977. "John 1:29-42." Interpretation 31, no. 4: 401-406. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 1, 2011).
Culpepper, R Alan. 2010. "Peter as Exemplary Disciple in John 21:15-19." Perspectives in Religious Studies 37, no. 2: 165-178. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 24, 2011).

Flower, H J. 1922. "The Calling of Peter and the Restoration of Peter." Anglican Theological Review 5, no. 3: 235-239. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 8, 2011).

Gerhardsson, Birger. "Confession and Denial Before Men : Observations on Matt 26:57-27:2." Journal for the Study of the New Testament no. 13 (October 1, 1981): 46-66. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Theology. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 1981

Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary On the Whole Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997.

Krentz, Edgar. 2010. "Peter: confessor, denier, proclaimer, validator of proclamation--a study in diversity." Currents in Theology and Mission 37, no. 4: 320-333. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost

MacArthur, John, ed. The MacArthur Study Bible: New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997.

Mantey, Julius R. 1978. "New Testament Facts About the Apostle Peter." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21, no. 3: 211-212. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost

Sproul, R. C. The Reformation Study Bible - Leather-Like Brown. 2nd Edition w/maps ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2010.

Leave Albert Pujols and Tony LaRussa alone

2010-08-28T23:42:00.001-07:00

I don't understand all the buzz coming from the left, regarding St. Louis Cardinals baseball star, Albert Pujols' and Cards manager, Tony LaRussa's attendance at broadcaster Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally on Saturday, August 28 at the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

The event was dubbed as nonpolitical, and LaRussa said that is what he was told when he was asked to introduce Pujols, a 3-time National League MVP, to receive an award from Beck, who hosts a daily talk-radio show, as well as a show on the Fox News channel.

Beck honored Pujols for the slugger's charitable contributions and community involvement off the field. Pujols and his wife, Diedre, operate the Pujols Family foundation, www.pujolsfamilyfoundation.org, which helps families of children with Down Syndrome. Pujols also organizes mission trips to help the poor in his native Dominican Republic during the offseason.

"His baseball exploits are not the reason that he is the Hope Award recipient," La Russa said. "What separates Albert is his total commitment to his life in and out of baseball, his commitment to his family ... his commitment to his faith and his tireless in- and out-of-season commitment to community."

La Russa added: "If you're in the St. Louis area, you will see Albert on days off, evenings off, throughout the very tough six-month season, tirelessly being involved with causes, especially their own Pujols Family Foundation."

At the rally, Pujols was very outspoken about his Christian faith, which is probably also what bothers some on the left, in addition to their view that Saturday's event was actually a thinly-disguised political rally.

"I want to thank God for giving me this platform as a baseball player," Pujols said to the crowd at the rally, estimated by some to be over 500,000. "As long as I'm alive, I'm going to continue to do the best I can to represent Jesus Christ," Pujols added.

Pujols is living out his faith, according to the Book of James, which says that "faith without works is dead." Christians do good works as evidence of their salvation in Christ, and Pujols seems to be publicly bearing much fruit for the Lord.

"God's given me some amazing talent, but I also think that it's my responsibility to give back to the community of St. Louis as well as to the Dominican Republic," Pujols said before Saturday's game at Nationals Park.

However, there are apparently some, especially some Cardinals fans in St. Louis, who are critical of LaRussa's and Pujols' appearance at the rally.

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, or the "St. Louis Post-Distress" as conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh likes to refer to the left-leaning publication, about 30 people gathered Saturday near the Stan Musial statue outside Busch Stadium to decry La Russa's and Pujols' participation in the Washington rally.

Click here to read the Post's article: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/article_c72132d0-f7a3-584f-b486-9bb6c0bbf4c7.html?mode=story

Chris Andoe, who attended the protest outside Busch Stadium told the Post: "I'm fed up that politics has to invade every aspect of our lives." Andoe, a Cardinals fan carried several signs, including one that said "I had a dream baseball wasn't political," a reference to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech.

Also, according to the newspaper's website, Ken McKoy, another disgruntled St. Louisian, said it was hypocritical for anyone from the Cardinals organization to attend a rally with themes opposing government intervention when tax dollars helped fund construction of the stadium, an act he called "corporate welfare."

What these critics don't seem to get is that Pujols was receiving an award for humanitarian efforts and his contributions off the field. Neither Pujols nor LaRussa made any political remarks during their respective speeches. Anyone with a lick of common sense can see that the theme of the rally was to honor people whom have done extraordinary things, and Pujols is no exception. Never mind the fact that Pujols is arguably the best player in baseball, he also is truly authentic in this day and age of plastic, manufactured celebrities. What makes Pujols an MVP - Most Valuable Person - is that he uses the resources that God has blessed him with to help those less fortunate.

How dare people be critical of someone who does so much good. Are they so blinded by their own selfishness or left-wing ideologies that they don't see the good this man has done? Some on the left might view Beck's rally as a guise for a political event, and if it is, so what? The portion of the event during which Pujols was honored was apolitical and to criticize him, La Russa, and the Cardinals for the appearance that the event only detracts from the work that Pujols has done off the field.

I challenge parents of kids with Down Syndrome to speak out against Pujols' critics of his rally attendance. Perhaps if enough parents speak out about the difficulties of raising kids with Down Syndrome, then hopefully those critics' heart and minds can be changed, and they can see that what Pujols has done with his foundation cuts across political lines.

Trouble in Tar Heel Land

2010-01-22T12:09:00.000-08:00

As a free-lance sportswriter, and longtime UNC basketball fan, I have been wanting to write my opinion and assessment of what I think is currently wrong with the Tar Heels, as they are mired in the midst of having lost four out of five games. This is also the first time in head coach Roy Williams’ seven-year tenure that Carolina has lost three straight contests.

UNC’s obvious problems continued to manifest themselves during Wake Forest’s 82-69 thumping of the Heels last Wednesday night in the Smith Center. Here are the major problems that I see:

UNC obviously has problems at the point guard spot. Sophomore Larry Drew II and Freshman Dexter Strickland just aren’t getting it done. Turnovers have plagued the young Heels, and their passes seem to be just a split-second off. That makes it difficult run their primary and secondary fast breaks, like they were so used to doing in the past with talented point guards such as Ty Lawson and Raymond Felton. Having observed the Heels this season, both in person and on television, I do think that Strickland shows more signs of talent that does Drew II, and I think Williams should give more minutes to Strickland at the point. If Drew continues his poor play, I think Strickland will eventually take over the starting spot at the point, despite the fact that he’s a rookie.

Lack of consistent three-point shooting. Despite Will Graves’ career-high 24 points against Georgia Tech last Saturday, including five-of-eight from beyond the arc, UNC has lacked consistency from “downtown” this season. Last year they had the luxury of strong perimeter shooters such as Lawson, Wayne Ellington and Danny Green who could all knock down a 3 in the clutch, or at least spread the opponents’ defense, by causing them to have to defend the perimeter, and thus open up the low post for Tyler Hansbrough, Deon Thompson, Ed Davis, and others. However, this year’s Tar Heel squad has yet to develop a consistent marksman from the outside. Graves appears to be on the brink of becoming that badly-needed shooting threat, and freshman guard Leslie McDonald has also shown flashed of brilliance from the perimeter, however, he must continue to improve his jumper, and get more playing time.

Don’t blame it on the coaching. Roy Williams said during his post-game press-conference following the loss to Wake Forest: “People here expect me to do a good job and work really hard, and I’m going to make sure they get it. The players have to come along. There’s only so much I can do, yes. But they have to come along. I’m going to ask them If they want to keep playing, and if they don’t want to, we’ll figure out something for them to do.”

Williams has received criticism in the past for not calling timeouts during a game when his team I struggling, such as during a recent loss at Clemson. In response, Williams has said that they players should know what to do, and that he basically wants them to learn through adversity. That is an admirable philosophy that could work with a veteran team like UNC had last year, but with this group of mostly freshman and sophomores who lack confidence, then I think that a hall-of-fame coach like Williams needs to lend his expertise when necessary.

All of that being said, Coach Williams is NOT the one who has been fumbling the ball out of bounds, nor dribbling into a double-team, nor throwing errant passes. The players have to execute, and they are aware of it, having myself hear post-game interviews with Graves and freshman forward David Wear after Wednesday’s loss.

Injuries are another obvious factor. Sophomore reserve center / forward Tyler Zeller has missed the last two games, and is currently out 4-6 weeks with a stress fracture in his foot. Starting forward Ed Davis sat out Wednesday’s loss with an ankle injury, and fifth-year senior guard / forward Marcus Ginyard has missed a couple of games this year with an injury to the same foot that caused him to redshirt all of last season.

Lack of on-court leadership. Many Tar Heel fans were hoping that Ginyard would step up and be a vocal on-court leader on this young team. Perhaps Ginyard has failed fill that role, because he is dealing with his own nagging injuries, and has yet found his game. Thompson, a senior, has at times this year tried to carry the team on his back, but he has sometimes been inconsistent, and his seemingly quiet personality doesn’t seem to make him as vocal of a leader as the more outgoing, outspoken Ginyard.

In the final analysis, if UNC’s talented class of freshman don’t gain confidence and play up to their potential, it will be a long season in Chapel Hill. I think some UNC fans have unfairly heaped unrealistic expectations on certain players on this year’s team. Larry Drew II is NOT Ty Lawson, and Drew’s father Larry, a former NBA player told his son that the younger man needs to be his own player. That said, the Carolina faithful should NOT expect Drew, nor even Strickland to be Lawson. Lawson is an extremely talented, once-in-a-decade player. If Drew can discover himself and find his game, and feed the ball to Thompson and Davis in the post, then the Heels will be okay. The talented Wear brothers, David and Travis, along with freshman forward John Henson, need to also play up to their potential. These freshman were talented high school All-Americas, and they need to start playing like it. They are NOT a bunch of one-or two-star mid-major recruits. The whole team needs to quit playing scared.

Health Care and the role of government

2009-09-17T19:13:00.000-07:00

Health Care and the role of government

By Caroll Huffman
Guest writer for Jason's Jibes

First, I want to explain what government is versus the civil society. I think it is important to realize that a government is simply people that are in charge. They are elected or they get there via a coup or nepotism or inheritance, etc., but the government is made up of people. People whose opinions are supposed to represent ours, not override ours. When our society was set up, it was set up with limited government in mind. The powers of the federal government were limited and enumerated. The powers of the state were not limited and not enumerated. This should create strong states and weak federal government.

After the Civil war, and then even more after FDR, this paradigm changed from what the Founders had imagined to a strong Federal government and weak states. People aren't taught today that it was the states that created the Federal government and not the other way around. That is by design. If people realize this (which they actually are realizing more and more in spite of public education) they may want to have it back the way it used to be. So, the government simply doesn't teach it. That is why you see the phasing out of our true history and of patriotism that used to be taught in schools and even see today people that don't want to say the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge is a great thing because it is yet another thing that keeps the country (any country) from fracturing. There are certain things that keep countries from fracturing. Some of them are a unified language, strong border enforcement, teaching of allegiance to country, things like the Pledge, strong families, property rights, the idea of "mine" and "yours", etc. Certain people are against all of these. They are typically called Communists or Socialists depending on the flavor, but it can also be called, as a sum of these, to be a Statist. Someone who wants a strong Federal government, central planning, central bank, etc. can be called a statist.

So, we, in this country have the concept of "mine" and "yours", i.e., property rights. I can keep my money, my land, my comic books, my children, my dog, etc. As some might rightly state, God really owns all the resources so there really is no "mine" and "yours" from a God perspective. The problem is, we don't have a Theocracy here. Nowhere on Earth does a Theocracy exist and it won't until Christ physically reigns on Earth. So, while we are waiting for Him, the civil society, in order to remain civil, agrees on the laws that will govern that society.

What we have decided in this country is that we will have limited federal government (even though Lincoln obliterated that at the point of a gun in destroying states rights), and we will have free men who can own things. We have also agreed that these men can embrace their inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to put it another way. So, I can go off and do my own thing and either create a good life for myself or I can wreck it. It's my decision. As the Bible says, "if you don't work, you don't eat" [sic]. So, I am free to not eat. I am also free to make a fortune and eat like a glutton and go to an early grave because of cholesterol, etc. So, that is basically the idea of freedom. Which we have to a lesser degree with each passing day but the idea of our limited government republic was for men to be free of tyranny.

