Thursday, May 14, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Talking Points The president offers unserious rhetoric on a vital security matter. By Thomas Sowell
One of the many signs of the degeneration of our times is how many serious, even life-and-death issues are approached as talking points in a game of verbal fencing. Nothing illustrates this more than the fatuous, and even childish, controversy about “torturing” captured terrorists.
People’s actions often make far more sense than their words. Most of the people who are talking lofty talk about how we mustn’t descend to the level of our enemies would themselves behave very differently if presented with a comparable situation, instead of being presented with an opportunity to be morally one up with rhetoric.
What if it were your mother or your child who was tied up somewhere beside a ticking bomb and you had captured a terrorist who knew where that was? Face it: What you would do to that terrorist to make him talk would make waterboarding look like a picnic.
You wouldn’t care what the New York Times would say or what “world opinion” in the U.N. would say. You would save your loved one’s life and tell those other people what they could do.
But if the United States behaves that way it is called “arrogance” — even by American citizens. Indeed, even by the American president.
The Left has long confused physical parallels with moral parallels. But when a criminal shoots at a policeman and the policeman shoots back, physical equivalence is not moral equivalence. And what American intelligence agents have done to captured terrorists is not even physical equivalence.
If we have reached the point where we cannot be bothered to think beyond rhetoric or to make moral distinctions, then we have reached the point where our survival in an increasingly dangerous world of nuclear proliferation can no longer be taken for granted.
To read the rest
People’s actions often make far more sense than their words. Most of the people who are talking lofty talk about how we mustn’t descend to the level of our enemies would themselves behave very differently if presented with a comparable situation, instead of being presented with an opportunity to be morally one up with rhetoric.
What if it were your mother or your child who was tied up somewhere beside a ticking bomb and you had captured a terrorist who knew where that was? Face it: What you would do to that terrorist to make him talk would make waterboarding look like a picnic.
You wouldn’t care what the New York Times would say or what “world opinion” in the U.N. would say. You would save your loved one’s life and tell those other people what they could do.
But if the United States behaves that way it is called “arrogance” — even by American citizens. Indeed, even by the American president.
The Left has long confused physical parallels with moral parallels. But when a criminal shoots at a policeman and the policeman shoots back, physical equivalence is not moral equivalence. And what American intelligence agents have done to captured terrorists is not even physical equivalence.
If we have reached the point where we cannot be bothered to think beyond rhetoric or to make moral distinctions, then we have reached the point where our survival in an increasingly dangerous world of nuclear proliferation can no longer be taken for granted.
To read the rest
How The New Birth Happens
First, the Holy Spirit freely gives life. There is no how-to here at all; he must sovereignly do this.
Second, this happens through the living and abiding Word of God. We see here the human agency of the divine sovereign awakening of dead souls.
Third, the gospel brings about faith. Believing is the result, not the cause of the new birth.
Fourth, Christ is received and believed upon.
These four steps cannot be carved apart—they must happen simultaneouslyby John Piper
HT Challies
Ten Reasons we need to be Born Again.
Apart from the new birth we are dead
Apart from the new birth we are by nature children of wrath
Apart from the new birth we love darkness and hate light
Apart from the new birth we have hearts that are hard like stone
Apart from the new birth we are unable to submit to God
Apart from the new birth we are unable to except the gospel
Apart from the new birth we are unable to come to Christ or embrace him as Lord
Apart from the new birth we are slaves to sin
Apart from the new birth we are slaves of Satan
Apart from the new birth no good thing dwells in me
by John Piper
HT Challies
Apart from the new birth we are by nature children of wrath
Apart from the new birth we love darkness and hate light
Apart from the new birth we have hearts that are hard like stone
Apart from the new birth we are unable to submit to God
Apart from the new birth we are unable to except the gospel
Apart from the new birth we are unable to come to Christ or embrace him as Lord
Apart from the new birth we are slaves to sin
Apart from the new birth we are slaves of Satan
Apart from the new birth no good thing dwells in me
by John Piper
HT Challies
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The odious Democrat bootlicker Jon Stewart gets his tail handed to him in the Washington Times.
I have always considered Jon Stewart (The Daily Show) to be a thoroughly repugnant ass and his TV show a bunch of garbage for only the very stupidest of left-wing nobrains. As a result of my avoidance of the man and his works, I have seldom had occasion to write about him.
Thus I greatly enjoyed Andrew Breitbart's column about Stewart in today's Washington Times, in which he shows up Stewart as a partisan hack.
My only prior substantive reference to Stewart in this august publication, in fact, characterized him as "another open Democrat partisan talker" as opposed to him being any sort of comedian, and I dismissed him as an uninteresting Democrat water-carrier.
Predictably, Stewart has continued his old ways, attacking obscure and powerless Republicans while giving a free pass to President Obama as the Chief Executive and his complicit Congress attempt a grotesque and horrifying transformation of the United States into a combination of 1970s Great Britain and current-day Mexico.Jonathan and his amazing technicolor dream-teleprompter (yes, he has one too) has for 10 years used sophisticated character assassination to slyly annihilate the political enemies of the Democratic Party.
The show's multitude of liberal, Ivy-League-educated writers—another Obama echo—feed the mildly successful former stand-up comedian irony-laden words that he offers up with his signature goofy facial expressions. And Jon Stewart has a studio audience of pliant seals commanded and trained to flap their fins at every smirk or sarcastic joke.
As a smug and pretentious elitist who portrays himself as more intelligent than the opposition when in fact he simply reads Democrat talking points in a snarky tone of voice while expressing mock astonishment, Stewart caters to an audience of people who likewise think themselves superior to the population as a whole and hence think that pseudo intellectuals such as themselves should be given the keys to the car and the rest of us should remain in the back seat and shut the hell up.