Now, we come to the issue of socialized medicine. The first issue to address is that no one has a right to health care and health care is not in the enumerated powers, thereby relegating it to the states. As much as some people may think that is inhumane, etc., no one has a right to health care. Health care is a privilege. Think about it. When did we get a right to have health care? Was it when we started Medicare? Was it when we decided that the 85% or so of Americans that are perfectly happy with their health care should be required to pay for the other 15% who are not?

If health care is a right, then who is required to satisfy that right? Who pays for the ones who don't have it? If people are forced to satisfy that right for others, then that actually is a form of slavery. We are imposing on one group of people to work for another group who will not (or can not) acquire it on their own. In our civil society, we have the concept of freedom and people should not be forced to work for nothing. That is what we are doing with nationalized health care. We are making the productive people pay for the people who either don't want to pay for heath care or can't. We have things set up for those who can't pay for it. There are charities, churches, emergency rooms, Medicare, etc., so that they can get health care. Those people, around 8-10 million, can be helped or subsidized by what is set up to help them today. Now, not to say that this is the best possible system as no one knows anything better, but it is what we have today.

The proposal by Obama and his minions, is to take over health insurance, and thereby healthcare, for the entire 300 million of us, based on the lack of health insurance for 8-10 million. I know, he says, 47 million, but he's lying. At least 20 million of those are illegal aliens, people between jobs, etc., but I'm not going to get into the breakdown here.

So, in an effort to take over all of health care and control one-sixth of our economy, the Statists in power are trying to scare people with as big a number as possible. People who are supporters of this health care system think that things will stay exactly as they are today, we'll just be more humane because we insure the so-called 47 million uninsured. The problem is that it won't. Under socialized medicine, costs will continue to sky rocket, doctors will quit (which many have already pledged to do), lines will increase and waits for both routine and catastropic care will be rationed. In other words, the effect of socializing medicine will change the whole system for the worse, for everyone except for the elites in Congress and the President along with government workers. The rest of us will be in big trouble. These things have all been shown to be true in France , Canada , England , etc., as they all are going bankrupt. Think about it. When you tell someone they don't have to work to attain things, will they in fact work and contribute to the system? No they wont. Able-bodied people will stop working to pay for their medical care and the cost of it will be distributed in an ever-increasing way to the rest of us who are willing to work, as more and more of them decide it's better not to work.

So, basically what we have agreed to do in the civil society, benefits everyone more than socalism does. Socialism has never worked anywhere it has been tried in any form. Sure, it can work for a while like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, but now even those are going bankrupt. Massachusetts is now a microcosm of Obamacare and it is in fact 18 times more expensive than the original projections and is going bankrupt. Now, these are simply some reasons why socializing anything is a bad idea. But when you combine the fact that socialism has never worked in 6000 years of human history, with the fact that in our civil society that we have agreed that people should be free to purchase health care or not and destroy his life or not, then we are pushed even more towards tyranny. Our founders fought against tyranny and called the king a tyrant, while they fought for freedom to release themselves from said tyranny. Now, we have crept back to the tyranny that they feared would come back, especially if you switch to a pure democracy from a Republic.

So, after that the question is: Should we stay with the freedom we have, that has created the greatest/richest country in the world, having very few people in poverty compared with other countries, to a system that will eventually collapse on itself as socialism always does and reduce the benefits we have achieved for everyone?

I believe we serve God more fully when we allow freedom that is God-given to flourish and we help our neighbor in our charities and our churches and few government programs as opposed to creating one giant government that distributes resources as they see fit. The free civil society forces resources to be allocated in the best way by the individual. This cannot be done by government. Suppose I am "allocated" services by the government by them simply doling these resources as they see fit. Do you think they would be able to allocate resources for me specifically to the best that those resources could be allocated? No, I should be in charge of gaining wealth for myself and buying resources as needed. For instance, my wife and I didn't need maternity care until this year, when she became pregnant. So, why would I pay my resources to have maternity care for her before this year? Why would I want to pay for abortion services when I am against abortion? Under a socialized medicine program, we will pay for many services we don't want or need. That's one reason why government-mandated health care will be filled with incredible waste, not to mention the eventual fraud that will happen as everyone starts gaming the system and the ACORNs and Planned Parenthoods of the world become richer and richer off of government-mandated premiums in the from of taxation.

That's the bottom line. Why enter into a government takeover of a system that will be doomed from the start and will have skyrocketing costs and rationed care. Why not just do real reform and fix our problems the way it should be done: with the free market and competition (which a national plan will eliminate). Remember, our founders and our ancestors created this nation for us to be free from tyranny and for us to have the idea of "mine" and "yours." As government continues to become bigger and bigger, the idea of "mine" and "yours" disappears into "ours." When it's "ours", there is no "mine" and "yours" and then government, on a whim, can take everything you own and give it to someone else, via taxes, taking back property, etc....just like China. Remember, government runs social security. When social security was started, people were assured they would be given a retirement account with their name on it that they would get back later. Of course, that never happened and the government has taken the funds allocated for social security and redistributed them to other programs. This would also happen with health care. If we ever had a surplus, the extra money would be taken to give to some other entitlement. Where does it end? If government continues, it will never end until they control every dollar and every thing in this country.

Now I understand why Peppers wants out of Carolina

2009-09-15T20:39:00.000-07:00

After watching, in person, the Philadelphia Eagles’ dismantle the Carolina Panthers this past Sunday, I now understand why Panthers’ All-Pro defensive end, Julius Peppers did NOT want to come back to Carolina this season.

This past off-season, Peppers voiced his unhappiness and displeasure with his current status on the Panthers. The thought is that he’s unhappy with the Panthers 4-3 defensive scheme, and wants to play in a 3-4 defense, where he feels like he can flourish even more than his five Pro-Bowl selections.

At first, I was upset with Peppers, the former UNC Tar Heel, for wanting to leave his home state, and thinking that it was about money. I was happy when salary cap rules forced the team to bring Peppers back for at least one more year.

Peppers’ wanting to leave could be about money, but I think Peppers saw how awful this years’ Panthers were going to be, and “Pep” now wants to go play someplace where he can win a Super Bowl ring. I can’t say that I blame him. I can’t believe I actually paid to watch that sad scene unfolding at the corner of Mint and Morehead Streets in Charlotte on Sunday. Of course, my friend, Tim, who was with me, loved it, because he is an Eagles’ fan, and I at least had the solace of knowing that the Eagles’ defense earned me lots of fantasy points this week!! I still had fun nonetheless, and the weather was fantastic. I just wish that our state’s pro football team didn’t have to embarrass themselves on TV like that!

After watching Jake Delhomme throw four interceptions, and record a fumble, which led to an Eagles’ touchdown, I can now understand Peppers’ frustration. The 2009 Panthers appear to be mediocre at best, and really horrible at worst, especially with an overpaid and struggling quarterback and an offensive line that isn’t playing up to last years’ standards.

Now backup quarterback Matt Moore, who some fans hoped would supplant the struggling Delhomme, is gone for the season with an injury. Veteran backup Jay Feeley takes Mooe’s roster spot. Feely is hardly the answer to the team’s problems at signal-caller. The team missed a chance to get veteran free-agent starter Jeff Garcia, when he signed with the Eagles on Monday, as insurance for the injured Donovan McNabb, and until Michael Vick’s suspension ends in week three.

I want to know why the Panthers gave Delhomme a big pay raise, and a huge contract extension this past off-season, after his five-interception performance in last year’s embarrassing playoff loss to the eventual NFC Champion Arizona Cardinals. After Sunday’s abysmal performance, it seems to be more of the same.

I also want to know why head coach John Fox did’t pull Delhomme out of Sunday’s monstrosity much sooner. Being in the stadium, I had the unique perspective of hearing Delhomme get booed, and of fans calling for him to be benched, and for somebody, anybody – including the two high school quarterbacks who participated in a halftime passing contest – to don a Panthers jersey and take some snaps. Anything to get Jake “Bojangles” Delhomme out of the game. Gottawannaneedgettahaveagoodquarterback!!

Something to Ponder Following Obama's speech

2009-09-09T21:02:00.000-07:00

Following President Obama’s monumental speech on healthcare tonight, I want to share one of my all-time favorite quotes. It is from French statesman, historian and social philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville. In 1835, de Tocqueville published a work called “Democracy in America,” in which he chronicled his tour of America with Gustave de Beaumont in 1831.

We have created an entitlement mentality in America, and many Americans have come to rely on the government to provide them with certain things, such as healthcare. The Founding Fathers never intended this, nor is this the God-ordained role of government.

I blogged about this back on the Fourth of July, but I want to share this quote again, because I think it serves as a reminder of America’s spiritual heritage, and what has made America such a special place. The more I view how our country has turned away from the One True God, and thus now seems to worship the god of government, materialism and other idols, the more I am reminded of what a foreign observer had to say about our country nearly a century and three-quarters ago:

“I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors…; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” (Emphasis mine).

May God help our nation. “If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land,” (2 Chronicles 7:14, ESV).

Why I Still Love America

2009-07-04T06:51:00.000-07:00

On this Fourth of July, as we celebrate Independence Day in the United States of America, I want to write an essay describing why I love the nation in which I have Providentially been privileged to be born and raised.

Despite tough economic times and recent policies and legislation by our president and Congress that seem to be leading our country down a dangerous road, and despite the fact that it seems our freedoms are eroding away most everyday, I still think America is the best nation on the planet, at least for now.

One of those reasons is that America was founded on Biblical principles, and a Judeo-Christian ethic. Despite what the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other left-wing groups might tell you, there is no denying America’s spiritual heritage, and the role that faith has played in the founding of our country. In fact, the Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion that we enjoy in America results from the fact that the colonists wanted to escape religious persecution under the British king.

Some want to call America a “Christian nation,” and while I don’t think any nation can ever boast of that title per se, nor does God specially anoint any nation, except perhaps Israel (okay all of you non-dispensationalist friends, that is another discussion for a different time J), there is no doubt that God has had His hand of blessing and privilege on the United States throughout the country’s history.

As I write on this Independence Day, I want to share with you one of my favorite quotes. It comes not from George Washington, nor Benjamin Franklin, nor any of our founding fathers. Rather, it comes from French (that’s right, French!), philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville, who after visiting the U.S. in 1831, wrote the following in his two-part work, Democracy in America:

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors…; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. (Emphasis mine). America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

It is because of America’s spiritual heritage that she is still one of the largest Christian missionary-sending nations on earth. Even though our nation has turned away from God, and is heading down the same road as post-Christian Europe, America still has a good number of Christian missionaries serving overseas.

Also, it seems that because of America’s history of sending so many missionaries in the past, that God is repaying America for her previous faithfulness, and is now blessing us with some immigrants who are Christians, and many of those folks are actually serving as missionaries to an ever-increasingly secular North America. For instance, the Korean church is perhaps the largest and fastest growing on the planet, and many Korean immigrants who move to the U.S. will witness for Christ to their neighbors and coworkers. The same can sometimes be said for many African evangelicals who move here, and vehemently share the Gospel with those to whom they come into contact.

There are also many other ethnic groups and nationalities who come to America, seeking a better life, and the “American dream,” and those who are Christians have often not only come out of abject poverty, but also have come out of much persecution in their homelands. It is often because of that persecution that sometimes American immigrants’ faith seems more fervent and zealous than the seemingly “cultural Christianity,” that we especially find in the South’s “Bible belt,” where some people think that attending church on Sunday morning, Sunday night and Wednesday night makes them a Christian. Only committing one’s life to Jesus Christ, and believing that we are saved from sin by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, (the “solas” for my Reformed friends J), makes a person a true Christian and follower of Christ, (John 10:9-10). However, that is a different essay for a different time.

Speaking of immigrants, another reason that I love America is that, because of our freedoms here, many people who have been persecuted in other countries enjoy protection, safety and liberty in the U.S. I have been honored and privileged to have the opportunity to personally meet many folks who have moved to America from other countries, such as Iraq, China, Burma, and other places where oppressive government regimes or other groups or political and social climates have threatened the safety and lives of Christians and others who have opposing viewpoints. America provides a safe haven where we can share the truth of Christ with people of other religions, without fear of reprisal. Also, those who convert to Christianity inside America’s borders have relatively little to fear about practicing their newfound faith here, compared with their sometimes oppressive and hostile homelands.

Thank God we live in a country where everyone can enjoy such freedoms and liberty. Despite constant attacks from the ACLU and others, we still enjoy quite a bit more of a measure of freedom than the rest of the world. The persecution that Christians in America face pales in comparison to that in other countries.

America is often an example to the rest of the world, and there is no denying her worldwide influence as a modern superpower. Even during these tough present economic times, America is still better off financially than 85 percent of the rest of the planet. If you are an American who owns an automobile and a home, you are still in the top 10 to 15 percent of the most affluent people in the world! So, as the old hymn says, “count your blessings, name them one by one.” Now please do NOT misunderstand me, as previous blog posts will attest, I do NOT ascribe to the prosperity theology that is currently spreading through the church like a cancer, for Jesus said, “you cannot serve God and mammon (money),” (Matthew 6:24), but what I am saying is that God can and does provide people with material blessings, and calls us to be good stewards of what He has given us, and He can take those material things away at any time. I feel like over the last several decades, that Americans have NOT been good stewards of God’s money and resources which He has entrusted to us, and because of that, our nation is facing these tough times, and will face future judgment.

I also love America’s contributions to the world. This is the nation in which birthed the telephone, automobile, airplane, and many other great inventions.

Let us also not forget the sacrifices of our military personnel throughout the last two-plus centuries. American troops have been liberators, rather than occupiers.

So, as you enjoy cookouts today, fireworks tonight, and spending time with family and friends, be sure to be thankful to Almighty God for the hand of blessing He has bestowed on America. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people,” Proverbs 14:34.

Why I love America

2009-03-03T19:55:00.001-08:00

I am going to begin a short series of essays, which I will post from time-to-time, on why I love the United States of America. In them, I will tell about the good things I love about this great country of ours.

I hope you will find these brief snippets to be inspiring and encouraging, as our nation faces tough economic times, and seems to be giving into a radical left-wing agenda led by people who want to change America from they way we’ve always known it.

Of course, as a Christian, I am called to love God first, and my citizenship is indeed in heaven. However, by God’s sovereignty, He had me to be born, raised, and presently living in the U.S.A. while I am here on earth. I don’t think there is anything unbiblical about a Christian loving their country, as long as we do NOT put our country above God.

The Apostle Paul used his Roman citizenship to appeal to the Roman government for his release from prison.

I love America, because it is a country where people can worship freely, without fear of severe persecution (the ACLU and similar groups notwithstanding). I have had the privilege of meeting many refugees from other countries, some of whom have been persecuted for their Christian faith. To them, America is a haven of rest from the wearying trials of having to constantly fear for their lives, because they choose to follow Christ.

I also love America, because she has historically been the largest missionary-sending nation on the planet. Obviously, much of this has to do with our nation’s rich Christian heritage, and the abundance of material wealth that God has blessed us with. However, as our country turns away from God, it seems as though God, by His grace, and in His faithfulness, is now sending missionaries to the U.S., from places such as South Korea and Africa, where Christianity is growing exponentially.

I love America, because 7,000 U.S. Marines died at Iwo Jima, so that our country could eventually win a war for freedom. I love America because of all the other brave veterans who have died serving their country so that we might enjoy “liberty, and justice for all.”

These are just a few reasons, and I’ll post many more in the coming weeks and months ahead.

Why I love America

2009-03-03T19:55:00.000-08:00

The Apostle Paul used his Roman citizenship to appeal to the Roman government for his release from prison.

I love America, because it is a country where people can worship freely, without fear of severe persecution (the ACLU and similar groups notwithstanding). I have had the privilege of meeting many refugees from other countries, some of whom have been persecuted for their Christian faith. To them, America is a haven of rest from the wearing trials of having to constantly fear for their lives, because they choose to follow Christ.

These are just a few reasons, and I’ll post many more in the coming weeks and months ahead.

OBAMANATION HAS BEGUN!

2009-01-20T20:12:00.000-08:00

Earlier today, like most Americans, I watched the swearing-in of our 44th President, and I want to ask everyone to pray for our new President and our nation as his term begins. I completely disagree with ALL of Obama's policies and his political ideology, and have been one of his biggest critics. However, the Bible calls us to pray for our leaders, and since that's what my Lord commands, that's what I'll do.

I must say, too, that as an American, I was proud, and thankful to witness a piece of history, in the inauguration of the nation’s first black president. The civil rights movement has come a long way in just 40 to 50 years. I also pray that the Obamas as a family will be role models for the African-American community, where 70 percent of African-American babies are born out of wedlock. That’s NOT a racist statement, folks, it is just a statistical fact, and one that needs to be seriously examined and dealt with. Influential blacks such as Bill Cosby, and journalist Juan Williams have tried to point that out, and have been ostracized and called “Uncle Toms” by their own people. How sad.

I am also glad and thankful that I live in a country where a peaceful transition of power occurs. So many countries wake up every morning with a new dictator, it seems, who takes control by force, that it is refreshing that America can be an example to the world that governmental power can change hands peacefully.

All of that being said, I will continue to vehemently oppose Obama and the left over key issues such as abortion, homosexuality, economic policies, welfare, and many other things, until the president shows a change of heart on such issues (with God, all things are possible)!. But thank God that we live in a country, specifically in a constitutional republic, in which we have the freedom to speak out against our government, without fear of reprisal (at least for now, anyway)!

Let's hope and pray that Obama and the left do NOT take away our First Amendment rights, which they could be one step closer to doing, if the Fariness Doctrine passes. The UnFairness Doctrine, as I call it, is a piece of legislation that would require broadcasters to give equal time for sharing opposing views and opinions. So, in other words, you might be listening to your favorite ministry program on a Christian radio station, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would require that station to carry an opposing viewpoint, such as an atheist’s program, Muslim program, or anything else that the GOVERNMENT deems as opposing Christianity. The same would hold true for radio shows of such conservative pundits as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others. The Fairness Doctrine is government-mandated speech, plain and simple, and is a blatant First Amendment violation. Obama supports the Fairness Doctrine, and would sign it into law, if it passes on Capitol Hill.

Obama has already said he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would undo about 20 years of anti-abortion legislation. That would obviously do serious damage to the pro-life movement. It’s not surprising, though. Obama is, after all, the most-pro-abortion U.S. president EVER, and his record in the Illinois state senate and in the U.S. Senate, proves it. In fact, I heard a Hollywood actress, who is a big Obama supporter, say on TV earlier today that it is her hope that Obama increases women’s rights around the world, so that women can have more abortion choices! That statement literally made me sick to my stomach!! (Hollywood drinks the Kool-Aid, and sometimes they pour it, too)! Unfortunately, little miss tinseltown will probably get her wish, as her “hero” is likely to sign pro-abortion bills, such as one that would repeal the ban on partial-birth abortion, which President Bush signed into law. IT’S A CHILD, NOT A CHOICE, as the bumper sticker so eloquently reads!!

Considering his strong pro-abortion stance, I find it ironic that Obama was inaugurated during this Sanctity of Human Life Week. Coincidentally, January 22 marks the 36th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which legalized abortion in the U.S.

To quote a friend of mine, “Let’s pray for (Obama’s) salvation. Pray that he reverses the policies he is about to enact. Pray that he is not able to damage this country as Jimmy Carter, Herbert Hoover and FDR did. Don’t pray that he succeeds, pray that he is saved.”

Another friend of mine added: “Keep in mind we still have 41 fine Republicans in the
111th Congress which provides our country with a much-needed non-filibuster-proof Senate. There will be no blank check for Mr. Obama and his liberal cabinet. AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE, 1,387 days to go until 11-06-12.”

Not necessarily your best life now

2009-01-07T21:23:00.000-08:00

I want to pass on to my readers, a link to a great article from the Christian Research Institute (CRI) regarding some of the dangerous theology that Joel Osteen teaches. The article is actually a book review, written by CRI's Bob Hunter, and specifically mentions doctrines Osteen writes about in his first book, the New York Times best-seller, Your Best Life Now.

Many people have been deceived and led astray by Osteen's false teachings, and this article simply points out some of the flaws and errors in his doctrine. I pass this on to my readers out of love for people, that they "may know the truth, and the truth shall set them free," (John 8:32).

Here is the link to the article. Just copy and paste it into your browser, if you're unable to click on the link: http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2625877/k.B45B/JAO170.htm

Mr. Obama, Gimme a Handout!

2008-11-12T20:26:00.000-08:00

Mr. Obama, Gimme a Handout!

This week, with the U.S.’s “Big Three” automakers (Ford, General Motors and Chrysler) lining up to receive financial assistance from the Federal Government, it seems as though everyone now wants a handout from Uncle Sam, and it will undoubtedly grow worse during the upcoming Obama administration.

It began with the mortgage crisis, and then the credit crisis. Banks and other lenders hoodwinked the Feds into giving them a $700.00 billion bailout. That opened the door for everybody and his brother to want a piece of the proverbial pie.

What company or industry will be next? Will Circuit City, perhaps, which has filed for bankruptcy, and is closing stores, ask for a “quick fix,” to it’s own financial problems, and beg the government for cash to stay afloat?

If every financially strapped company keeps running to the Feds to ask for a bailout, they are going to create a very serious economic situation that our great-grandkids will still be paying for generations later.

Part of what got America into this whole financial mess is the fact that in the United States we’ve established a certain standard of living that we are unwilling to go below. Americans have created this monster. In other words, workers keep demanding more money and benefits from their employers, and it ends up costing those employers more money. No wonder jobs are going overseas! Companies find it cheaper to operate in countries where the costs of living, and subsequently the costs of doing business (overhead, etc.), are substantially lower than in the U.S. After all, the goal of business, especially in capitalism, is to make a profit, while keeping costs as low as possible.

For example, there is no reason that an autoworker in Detroit needs to get paid $70.00 an hour to turn a bolt!! Labor unions have driven up corporations’ business and labor costs, and this morning (Nov. 12, 2008), nationally-syndicated radio talk show host, Neal Boortz commented on a Detroit News story that General Motors spends nearly $17 million per year on Viagra for its employees, as part of a prescription plan!! (For more info from a G.M. web site, click here: http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f19/gm-spending-17-million-year-viagra-30262/).

That is an example of the kind of corporate waste that goes on in our society, but unfortunately, some business executives and managers don’t seem to have the common sense to realize that. The god of materialism will be partly to blame for America’s downfall.

Our tax dollars will end up bailing out these automakers, because mostly the unions influence them, and the Democrats will cater to the auto companies’ wishes, because the Dems receive many easy votes from union members.

Folks, let's take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for our own actions!

Christ alone is our Messiah!

2008-11-05T20:52:00.000-08:00

On election night, as I was watching the election returns come in on television, for offices from President on down to local races, I found myself thankful that no politician is our savior, but only the risen Christ! No matter a vote’s outcome, God is still in control! Thank God that it is Christ alone who saves us from our sins! Christ is our Messiah, not some flashy politician, no matter what his or her intentions may be, and no matter how charismatic or flamboyant they appear.

Don’t misunderstand me; I believe that it is important, perhaps now more than ever, for Christians to be actively involved in the political process, especially in a republic like the one in which we live. The Apostle Paul used his Roman citizenship to appeal to the Roman government, when he was falsely imprisoned.

Romans 13 tells us that we are subject the governing authorities, whom God has put in place. Only when those governing authorities ask us to do something that goes against God’s Word, or to NOT do something that is clearly listed in God’s word, are we to respectfully disobey them, and instead follow God. We are called to pray for our national, state and local leaders, as they seek to carry out the civil magistrate’s Biblical mandate to restrain evil (Romans 13:4-5).

The Apostle Peter also weighs in on government and politics: Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men (1 Peter 2:13-15, NASB).

When Christ was on earth, the Jews wanted Him to be their political Messiah whom they hoped would overthrow the Romans. Instead, Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” (John 18:36, NKJV), and shocked them by proclaiming to be their long-awaited spiritual Messiah, as well as the Savior of the Gentiles!

I folks to know also that no politician, or even celebrity or sports figure are their “messiah,” or savior, but only Christ alone. Today’s media-driven culture, which often targets youth, can instantly elevate someone to celebrity status, but can also tear people down, such as what tabloids often do. However, people need to hear the message that Jesus loves them, and that He will never leave them nor forsake them.

The tumultuous political campaigns and the shifting winds of our culture, remind me of where our strength and stability comes from, as told in the lyrics to one of my favorite Christian songs, called, “In Christ Alone”:

In Christ alone

My hope is found

He is my light, my strength, my song

This cornerstone, this solid ground

Firm through the fiercest drought and storm

We don’t need Obama to be our “messiah.” We already have Jesus as the Risen Messiah!

2008-11-04T21:25:00.000-08:00

Truly An Historic Moment

Despite my strong disagreements with Barack Hussein Obama’s views and policies, I must say that I am proud to witness truly an historic moment in American history: the election of the nation’s first black president.

Even conservative Republican pundit Karl Rove said Tuesday night on Fox News that it shows how America stands out in the world, and how far we’ve come since the 1960’s that we could elect an African-American president. The sight of the Rev. Jesse Jackson shedding tears while awaiting Obama’s victory speech in Chicago’s Grant Park shows how truly impassioned some African-Americans are about having one of their own ascend to the highest office in the land, and become the leader of the free world. (Even though several months ago, Jackson made a statement on Fox News, to the effect that he wanted to cut off Obama’s gonads)!!

Just over a year ago, Barack Obama was not well known outside his now home state of Illinois. Everyone was pushing Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, and Obama and other Dems were an afterthought. Somehow, probably through the media playing on a still generally ignorant and uninformed American electorate, and the shallowness of our culture, Obama rapidly ascended through the primaries, and, of course, ultimately gained his party’s nomination.

Lost in all the hype and excitement over Obama was also another significant historical fact: for only the second time in U.S. history, a woman was nominated to be a major party’s vice-presidential candidate. Of course, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the GOP’s nominee as John McCain’s running mate, was the first female to be chosen as such, since the Democrats selected Geraldine Ferraro to run with Walter Mondale in 1984. I think we’ll see the popular Palin around for a long time, especially if she continues to be a maverick reformer, take down the “ol’ boy network" (even in her own party), and gain national notoriety.

Even though I do respect the office of the President of the United States, and will pray for President-Elect Obama, as the Bible commands us to do for all of our leaders (see Romans 13), I will still strongly disagree with him on the issues, and will vigorously fight for what I believe is right and noble: the defense of the unborn, the sanctity of marriage, lower taxes, gun owners’ rights, and strong national defense, just to name a few.

That is what makes America great is the freedom to use the democratic process to work for change. The American voters used the democratic process to effect change during this election, but the question remains to be seen, as to what kind of change will come forth during Obama's presidency, as well as the democratically-controlled Congress. Hopefully, change for the better, but considering how Obama moved more to the center to get elected, he’ll probably move back left when he takes office, thus causing negative change of the kind that could be unprecedented in American history. Hopefully, Americans can use the vote again in four years (Lord willing our country as we know it is still here then), to affect change in the “right” (pun intended) direction. I like the sound of Huckabee-Palin in 2012 myself!! Or perhaps a Fred Thompson-Mitt Romney ticketwould do, as would any number of conservatives such as Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo or Michael Steele.

Obama's Twisted Theology

2008-11-02T06:00:00.000-08:00

Below is an article from Hank Hannegraff's Christian Research Jounal, in which he lists some of the twisted and egregious theological beliefs of U.S. Presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Hussein Obama.

Christian Research Journal

Volume 31 / Number 05 / 2008

FROM THE PRESIDENT

Does Barack Obama Mischaracterize the Message of the Bible?

Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is okay and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith - Barack Obama, "Call to Renewal' Keynote Address," delivered at "Building a Covenant For a New America" conference in Washington, D.C., June 28, 2006, text online at http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/, retrieved July 25, 2008.

From the time that Barack Obama burst upon our collective consciousness, he has demonstrated more than a passing interest in biblical theology. On the one hand, I have been taken by his eloquence and willingness to speak forthrightly about his personal religious convictions. As he has well said, "the majority of great reformers in American history were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity." (same reference as above) On the other hand, I am troubled by his twisting of the biblical text. It is one thing to openly take issue with Scripture, it is quite another to overtly mischaracterize its message. In his "Call to Renewal" keynote address to religious leaders, Barack Obama made at least three such mischaracterizations.

To begin with, he said that Leviticus "suggests slavery is okay." In reality, nothing could be farther from the truth. Far from extolling the virtues of slavery, the Bible denounces slavery as sin. The New Testament goes so far as to put slave traders in the same category as murderers, adulterers, perverts, and liars (1 Tim. 1:10).

Furthermore, slavery within the Levitical context was sanctioned due to economic realities rather than to racial or sexual prejudices. Because bankruptcy laws did not exist, people would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery. A craftsman could thus use his skills to discharge a debt. Even a convicted thief could make restitution by serving as a slave (Exod. 22:3).

Finally, while the Bible as a whole recognizes the reality of slavery, it never promotes the practice of slavery. In fact, it was the application of biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery, both in ancient Israel and in the United States of America. Israel's liberation from slavery in Egypt became the model for the liberation of slaves in general. In America, many are beginning to wake up to the liberating biblical truth that all people are created by God with innate equality (Gen. 1:27; Acts 17:26-28; Gal. 3:28).

Obama's second mischaracterization is far more subtle. While he is right in asserting that Leviticus characterizes the eating of shellfish as "an abomination" (Lev. 11:11), he is wrong in isolating this injunction from its biblical context. If Obama had an adequate appreciation of the rich tradition of biblical Judaism, he would have been far ore restrained in his characterization. He has proved a master of rhetoric and emotional stereotypes rather than reason and evidential substance.

Furthermore, the distinction between clean and unclean foods for ancient Israel symbolized the difference between that which was holy and that which was unholy within the context of a theocratic form of government. As even a cursory reading of Scripture reveals, such ceremonial symbolism was fulfilled in Christ, who declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19).

Finally, the highly complex nature of the civil, ceremonial, and moral aspects of Mosaic Law can hardly be relegated to simplistic, superficial sound bites. Devoid of context, the twenty-first century mind can only with great difficulty grasp the significance of biblical typology. Indeed, the ceremonial significance of Mosaic Laws makes little sense to someone who is unwilling to read the Scriptures within their intended context.

Obama's third mischaracterization is perhaps the most egregious and easy to dismiss. Indeed, nowhere does Deuteronomy suggest "stoning your child if he strays from the faith." While at first blush the language of Deuteronomy might jar Obama's moral sensibilities, a closer examination turns his moral pretensions on their head.

First, the son in question should not be thought of as an adolescent, guilty of nothing more than slamming doors or stubbornly asserting his independence. Rather, the son (not child) described by Moses in Deuteronomy is old enough to be morally culpable of extravagantly wicked behavior that threatens the health and safety of the entire community. As such, the prescribed punishment is not for adolescent decadence, but for adult degeneracy.

Furthermore, the parents' desire to spare their own son serves as a built-in buffer against an unwarranted or frivolous enforcement of the law. Likewise, ratification by the elders precludes a precipitous judgement on the part of the parents. Thus, the standard of evidence prescribed by the Mosaic Law exceeds that of modern jurisprudence.

Finally, for Obama to claim the moral high ground over the ancient Scriptures is the height of hypocrisy. Rather than the civility of the Mosaic Law, our culture reflects the carnality of Israel's neighbors who sacrificed their sons and daughters. Indeed, for over three decades Western society has sanctioned the systematic slaughter of children, guilty of nothing more than being unloved. Worse yet, Obama did not have the moral conviction to vote for the civil rights of a partially born child.

If Obama's mischaracterizations serve a purpose, they are to remind us all that we should learn to read the Bible for all it's worth. If we genuinely believe that God has spoken, the attendant question should be, "What has God said?" - Hank Hanegraaff

Jason's questions and comments on Caroll's socialism essay

2008-11-01T12:05:00.000-07:00

Below are some questions and comments I posed to Caroll Huffman, regarding his October 31, 2008 essay on socialism being unbiblical.

Isn't President Vladimir Putin moving Russia back towards socialism and communism?

Yeah, Vladimir Putin is moving back towards fascism but he is keeping capitalism. He will tend more toward socialism and he can as long as oil prices stay high which are fueling his economy. But he’s smart enough to keep enough capitalism so his economy won’t collapse.

I am thankful for the right to own personal property, but one thing to remember is that everything we own is GOD's anyway, and NOT ours. The American concept of "rugged individualism" is unbiblical, as we are to rely on God for our sustenance, and NOT ourselves.

I understand that “everything is God’s”. I think that in regards to this, you have to realize exactly what I’m saying. The first thing is that we live in the world where real world rules abide. God has given us the earth and animals for our use. In the concept of Him giving us these things for our use, we can consider, while we live here, these things to be “mine” and “yours”. Therefore we have order. And therefore, capitalism works because a person who realizes that he or she can “own” something, almost always wants to own more. that fuels the persons desire to work harder and produce more and even have more and more people working for them. This benefits the whole of society. Socialism dampens that and socialism says that no one owns anything, the state owns it all. All money and all property. So, people always work for the state and the state can take what it wants from you or me and give it to anyone else, including itself. This was defined by the founding fathers as tyranny and is why they really didn’t like the encroachment on their freedoms by government via taxes with representation.

Some people look at situations like the early church in the Book of Acts, and say that there are certain "communal" aspects present, such as everyone sharing what the had, and basically everything belonging to the church or community, etc. I have heard people use this argument to try to Biblically justify communism / socialism. How would you respond to this?

As far as the folks that claim the early church subscribed to socialism in their communal aspects, nothing could be further from the truth. The people that gave to the “group” owned what they gave and more importantly gave it willingly. In the concept of socialism, you don’t give willingly, it is taken from you at the point of a gun, or by “force of law”….translated “at the point of a gun”. So, in Acts, personal property rights were respected and no one was required to give. In China , they are required to give and heaven help you if you try not to.

Caroll Huffman: Socialism is unbiblical

2008-11-01T11:43:00.000-07:00

Below are some thoughts from Caroll Huffman, a good friend of mine who is a very well-educated conservative Christian, with a lot of spiritual and historical insight into America's present political and social situation. The following comments are based on an email from Caroll to myself and a mutual friend on October 31, 2008, used with Mr. Huffman's permission, of course.

The founders of our republic desired limited government and therefore, no tyranny. They fled tyranny. That tyranny was placed upon them by ever rising taxes and a government that was intrusive into their lives. They realized that individual liberty increased as government decreased and as government increased, individual liberty decreased. This nation was built upon the idea that people could own personal property, both money and real property, and that property couldn’t be taken from the individual. They dreaded a day when this country would tax people’s income and they cringed. They were geniuses and created the best government that has ever existed outside of the theocracy that God had ordained before King David.

In regards to taxes, this is what we’re dealing with: The top 5% of income earners pay 53.25% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay 64.89%. The top 25% pay 82.9%. The top 50% pay 96.03%. The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!

The Democrats mantra is that it isn’t fair that we have poverty in this country and the rich should pay more. I think that the top 25 percent of wage earners paying 83% of our nation’s taxes, is more than fair. Remember, “the poor you will always have with you”, Mark 14:7. There has been massive spending on the poor. The New Deal, the War on Poverty, etc. and guess what? Jesus was right. The poor have always been with us. You cannot get rid of poverty, especially by giving the poor money. To give the poor money is to allow them to be satisfied in their condition and to never better themselves. I’m not talking about the mentally ill, the sick, etc. I’m talking about able bodied folks that don’t work and refuse to work, all the while collecting from the government.

One thing that is important to remember is that we didn’t even have a permanent income tax until 1913. The founders specifically warned against it. Add on top of this is the fact that and income tax is simply legalized thievery. Walter Williams says it very well in this article: http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/08/06/a_nation_of_thieves.

No one is entitled to take anyone else’s money. The government does it at the point of a gun. The government doesn’t have the right to take anyone’s money according to the US Constitution. An Amendment had to be added, the 16^th Amendment, and it was possibly never really ratified, as is contested even today. So, for Barak or anyone else to talk about taking more and more of our money, is simply more thievery. To say something like, “Perhaps the church should take care of the poor, but are they?”, as has been said, is to say that poor people aren’t being taken care of in this country.

America , and especially the American people of faith, are the most generous people on the planet. That’s why there are so many soup kitchens and shelters and money given by the boatload, for disasters like Katrina, etc. To say that the poor are not taken care of in this country is simply not true. You want to see where the poor are not taken care of? Go to China or Cuba or any socialist country, where they have adopted the policies that Barak wants to implement. The poor there are in bitter poverty and the government is just fine with that.

It is important to remember in this argument that healthcare is NOT a right. It is a privilege and it is something that must be worked for, not something that other people should be required to pay for you. And remember that anyone, no matter how poor, can go to hospital emergency rooms and won’t be denied care. Then there is Medicare, Medicaid and social security. These last three are socialist schemes that are all going bankrupt because socialism NEVER works. Not for long anyway. All countries in history that have tried it have failed. That’s why China and Russia are now embracing capitalism. But I digress.

Finally, I’d like to show what our founders said of redistribution of wealth. They realized that it causes people to lose their desire to work and they become reliant on the government for their next handout. Also, keep in mind that the richest Americans spend a lot of money and they create jobs. They own the companies. They invest their money and they put their money into their businesses to create jobs. Taxing them more will create fewer jobs and will decrease revenue to the government AND will create more poor people, dependent on the government. It is an established fact that when George W Bush cut taxes he increased revenue to the government. He increased spending to offset that, which was a mistake, but the total revenue increased by DECREASING taxes. Every time in history that this has been tried, it has worked. The story is that money is better off in the hands of private individuals who know how to make more of it and in doing so, create jobs for the rest of us.

Remember, Jimmy Carter, the last president to have the same socialistic policies as Obama, had the upper income rate at 70 percent. That got us double digit unemployment, 21% interest rates and gas rationing. It took Reagan with his trickle down economics to get us out of the extreme recession we were in. Carter also imposed a windfall profits tax on companies, again punishing achievement to hand out money to non-achievers. Remember what the Bible says: 2 Thes 3:10-12, For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat. We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat.” Capitalism is Biblical, socialism is not.

As an aside, think about this: If someone is so dedicated to the poor, and if they were rich, why would they let their brother and aunt live in squalor? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2590614/Barack-Obamas-lost-brother-found-in-Kenya.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5042571.ece

If Barak won’t take care of his brother or aunt, what makes you think he will take care of you?

This is what the founders of this country said about the redistribution of wealth:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America , 1787

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia , James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

Bottom line of this argument is this: Socialism is unbiblical and practically it doesn’t work. It also infringes on the rights of a people to both own property and real wealth, thereby reducing production of the whole of the people, creating a weakened economy and a demoralized people.

OBAMANOMICS: Thoughts on Barack Obama’s Economic Plan

2008-10-30T21:19:00.000-07:00

If it is possible, I would like to set aside the abortion issue for a moment, and focus on the economy and taxes in the 2008 Presidential campaign. I have heard so many evangelical Christians who say they are pro-life, but that they support Barack Hussein Obama for other reasons, such as the economy, or simply because they want “change.” What kind of change to they want? That is a question I hope to answer in this essay examining what I call, “Obamanomics,” the left-wing, socialist economic policies of Barack Obama.

The closer we look, the more we will see a change in the wrong direction, if Obama gets elected.

The Associated Press’ (AP) Calvin Woodward gives examples of some of the potential failings of Obama’s economic plans in an excellent article, written the same evening as Obama’s 30-minute infomercial aired on the major television networks. Keep in mind that the AP has mostly been pro-Obama throughout the campaign. Here is Woodward’s story:http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gMAwo_z4gB7dVys2jAHkJGa1IvcQD944GOGG0

Check out evangelical broadcaster and columnist Kevin McCullough’s “An Open Letter to Black Obama Supporters,” in which McCullough also cites examples of Obama’s economic shortcomings: http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2008/10/26/an_open_letter_to_black_obama_supporters

“Joe the Plumber” has also been in the news a lot lately. You may recall that he is Joe Wuerzelbach, an Ohio plumber who claims to earn $250,000.00 per year. Joe asked Obama a question about Obama taxing and taking Joe’s hard-earned money. Someone recorded the conversation with a video camera, and Obama said something to the effect of, “spread the wealth.” The media and some in the Ohio state government have been skeptical of Joe’s background and integrity, but the point is NOT to focus on whether or not Joe might owe back taxes or unpaid child support, or whether he is even a licensed plumber, but the point is to focus on Obama’s answer, because there are some people who legitimately make $250,000 per year, and they are the type of people that Obama wants to heavily tax, take from, and “spread the wealth.” Such spreading of the wealth would effectively punish success, and thus give little or no incentive for entrepreneurs and businesses to grow and create more jobs.

Such taxation of the rich is a bad idea, because the wealthy are the ones who create jobs, and such heavy taxation would cause companies to ship more jobs overseas, and some American small businesses would have to layoff employees, or close altogether, in order to be able to afford the taxes.

Here are some excellent quotes from some of America’s Founding Fathers:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America , 1787

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia , James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

Here is one from Abraham Lincoln:

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative

and independence.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and

should do for themselves."

Plus as an added note, I like this quote from Michael Eden, who operates the web site, www.theamericansentinel.com: “The Party of Kennedy is NOT the Party of (Nancy) Pelosi. The Democratic Party has radically degenerated into a socialistic and postmodern perversion of its former place in American political thought. In place of Judeo-Christian values they embrace secular humanism; in place of a strong national defense they embrace a reliance upon internationalism; in place of a strong family they embrace a radical abortion agenda that increasingly includes outright infanticide. I can't sit idly by and watch the culture war pass me by. It is time to choose sides. As Joshua 24:15 puts it, "choose this day whom you will serve." Polls have shown that the more committed one is to (any) religious belief, the more conservative one tends to be politically. One’s views toward religion profoundly affect one’s commitment to political, social, and moral issues. In my articles, I seek to argue in favor of a religion-friendly view of culture, morality, and politics.”

How could a Christian vote Democrat?

2008-10-28T20:55:00.000-07:00

There was a time in the United States when it seemed most people could find decent candidates from either the Republican or Democratic parties for which to vote. Since the radical left has hijacked the Democratic Party and taken it to the very far left, a fair question must be asked, and that is how could a Christian honestly and in good conscience, vote for a Democrat candidate in 2008?

There used to be “Dixiecrats” in the South, and some “Reagan Democrats” during the 1980’s but those folks are now few and far between. What is left (no pun intended) is a party that has gone off the deep end, and has slid down a slippery slope into all sorts of debauchery.

Because of the radical left’s heist, the Democratic party has become the party of pro-abortion and pro-homosexual marriage, just to name a couple of issues. There also seems to be a vast move towards socialism. The next step down the ladder from socialism is communism, which at it’s core is atheistic, and obviously, therefore, contrary to theistic Christianity, or any other faith. If you think that is an overstatement, just look at Barack Hussein Obama’s statements and platform on subjects such as those mentioned above.

This essay might anger some people, but it is NOT my intent to upset anyone, only to lovingly ask a fair and honest question, “with all gentleness, and with respect,” and that question is: How could a Bible-believing Christian, who has previously voted Democrat, stay with the Democratic party in the 2008 elections and beyond, knowing the very radically liberal views of many of that party’s leaders, and knowing how the party’s platform has shifted into areas that run counter to the Bible?

Now before you rebuke me, throw me under the bus, and fill my comments and inbox with all sorts of nasty statements, let me say that it is neither a person’s political affiliation nor their views that make them a Christian. According to the Bible, a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world (John 14:6). It is only by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, (Ephesians 2:8-9), that we are spared from eternal punishment in hell (Romans 3:23). It is through Christ’s death and resurrection that we have life, and become a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17) in and through Him. That, in short, without getting into a big theological treatise, is what it means to be a Christian.

One’s political views are simply an outflow of their worldview. A Christian’s worldview should be shaped by the Bible, and there should be a connection between a person’s theology, and their social and political views. In other words, it only makes sense that if a person is theologically conservative, that they would be socially and politically conservative as well, and vice-versa. However, I am noticing a disconnect when it comes to Christians voting Democrat in general, and Obama in particular.

For example, I vote for candidates who are AGAINST abortion, because I believe that the Bible teaches about the sanctity of human life, and that God is the creator and author of life. I vote for candidates who uphold the traditional view of marriage as being between one man and one woman, because that is what the Bible teaches.

Part of the problem is that we have taken the responsibilities of the church, such as caring for widows, orphans, the downtrodden, etc., and put those tasks on the government. Romans chapter 13 clearly speaks on the role and authority of government, and that is to restrain evil. One of government’s roles is NOT to create a social welfare state, where people become dependent upon bureaucrats for their livelihood and well-being. Rather, God has commanded the church and individual Christians to help the poor and those who truly need assistance. The reason Christians are to do good to others is out of love for God, and to show others Christ’s love. That is why James 1:27 tells us, “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. (NASB).

An example of this love and concern was shown in America’s Gulf Coast region, following the devastation from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. While the left-wing media blamed the Bush Administration for mishandling the disaster relief, it was a Democratically controlled state and local government (the then-Louisiana governor, Karen Blanco, and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin are both Democrats), which screwed things up in the Big Easy. It was only after Christian and other PRIVATE organizations and relief agencies stepped in and joined the relief and rebuilding efforts, that things ran more efficiently and smoothly. Why did Christians join the relief effort? I can’t judge everyone’s heart – only God can do that – but I would think and hope that it is because they love Christ, who told us to love our neighbor as ourselves, and also because the Apostle Paul told us to, “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ,” (Galatians 6:2).

So, while a government might care for it’s citizens out of duty and obligation, or, worse, out of its sheer desire to control people, a true, born-again Christian is hopefully going to help their neighbor out of love.

According to the Bible, the role of the civil magistrate is to restrain evil (Romans 13:5). How can a government restrain the evils of abortion, homosexuality and economic greed, when a party, such as the Democrats, make such things a prominent and important part of their platform? When Sen. Barack Obama voted against the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, a law which would enable babies who survive abortion attempts outside the womb to be allowed to live, how could he be restraining evil as a member of Congress? He’s NOT, and he won’t be as president, either.

Why do Evangelicals Support Obama?

2008-10-08T19:54:00.000-07:00

I have yet to figure out why so many Christian evangelicals are coming out in support of U.S. Presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama.

I listen quite frequently to Christian radio, and I have heard many callers to various radio programs state that they are born-again believers, and are pro-life, and yet they support Senator Obama for President. I have also heard the same from Christians on the street and in churches.

Such a concept both fascinates and astounds me at the same time. It fascinates me how anyone who claims to have a relationship with Jesus Christ, the Author of Life, could support a man in Obama who so blatantly wants to destroy life. It astounds me that people who claim to be pro-life could put such an important issue on the back burner in favor of other causes such as the economy, health care, etc. Some pro-life Obama backers give other reasons or tipping their hat towards Obama, such as the war in Iraq or their frustration with the Bush administration. No matter what your opinions of the Iraq war or Bush’s presidency are, those are issues for another time. I want to talk specifically here about Obama’s stance on abortion, and about the disconnect some evangelicals seem to have when it comes to Obama’s pro-abortion views and how that relates to his candidacy.

There is no other issue more fundamental to a society as the issue of life. The economy and all other issues pale in comparison to the issue of life, for if a society does NOT have regard for human life, then nothing else matters. NOTHING, including the current financial "crisis." We cannot continue to serve the god of money and materialism in America. Jesus said you cannot serve two masters: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon (money),” (Matthew 6:24, NKJV).

Please do NOT misunderstand me. The economy is important nationally, as well as personally, as we all obviously need some amount of money in order to provide basic necessities for our families and ourselves, and for commerce to function. The abortion issue is much MORE important, however, because the issue of life is integral to the survival of the civility and humaneness of our society.

In his work entitled, "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation," first published in The Human Life Review in 1983, U.S. President Ronald Reagan stated:

"Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning." (Emphasis mine). (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1984, p. 38).

David O’Steen, executive director of the National Right to Live Committee (NRLC), was recently quoted in the October 2008 issue of Christianity Today magazine as saying, “It’s hard to be more pro-abortion than Hillary Clinton, but Obama seems to have done it.” According to that same article, written by John W. Kennedy, here is a brief synopsis of Obama’s voting record on abortion issues:

Obama voted three times in the Illinois state legislature to stifle legislation designed to keep alive newborn survivors of abortions.

Obama voted in the U.S. senate to block a bill to require that at least one parent be notified if a minor had an abortion in another state.

Obama declared his first act as president would be to sign the Freeedom of Choice Act, which would again legalize “partial-birth” abortion and would use tax funds to pay for abortions.

With a record like that, it is no surprise that in 2007, the non-partisan National Journal rated Obama as the most liberal senator in the United States Senate!! Click here to read more: (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/).

The Christianity Today article goes on to state that Obama, “has indicated that he opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act because it could have been used as a means to overturn Roe v. Wade by extending the status of personhood to a human fetus (though in committee he voted against an amendment that would have clarified this and would not have undermined Roe). He (Obama) also has said that he would NOT be against banning third-trimester abortions if a bill provides a mothers’ health exemption.”

On August 16 of this year Obama and John McCain both participated in a candidates’ forum at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in California. When asked when does a baby get human rights, Obama answered: “Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.” Such a cop-out answer, or “an unartful dodge,” to a very important question, as writer Michael Graham of the Boston Herald called it in an August 20, 2008 article.

All of this being said, I think it’s a fair question to ask how a Christian could, in good conscience, support a candidate like Obama who so blatantly and overtly supports such a heinous act as abortion, especially the partial-birth variety. So, if you’re an evangelical who supports Obama, and you are unable to honestly answer that question, I hope you enjoy your 401k, mutual funds, health insurance, (or maybe lack thereof), or whatever else you’re concerned about, because all of those things won’t matter in the grand scheme of things, when you have to stand before God and give an account of how you spent your time, effort and energy supporting and voting for someone who is in favor of infanticide.

You MUST listen to this sermon -- and share it

2008-06-16T17:02:00.000-07:00

I listen to Christian radio every day, and therefore hear a variety of preachers and teachers. I have heard countless sermons over the years, both on the radio, and in person, and I have to honestly say that none has struck me quite like a sermon titled, "Saving Power of God," by Dr. Steve Lawson, pastor of Christ Fellowship Baptist Church in Mobile, Alabama. You can check out the church's web site here: http://www.cfbcmobile.org.

This particular sermon aired on Dr. R.C. Sproul's daily radio broadcast, "Renewing Your Mind," which the radio outreach of Ligonier Ministries, http://www.ligonier.org. This sermon was recorded at Ligonier Ministries' 2008 National Conference, titled, Evangelism According to Jesus.

In this particular sermon, Dr. Lawson uses Romans 1:16-17 as the theme, and speaks about the saving power of God, through Jesus Christ, and also includes Genesis Chapter 5, and also talks about how the Old Testament is important in understanding the New Testament.

The sermon is straightforward and to the point. Dr. Lawson powerfully speaks the truth in love. It is MUST-hear especially for unbelievers seeking spiritual truth, and is also a MUST-hear for Christians seeking to grow deeper in the knowledge and grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

To listen to the sermon, follow this URL: http://www.ligonier.org/rym.php. If you go to the site AFTER Monday, June 16, 2008, the link to the sermon will have probably moved under the "Archive" section in the left-hand column of Ligonier's radio broadcast page. There is also an offer on Ligonier's web site to purchase the entire 14-CD set from the 2008 National Conference.
I highly recommend sharing this sermon with anyone and everyone that you know. It will impact your life and your walk with Christ, as it has mine.

A balanced Biblical view of homosexuality

2008-06-10T21:16:00.000-07:00

With the recent decision by the California State Supreme Court to allow gay marriage, I feel as though it's timely to discuss the subject of homosexuality from a spiritual perspective. I will later blog on the subject from a practical and legal perspective.

I wish the church, and individual Christians, would speak a more balanced view of homosexuality – the “hate the sin, love the sinner,” approach as it’s sometimes called.

The Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin.

Lev. 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

You might say, "well, that verse is from the OLD Testament." What does the NEW Testament have to say about homosexuality? Read these verses: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:8-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-11).

Some churches are now trying to endorse and perform gay marriages, and ordaining gay pastors and bishops. I believe this is wrong.

1.) The Bible is clear, that homosexuality is a sin. (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:16-27,

1 Corinthians 6:8-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-11).

2.) As Christians, our whole lives are about living life in the Holy Spirit, versus life in the flesh. Paul addresses this in many of his epistles, and other Bible writers address it elsewhere as well.

So, how can a person who’s in a continual, unrepentant homosexual relationship live s Spirit-filled Christian life? They can’t. No one can. Homosexuality is no worse than any other sexual sin: heterosexual immorality, adultery, fornication, etc. However, it seems as though in our society today, some people want to make “exceptions” for homosexuality, saying people are born that way, and condoning or at least “tolerating” that lifestyle. However, no exceptions should be made. Would most church members make an “exception” for a heterosexual pastor who lives with an unmarried woman? Would most church members make an exception if their pastor were to have an adulterous heterosexual affair? I think NOT. So, why then, should there be any difference when a church ordains a gay clergy member? There is NO difference.

So, then why do we seem to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle, and want to “tolerate it,” or accept it as a norm in our culture or even in the church? I think sometimes people are so focused on “loving” someone that they tend to overlook any transgression or sin that the other person may have, for fear that we may be perceived as being “judgmental.” However, as Pastor Erwin Lutzer says in his book, The Truth About Same-Sex Marriage: Six Things you Need to Know About What’s Really at Stake, “Biblically, love is defined NOT as a license to legitimize sinful behavior of any kind, but love helps us to see that there is a better way.” (Lutzer, p. 11). Those of us who know people who are caught in the trap of a homosexual lifestyle should lovingly confront them about their sinful behavior, and harmful lifestyle. The Bible calls us to “speak the truth in love,” and if we really care about someone, we should lovingly confront them on any sin, whether it's homosexuality, or anything else. We should tell our gay friends and relatives that there is hope for them. That they can be free from their sinful lifestyle through the power and forgiveness of our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for their sins and ours. Nothing they can do of their own effort will lead them out of that destructive lifestyle, if they indeed want to leave, but only the grace and forgiveness found in Jesus Christ.

You may recall that God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah over sexual immorality. You may recall that when Lot was in Sodom, he was basically almost attacked by homosexual men, seeking to have a sexual relationship with him, and with every man in the house in which he was staying. "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them." (Gen. 19:5).

We should speak out against the radical homosexual agenda, as it is full of lies and propaganda, which lead some struggling people into a homosexual lifestyle, and keep others in bondage to it. The Bible calls us to stand against all sorts of sin and evil, and to proclaim God’s moral law as a part of the Gospel of grace and forgiveness. As Dr. Lutzer also penned in his above mentioned book, “morality is NOT bigotry.”

If you are caught in a homosexual lifestyle and want to get out, Exodus International is a great ministry of former homosexuals who have left the lifestyle and who have found freedom in Christ. Here is a link to their web site: http://www.exodus-international.org/

Romans 1:9-32: “Theology 101”

2008-06-10T20:45:00.000-07:00

Romans 1:9-32: “Theology 101”

The following are notes from a Sunday school lesson which I taught at Westover in September 2007.

Romans contains a lot of essential Christian doctrine. In fact, if you are witnessing to a non-believer, or trying to disciple and encourage a new believer, encourage them to read Romans, along with the Gospel of John.

Rom. 1:11 – Greek word “gift” translated as “charisma,” means “gift of grace.”

Rom. 1:14 – “Greeks” meant people of different nationalities.

“Greek” did NOT necessarily mean Greek in the ethnic or national sense

The Gospel must reach BOTH the elite and the outcasts

Rom. 1:16-17 – These verses are often said to be the thesis, or theme verses of Romans.

People during that time were searching for salvation. Christianity offered salvation, power and escape. (Lk. 19:10 - "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost". Matt. 18:11 also).

Jesus said in Matthew 10:32-33: “Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.

Can someone who’s never heard of Jesus Christ go to hell? What if there is some tribe in the jungle, whom missionaries have never reached. Will those people go to hell if they die without Christ? Paul addresses these questions in Romans 1:20-23.

Some theologians have said that this section of Romans addresses two important concepts: the light of conscience and the light of creation.

God, through Paul, says in Rom. 1:20, that people are “without excuse,” for their unbelief. God’s attributes are clearly evident in creation, and in people’s moral consciences. Even though human beings are born into sinful depravity, we still have a conscience that serves as a sort of moral compass to guide us into right and wrong. However, "total" depravity is NOT "utter" depravity. For example, even Adolf Hitler, as cruel as we was, probably loved his own mother, so he was "totally" depraved, but NOT "utterly" depraved.

Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary defines “conscience” as: that faculty of the mind, or inborn sense of right and wrong, by which we judge of the moral character of human conduct. It is common to all men. Like all our other faculties, it has been perverted by the Fall (Reference John 16:2; Acts 26:9; Rom. 2:15).

So, the answer to the above questions, are all, “yes.” Even if someone has never heard of Jesus, and dies in their sin, they will still be condemned to eternal separation from God in hell, because God has revealed himself through creation, and people’s conscience. If someone truly seeks God, then he will reveal Himself to them in the person of Christ. Jesus said in John 6:44 (NIV): “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.” Some former Muslims, especially, have reported having dreams or visions of Christ, which led them to convert to Christianity.

Ecclesiastes 3:11 says that God has placed eternity in our hearts. We all have an innate desire for something bigger than us!

Are people responsible for rejecting what God has shown them? – YES!!

Dr. John MacArthur explains it this way in the notes on this passage, from The MacArthur Study Bible: “God holds all people responsible for their refusal to acknowledge what He has shown them of himself in His creation. Even those who have never had an opportunity to hear the Gospel have received a clear witness about the existence and character of God – and have suppressed it.” (MacArthur, p. 1693).

Do you think people are “basically good?” We often say “so-and-so” is a good person, and sometimes use it in a sociological sense to mean that a particular person is NOT a criminal, NOT a bad citizen, etc. However, technically, NO ONE is “good.” We are all born into sinful depravity. Rom. 3:23 (NKJV), states: all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Paul writes in Romans 3:10: “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE.” In that verse, he is quoting from Psalm 14:1-3 (NKJV), which says,

1The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God "
They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds;
There is no one who does good.
2The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men
To see if there are any who understand,
Who seek after God.
3They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt;
There is no one who does good, not even one.

What do you think is man’s purpose? -- Man's chief purpose is TO GLORIFY GOD. St. Iraneus, one of the early church fathers said, "the glory of God is man fully alive."

We can only stand condemned WITHOUT salvation in Christ. (Rom. 6:23-24: For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord).

Sin simply means, “missing the mark.” That comes from the analogy of an archer who shoots an arrow from a bow, and misses the target at which he’s aiming.

“'Faith' in the simplest definition means ‘loyalty,’ and also, ‘belief,’” says William Barclay in his commentary on Romans. Barclay also says, “Faith is the enduring loyalty and devotion which marks the real follower of Jesus Christ.” However, faith in its most characteristic Pauline use means total acceptance and absolute trust. (For example, when I sit down in a chair, I have to trust that it will hold me up, and that I won't fall). Faith means being utterly sure that what Jesus said is true, and staking all of time and eternity on that assurance.

Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary has a definition of faith: “Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests.”

One example of a misguided and misunderstanding of faith is commonly found today in what’s known as the “Word of Faith” movement. Basically, it’s the idea that words in and of themselves have power. In other words, those people are placing faith in faith itself. Faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. So, if your faith is in faith itself, or in only words, then that faith is futile. However, if your faith is in God, then that is the true definition of faith, and as we’ve discussed, only God, by grace through Jesus Christ, can truly provide saving faith.

Rom. 1:18 – God’s wrath. People must incur the wrath of God if their hearts are turned away from God, and they deliberately reject Him, and worship their own thoughts, as idols, instead of worshiping God.

Because God is Holy, He CANNOT tolerate sin. Therefore, sin cannot dwell in God’s presence. Because of that, people must suffer God’s wrath if they sin. One scholar has called God’s wrath, God’s “annihilating reaction” against sin. Tydnale’s New Testament Commentary says, God’s wrath is, “the response of His holiness to wickedness and rebellion,” (Bruce, p. 79).

Eph. 5:6, Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Col. 3:4-7, When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory. Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience, and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them.

Rom. 1:22 – The word “foolish,” in this verse, as it does in Proverbs, implies a person who is morally deficient, rather than a person who lacks intelligence.

Justification is another big “church word,” we must talk about. According to Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary, justification means:

A forensic term, opposed to condemnation. As regards its nature, it is the judicial act of God, by which he pardons all the sins of those who believe in Christ, and accounts, accepts, and treats them as righteous in the eye of the law, i.e., as conformed to all its demands. In addition to the pardon (q.v.) of sin, justification declares that all the claims of the law are satisfied in respect of the justified. It is the act of a judge and not of a sovereign. The law is not relaxed or set-aside, but is declared to be fulfilled in the strictest sense; and so the person justified is declared to be entitled to all the advantages and rewards arising from perfect obedience to the law (Rom. 5:1-10).

1:24-25 – People had abandoned themselves to promiscuity. The more we sin, the easier it becomes to keep on doing the same sin, which can lead to other sins.

1:26-27 – Paul was restating what the Roman moralists were saying. “God gave them up” – What about when Jesus said, “never will I leave you, never will I forsake you?” In that passage, Jesus was speaking to believers. Here, Paul is speaking about pagans and unbelievers whose hearts have been hardened to God by their sinful lifestyles, and who have turned away from God. Those Roman pagans did NOT know God to begin with.

How to study the Bible -- Sunday School lesson from 6/8/08

2008-06-09T19:23:00.000-07:00

(Cindy B. this is especially for you, per your request). Here is a summary of the notes I took on Cy's lesson on how to study the Bible

What is the difference between studying the Bible and reading the Bible? Studying gives us instruction on how to live.
What are the benefits of studying the Bible? (Reference 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Ephesians 2:10) Growth and maturity are two benefits (1 Peter 2:2).

The more we study God's Word, the easier it its to share with others. The Bible contains God's written Words to us. Words can be fickle, as they don't mean the same thing all the time. Cy used the example of the word, "flush." For instance, someone can be "flushed with excitement," the shelf has to be "flush" with the bracket which holds it up, and in poker, a straight flush beats a full house.

Cy said that, "the Bible says what it says and means what it says, but it doesn't always mean what it says." In other words, we must look at what a Scripture passage means in context.

3 steps to Bible study:
1. Observation
2. Interpretation
3. Application (James 1:22; 2 Timothy 2:15).

Obviously, since I can't draw the chart here, which Cy had us draw in class, I will attempt to explain it as best I can:

There are some principles which are timeless and eternal. Those are principles based on our understanding of what Scripture says. That is called "hermeneutics," which simply means "interpretation." "Homiletics" is how we apply Scripture to our lives.

The historical context of Scripture must also be considered. Authorial intent - what does Scripture say? Exegesis means, "drawing out." What concepts / ideas / doctrines does one "draw out" of Scripture? Isogesis means, "putting into." In other words, are you "putting into" or reading into, something in Scripture, which is simply NOT there?

It's a great time of year to be a baseball fan!

2008-06-06T15:41:00.000-07:00

In my opinion, this is one of the best times of year to be a baseball fan. Baseball is my favorite sport, I guess, because I was born in St. Louis, MO, perhaps the best baseball town in America (Go Cardinals)!! So, with the "Grand Ole' Game" in my blood, I thought I would write how this time of year -- early June -- is, in my opinion, one of the best times of year to be a baseball fan.
Oh, sure, there are September pennant races, and of course the playoffs and World Series in October top them all. Those things truly overshadow any other portion of the baseball season, and nothing can top the Fall Classic, especially if it goes seven games!! However, in June, we have the annual Major Leage draft, the NCAA Super Regionals and College World Series, Minor League All-Star games, and high school state championships. For scheer volume and variety of baseball, it just doesn't get any better than this.
The weather is hot, the air is muggy, and the grass is in full bloom. There is nothing like sitting in the stands, downing a 'dog with a beverage of your choice, hearing the crack of the bat, and watching America's pastime. Whether it's hanging out at a local high school or American Legion field, or watching my local Hoppers play at New Bridge Bank park, or going over to Durham's DBAP, looking at the Diamond Heels in Chapel Hill or Cary, or traveling to Busch Stadium for a Cards game, for the baseball fan in June, variety is the spice of life.
What better way to kick off summer than with the "boys of summer?"

Mormonism versus Orthodox Christianity

2008-06-05T19:48:00.000-07:00

The following is a Sunday school lesson which I taught in February 2008 on Mormonism versus orthodox (that is historic, traditional) Christianity, and why Mormonism's beliefs are inconsistent with those taught in the Bible, and how the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) vastly differ from doctrines taught in Christian denominations.

To any of Mormons who might read this, I want to say only that I speak the truth in love, and want you to know the difference between what your "church" teaches, and what the Bible teaches. I pray that God may open your heart and mind to enlighten you to the Truth of His Word.

HISTORY OF MORMONISM

In 1820, a young, Upstate New York farm boy named Joseph Smith, Jr., claimed that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him underneath a grove of trees on his family’s farm in Palmyra, NY. Smith claimed that these personages informed him that all churches were wrong, their creeds an abomination, and their professors corrupt.

The church was founded by Joseph Smith (1805-1844). Based on supernatural visitations he claimed he had experienced, Smith intended to restore the true Christian church that he said had been lost 16 centuries earlier. According to Smith, God told him that all churches—with specific reference to Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians—were wrong, and to join none.

KEY DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MORMONISM AND CHRISTIANITY

On the surface, Mormonism can appear to be just another Christian denomination. However, when examined closely, the evidence clearly concludes that Mormonism's doctrines are at odds with Biblical Christianity. Satan often disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14).

The Apostle Paul dealt with false doctrines and false teachers. (Read 2 Corinthians 11:1-14)

(Read Summary of Mormon Beliefs from Zondervan Book of Cults).

Mormonism is polytheistic, meaning that they believe in many gods, whereas Christianity is monotheistic, meaning that Christians believe in only one God.

One of the most persistent critiques of Mormon doctrine focuses on their teaching that ancient Hebrews immigrated to the Americas.

According to their doctrine, in 1823, Smith was visited by an angel named Moroni, and in 1827, Moroni, a resurrected angel, instructed Joseph Smith to unearth golden plates buried in New York. For two years, Smith translated the "reformed Egyptian," which told of the migration of Israelites to this continent. This “translation” became the Book of Mormon, which supposedly contains the story of primarily two groups of people who came to the Americas:

The Jaredites

The Lehites

Following Lehi’s death, their descendants were further divided into Lamanites, the ancestors of today's Native Americans, and Nephites. Mormon, the last surviving Nephite leader, inscribed the race's history before their demise. Moroni, Mormon's son, whisked the golden plates back to heaven after Smith's translation.

Jesus, after His resurrection, is said to have visited this Israelite civilization in the Americas.

Historical verification is lacking. Smith's version is the only record of Israeli immigrants living in the Americas between 600 B.C. and A.D. 400. New discoveries in DNA research currently allow scientists to test this historical claim. Thousands of Native Americans from more than 150 tribes have been genetically tested to determine their ancestry. There are even some Mormon archaeologists and other scientists who doubt the validity of Joseph Smith’s account.

Mormons differ from orthodox Christians in that they:

THE BIBLE: Consider the Book of Mormon and founder Joseph Smith's other works, The Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants, to be authoritative. To Mormons, the Old Testament and New Testament are Scripture as well, but they have been corrupted in translation. Most Mormons would hold the Book of Mormon in higher regard than the Bible. While Mormons consider Smith’s Book of Mormon infallible, the Bible is not. "We accept the Bible as the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly," say M. Russell Ballard, 70, a member since 1985 of the Council of the Twelve, the LDS church's ruling body, to CHRISTIANITY TODAY for a 1999 article on Mormonism. Joseph Smith wrote in his work, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 71, “Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion? We have none.” The LDS church has touted the Book of Mormon as, “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.”

Article 8 of the Articles of Faith of the LDS reads: We believe the ^aBible to be the ^bword of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the ^dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.

Mormon Apostle Dallin Oaks said: “What makes us different from most other Christians in the way we read and us the Bible and other scriptures is our belief in continuing revelation. For us, the scriptures are NOT the ultimate source of knowledge, but what precedes the ultimate source. The ultimate knowledge comes by revelation.”

The Mormons’ belief that the Bible has been diluted over time, perhaps comes from the Book of Mormon itself: 1 Nephi 13:28 says, “Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.” If that’s not enough, 2 Nephi 29:6 adds, “Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible and we need no more Bible Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?”

Contrast that with Christian teaching, which teaches that God’s instructions were handed down through His prophets, apostles, and eyewitnesses. Sixty-six books of the Bible were written by dozens of men over a period of about 1500 years. Christian Theologian A. Berkeley Mickelsen wrote: “The Scriptures are the inspired Word of God because they represent all that God deemed necessary to preserve from the past so that succeeding generations could know the truths he conveyed to men of earlier generations.”

The Apostle Paul wrote, although speaking most likely about the Old Testament, in 2 Timothy 3:16-17: 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The Bible is more than just men’s words, for it reveals God’s voice to His people. As to how God’s Word was constructed , 2 Peter 1:20-21 gives the process: knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of Godspoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 3:15-16 documents how the early church gave a stamp of authority to the writings of the apostles: and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Paul also wrote in 1 Thessalonians 2:13: For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.

· THE TRINITY: Mormons reject the traditional concept of the Trinity. Mormons believe God the Father and God the Son have fleshly bodies and that the Holy Ghost is a spirit man. Because of that, Mormons do NOT believe in the omnipotence of God. The God of Mormonism cannot be personally present everywhere, because he dwells in a finite, “human” body. In John 4:24, Jesus said, “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

JESUS: Mormons believe in a different Jesus from the Jesus of the Bible. Speaking to an LDS group in Paris in July 1998, Gordon B. Hinckley then-President of the LDS, said, “The traditional Christ of whom I speak is NOT the traditional Christ of whom they (born-again, evangelical Christians), speak.” Proper belief in the Person of Jesus Christ has always been considered essential to Christian fellowship. Some Mormon leaders have gone on record stating that there is indeed a difference when it comes to the Jesus of the LDS faith. Of course, this then begs the question, “which Jesus is the true Jesus?” Mormons believe that there was a point in time in which the Biblical Jesus was NOT God.

Colossians 1:15-18, however states differently: He (Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

So does John 1:12-14: But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

I like the way the writer of Hebrews puts it: 7 Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. 9 Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines. For it is good that the heart be established by grace, not with foods which have not profited those who have been occupied with them. (Hebrews 13:7-9).

CHRIST’S VIRGIN BIRTH: Mormons have a rather twisted view of Christ’s virgin birth. They believe that, because God the Father has a body, that he actually had sex with Mary, thus conceiving Jesus. The Bible, however, tells us differently (Matt. 1:18-25, Luke 1:35)..
Mormonism claims that Jesus is the spirit-brother of Lucifer. It teaches that because Jesus is the Firstborn of the Father, He is Lucifer’s older brother. The Bible teaches to the contrary (John. 1:1-3, Colossians. 1:15).
The LDS church teaches that every human born on this planet is a literal child of God. Mormon leaders have maintained that all people are literally God’s spirit children, born via a sexual relationship between Heavenly Father and one of his goddess wives.
Mormons believe God the Father and God the Son have fleshly bodies and
that the Holy Ghost is a spirit man. They often refer to God the Father as Eternal Father, or Elohim.

· Celestial marriage -- Below are statements from the LDS’ official web site, (http://www.lds.org), regarding celestial marriage, or temple marriage:

Members of the Church believe that marriages performed in temples are “sealed,” or blessed to last for eternity. The concept that the family unit can continue beyond the grave as a conscious, loving entity, with the marriage partnership and parent-child relationships intact, is a core belief of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Once a couple is married and sealed in a temple, any children who are then born to them are automatically sealed to them at birth. If children are born before the couple is sealed, those children can later participate in a temple sealing with their parents. Children that are adopted also have an opportunity to be sealed to the adoptive parents.
The concept of eternal families comes from scripture and modern-day revelation. For instance, the New Testament reference in Matthew 16:19 records Jesus Christ telling the Apostle Peter: “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The Church equates the word “bind” with “seal.”

GOD: Mormonism teaches that God was once a finite being who achieved his exalted rank by "progressing." This leads us to the Mormon doctrine of natural progression, which is the idea that God advances and progresses. Mormons have a famous quote: “as man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.”

Mormon Apostle M. Russell Ballard, a member since 1985 of the Council of the Twelve, the LDS church's ruling body, told CHRISTIANITY TODAY, "We believe God, the eternal Father, is literally our father. He's a man glorified, exalted, perfected, resurrected."

Obviously, this concept is foreign to Biblical Christianity. If the Mormon God had to advance to the position he now holds, logic concludes that he could NOT be the God of the Bible. The Bible is very clear that God is eternal and everlasting, that He has no beginning or end.

Let’s look at what the Bible has to say about God being eternal:

Psalm 90:2: Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever You had formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.

Isaiah 40:28: Have you not known? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the LORD, The Creator of the ends of the earth, Neither faints nor is weary. His understanding is unsearchable.

Isa. 57:15: 15 For thus says the High and Lofty One Who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: “ I dwell in the high and holy place, With him who has a contrite and humble spirit, To revive the spirit of the humble, And to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

Ps. 102:27 But You are the same, And Your years will have no end.

Malachi 3:6 : “ For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.

James 1:17: Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

According to wikipedia.org, Planet Kolob is a star or planet mentioned in the Book of Abraham as being nearest to the throne or residence of God. The literal existence and the exact nature of Kolob is a controversial topic in Latter Day Saint movement theology, as is the Book of Abraham, The first known reference to Kolob is found in the Book of Abraham, published in the LDS volume of scripture entitled the Pearl of Great Price. The Book of Abraham was dictated by founder Joseph Smith, Jr. as he read from Egyptian scrolls that accompanied a traveling mummy exhibition.

Robert L. Millet, 51, dean of religious education at Brigham Young University (BYU), says, "Human spirits were born sons and daughters of God before this life, and if they will be born again now, they can be empowered and transformed by Jesus Christ, becoming eventually as he is. We believe in the ultimate deification of man."

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Where does the term, “Latter-day Saint” come from, and what does it mean?

According to the web site, Answers.com, the first known use of the term Latter Day Saint was in 1834, shortly before Smith’s Church of Christ was informally renamed the Church of the Latter Day Saints to distinguish it from other "Churches of Christ" that were being created.^[1] The term derives from Smith’s teaching that adherents of the religion God established were "saints" in the same sense that Paul of Tarsus used the term, meaning that they were followers of Christ. They are termed latter day saints in order to distinguish them from the saints of the early Christian church (former day saints). The church adopted the term officially April 26, 1838 with a revelation delivered by Smith, "For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."^[2]

Is Mormonism a cult?

It is important first to differentiate between the terms cult and cultic. Evangelicals generally use theology as the primary criteria for identifying a cult, with behavior as secondary criteria consequent to the first. Accordingly, the primary definition of a cult is a group that claims to represent true Christianity while denying essential doctrines of the historic, biblical faith.²⁶ It is also understood that out of these theological deviations flow behavioral deviations that vary from group to group but typically include authoritarianism, exclusivism, and isolationism.²⁷

Unfortunately, however, such cultic behaviors are sometimes found in groups that are genuinely Christian. These groups affirm the core doctrines of Christianity but are deviant at some other level of their theology (usually including their approach to Scripture and their own leaders), and thus the manner in which they operate mirrors that of the cults. Because of their true Christian profession, such groups should not be classified as cults, but they can rightfully be identified as cultic (cult-like).

The above is from the Christian Research Institute (CRI), via their website at www.equip.org. 26. See, e.g., Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, Anniversary Edition, Hank Hanegraaff, gen. ed. (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1997), 17; Norman L. Geisler and Ron Rhodes, When Cultists Ask (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997), 10–11. 27. See, e.g., Geisler and Rhodes, 11–13.

There have obviously been people who have been led out of Mormonism, and who have come to know the Jesus Christ of the Bible as their personal Lord and Savior.

Do Mormons still practice polygamy?

According to a 1996 interview with recently deceased Mormon president / prophet, Gordon B.Hinckley, done by Mike Wallace of CBS News’ 60 Minutes, Mormons no longer practice polygamy. Apparently, they gave it up when Utah became a state more than a hundred years ago. However, there are some cases of extremists, such as Warren Jeffs, who claim to be Mormons, who choose to engage in polygamy. Jeffs, who was the supreme leader of the controversial Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS), was recently sentenced in Utah state court to 10 years in prison on rape charges, for alleged arrangement of extralegal "marriages" between his adult male followers and underage girls. In fairness, Jeffs is an extreme case, and most mainline Mormons would distance themselves from people like him.

Why are Mormon missionaries coming to my door?

The LDS Church claims to be the "only true church" and the only church with the authority to act in God's name. They do not accept any other church's baptisms. According to their teachings, their baptism is the only one recognized by the Lord. This belief, coupled with their belief in the need for a Mormon temple marriage to gain eternal life, compels them to take their message to the world.

Why do some Mormons wear temple garments, sometimes jokingly referred to as “holy underwear?” According to the LDS Church web site: In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, garments are worn beneath street clothing as a personal and private reminder of commitments to God. Garments are considered sacred by Church members and are not regarded as a topic for casual conversation

Many Mormons live very upstanding, moral lives. The faithful Mormon consumes no alcohol, no tobacco, no caffeine, does not engage in premarital or extramarital sex. However, morality itself will NOT get anyone into heaven. In fact, Jesus said, “For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”(Matt. 5:20, NKJV).

The Mormon Church is very wealthy, and has holdings in large media companies, and other corporations. Typically, many Mormon families tend to be affluent, or at least middle-class.

REFERENCE SOURCES TO OBTAIN MORE INFO ON MORMONISM

Utah Lighthouse Ministry: http://www.utlm.org/. A ministry started by Sandra Tanner, and her late husband, Jerald Tanner. Jerald is the great-great-grandson of John Tanner, well known for his sizeable financial contributions to Joseph Smith and the LDS church in 1835 when the church was deeply in debt. Sandra Tanner is a great great granddaughter of Brigham Young, the second president of the Mormon Church. Sandra Tanner has Frequently Asked questions on her web site, which are an excellent source of basic information on Mormonism.

Utah Partnerships for Christ: http://www.upfc.org/index.html. Operated by Russ East, a former Morman who became a Christian.

Christian Research institute: http://www.equip.org. Based in Charlotte, NC, the Christian Research institute (CRI) with “Bible Answer Man” Hank Hanegraff as its president, has resources, not only on Mormonism, but also on a wide variety of religious topics. Mr. Hanegraff has just released a new book, entitled, The Mormon Mirage, which closely examines a lot of Mormonism’s false claims.

The primary book I used for this study was, Mormonism 101: Examining the Religion of the Latter-Day Saints, written by Bill McKeever & Eric Johnson. Published by Baker Books. Many of the quotes and statistics in the above lesson are taken from this book.

A secondary source was the book, The Truth Twisters: What They Believe, by Harold J. Berry. Published by Back to the Bible Ministries, it contains information on a variety of cults and false religions, including Mormonism.

Another secondary sources was, Truth and Error: Comparative Charts of Cults and Christianity, published by Zondervan Publishing House.

Official web site of the Mormon church, a.k.a., the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS): http://www.lds.org

ü The LDS Articles of Faith: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1

Excellent quote from Alastair Begg

2008-06-02T19:28:00.000-07:00

Some of you may be familiar with Alastair Begg, senior pastor of Parkside Church near Cleveland, Ohio, and Bible teacher on the "Truth for Life" (www.truthforlife.org), daily radio program, which airs in the Triad region of NC on AM-830, WTRU (www.wtru.com), and in the Triangle region on AM 1030.
Currently, Pastor Begg is doing a series on child-rearing, and a quote from his sermon which aired on June 2, 2008, struck me in particular, even though I don't have any children. Those of you who are Christian parents will appreciate this quote:

“When my children hear Godliness from my mouth, and they see wickedness in my life, then I point them to heaven, but I lead them to hell.”

This quote could really be applied to ALL believers in Christ. It is about consistency in our walk with God. To use a very old cliche, we need to "walk the walk," and NOT just "talk the talk." Our faith needs to be real, and the book of James says that "faith without works is dead." I just wanted to share what with you as a note of encouragement.

A youthful prayer from the beach

2008-06-02T19:09:00.001-07:00

Some of you know that I am on part-time staff with Greensboro Youth for Christ (YFC), working with their high school Lifeline / Youth Guidance (YG) program. YG kids are "at risk" students whom have been referred to YFC by the courts, school guidance counselors, police, etc. Some of the youth have been in trouble with the law, and some have very unstable home lives, while others are Christian kids who do come from stable home situations.
This past weekend, May 30-June 1, 2008, I was part of a group of YG leaders and high school students who spent the weekend at Carolina Beach, NC. On Friday night, after we first arrived, we asked the kids to write a prayer to God. One young man, whom we'll call, "Johnny," (NOT his real name), wrote the prayer below, which I found Sunday morning as I was cleaning up the cottage where we stayed. I want to share it with you, because I feel like it's truly from "Johnny's" heart. He lives in one of Greensboro's worse public housing communities, and he had never been to the beach before. In fact, he said the only other place outside of Greensboro that he has been is to Raleigh, which for those of you non-Tar Heels is about 80 miles east of Greensboro. That shocked me when he said that, as I have been blessed to travel many great places in the wonderful country of ours, and some places abroad as well. It made me thank God and feel blessed for the privileges and and opportunities he's given me to explore many parts of His creation.
Here is "Johnny's" prayer, misspellings and grammar are all his as well:
"Lord I just want to thank you 4 letting us make it here safly and for creating something so butiful for us to come too and for someone like me to see such a place for me and the other first time visters to see. I hope that everyone will have a safe and fun time and to let us return home safly. In Juesas name we pray aman."
A fellow leader on the trip, whom also has much experience working with Lifeline / YG kids, told me that I should save that prayer to include in my monthly support letter, which some of you receive via postal mail. However, due to the part-time nature of my position with YFC, I won't be able to send out another monthly letter until September 2008, so I just want to go ahead and share "Johnny's" prayer with you while it's still fresh in my mind. May it remind you of the childlike faith which Jesus Christ tells us we are to have.

Here is Johnny's prayer

Cheesy Christian stuff

2008-05-28T20:05:00.000-07:00

Could somebody please tell me why we need all of this cheesy Christian stuff, like Christian breath mints, mud flaps, and the like? I don't think Jesus would sell a t-shirt with His picture on it. You might say that someone could see a Christian t-shirt and get saved. Well, I don't recall having met anyone who got saved through a message on a t-shirt. It is only by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone that people are saved!! God's Word has been powerful enough and sufficient enough for 2,000 years (since the closing of the cannon of Scripture) to save people, and bring lost sinners into repentance, we don't need anything else.
I have worked in Christian retailing in the past, so I am quite familiar with the ins-and-outs of the business. As a capitalist, I am all for legally and ethically doing business and making a profit, but I feel as though to slap a Bible verse, or some Christian picture or symbol on a product just to make money is nearly equivalent to when Jesus turned over the money-changers' tables in the temple, and told them NOT to buy and sell in His Father's house. The Gospel CANNOT be bought and sold with physical money.
However, Jesus bought us with the price of His precious, shed blood, upon which no monetary value can be placed. The Apostle Paul tells us that we were "bought with a price." Jesus said that we CANNOT serve God and mammon (money), that we will love one and hate the other. Whom are you loving or hating? Are you loving God and hating the things of this world? Just a thought for the day.

Welcome to my blog!

2008-05-25T20:49:00.000-07:00

I have been inspired to join the blogosphere. After reading blogs from family and friends, I figured I would join the trend, and create my very own cyber-space!

On this blog, you'll find links to articles I've found interesting, plus essays and opinions which I plan to write on a variety of topics, such as theology, politics, history, sports, and a host of other topics.

I have also seen how the far-left blogosphere has been shaping public opinion and swaying elections, so I figured it's time for me as a right-winger to get involved and help balance things out.

Jason's Jibes

My first seminary paper - "For Pete's Sake -- Lesson from the Life of the Apostle Peter from the Gospels"

Leave Albert Pujols and Tony LaRussa alone

Trouble in Tar Heel Land

Health Care and the role of government

Yahoo! Mail

Now I understand why Peppers wants out of Carolina

Something to Ponder Following Obama's speech

Why I Still Love America

Why I love America

Why I love America

OBAMANATION HAS BEGUN!

Not necessarily your best life now

Mr. Obama, Gimme a Handout!

Christ alone is our Messiah!

Obama's Twisted Theology

Jason's questions and comments on Caroll's socialism essay

Caroll Huffman: Socialism is unbiblical

OBAMANOMICS: Thoughts on Barack Obama’s Economic Plan

How could a Christian vote Democrat?

Why do Evangelicals Support Obama?

You MUST listen to this sermon -- and share it

A balanced Biblical view of homosexuality

Romans 1:9-32: “Theology 101”

How to study the Bible -- Sunday School lesson from 6/8/08

It's a great time of year to be a baseball fan!

Mormonism versus Orthodox Christianity

Excellent quote from Alastair Begg

A youthful prayer from the beach

Cheesy Christian stuff

Welcome to my blog!