Killing Off American Comedy - By Gene Healy
A lot of folks are upset over comedienne Wanda Sykes's attack on Rush Limbaugh at Saturday's White House Correspondents' Dinner. She called Rush a "traitor," and said "I hope his kidneys fail." Limbaugh aside, though, there were deeper problems with Sykes's routine: it was the work of a courtier comic: embarrassingly sycophantic and unfunny.
Sykes began her routine by gushing to the president "you're so likable," and spent most of her time savaging Obama's critics. For her grand finale, she took on people who complained that the president didn't get a rescue dog: "Look, the man has to rescue a country that's been abused by its previous owner. Let him have a fresh start with a dog." Edgy stuff! Lenny Bruce would be proud.
A solitary flop at stand-up is no big deal, but Sykes isn't the only comic who has trouble making fun of Barack Obama. Jon Stewart's been a lot less amusing since his guy got elected.
Tearing into Jim Cramer makes for good TV, but Stewart's painful earnestness hardly provides the yuks. Comedian Jackie Mason--who summed up Bill Clinton with one razor-sharp line: "at least Nixon had the decency to twitch when he lied"--says that his fellow comics have fallen prey to "hero worship."
From AmSpecBlog
Population, Economy, and God - By Tom Bethell
World population, once “exploding,” is still increasing, and “momentum” ensures that it will do so for decades to come. But fertility rates have tumbled. In Europe every country has fallen below replacement level.
In rich countries, a total fertility rate of 2.1 babies per woman is needed if population is to remain stable. But in the European Union as a whole the rate is down to 1.5. Germany is at 1.4, and Italy, Spain, and Greece are at 1.3.
I believe that two interacting factors shape population growth or decline: economic prosperity and belief in God. As to the first, there is no doubt that rising material prosperity discourages additional children. Fewer infants die; large families are no longer needed to support older parents. The welfare state—which only rich countries can afford—has greatly compounded this effect. When people believe that the government will take care of them, pay their pensions and treat their maladies, children do seem less essential.
A rise in prosperity also encourages people to think that they can dispense with God. Religion diminishes when wealth increases—that’s my theory. But with a twist that I shall come to. Wealth generates independence, including independence from God, or (if you will) Providence. God is gradually forgotten, then assumed not to exist. This will tend to drive childbearing down even further. Hedonism will become predominant. Remember, Jesus warned that it’s the rich, not the poor, who are at spiritual hazard.
To read the rest
In rich countries, a total fertility rate of 2.1 babies per woman is needed if population is to remain stable. But in the European Union as a whole the rate is down to 1.5. Germany is at 1.4, and Italy, Spain, and Greece are at 1.3.
I believe that two interacting factors shape population growth or decline: economic prosperity and belief in God. As to the first, there is no doubt that rising material prosperity discourages additional children. Fewer infants die; large families are no longer needed to support older parents. The welfare state—which only rich countries can afford—has greatly compounded this effect. When people believe that the government will take care of them, pay their pensions and treat their maladies, children do seem less essential.
A rise in prosperity also encourages people to think that they can dispense with God. Religion diminishes when wealth increases—that’s my theory. But with a twist that I shall come to. Wealth generates independence, including independence from God, or (if you will) Providence. God is gradually forgotten, then assumed not to exist. This will tend to drive childbearing down even further. Hedonism will become predominant. Remember, Jesus warned that it’s the rich, not the poor, who are at spiritual hazard.
To read the rest
Monday, May 11, 2009
Why Would God Command Something That Is Impossible?
- God clearly does command us to do that which is impossible for fallen sinners: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). Moreover, the law of God itself demands to be obeyed perfectly, flawlessly (James 2:10)—thus demanding a level of obedience that has proven utterly impossible for every person who ever lived, except Christ.
- Therefore the fact that God commands us to do something is no proof that we have intrinsic power in our fallen state to obey Him. (Cf. Romans 7:15-16).
- One major reason God gives us moral standards we cannot obey is to reinforce our knowledge of our own spiritual impotence, so that we have no option but to turn to His grace as we seek salvation from our sin. (Cf. Luke 18:13-14).
- Nothing but sheer arrogance and a blindness to one's own spiritual poverty would lead anyone to think he is capable of obeying God or saving himself through human will power. (cf. Luke 18:11; Romans 10:3.)
- It is also a serious mistake to imagine that inability nullifies responsibility in the moral realm. The fact that sinners are spiritually dead and therefore morally unable to obey God does not remove them from the moral obligation to obey Him.
- I think you misunderstand the Calvinist objection to "free will." Every true Calvinist believes sinners are responsible moral agents, free from any external force or coercion in the choices they make. They choose freely. But they inevitably choose wrong, because their choices are determined by their own nature and their nature is sinful and corrupt. We can discuss this further if you're interested, but the point is simple: A call for the sinner to "choose" something good is in no way incompatible with Calvinist theology.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Don't Look Back To Your Sin, Look Back To Jesus
"Would you like to be rid of this spiritual depression? The first thing you have to do is to say farewell now once and forever to your past. . . . Never look back at your sins again. Say, 'It is finished, it is covered by the Blood of Christ.' That is your first step. Take that and finish with yourself and all this talk about goodness, and look to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is only then that true happiness and joy are possible for you. What you need is not to make resolutions and to live a better life, to start fasting and sweating and praying. No! You just begin to say, 'I rest my faith on Him alone, who died for my transgressions to atone.'"
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Spiritual Depression, p. 35.
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Spiritual Depression, p. 35.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Conviction Or Accusation?
"He will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment." John 16:8
". . . the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down . . . ." Revelation 12:10
How can I tell the difference between the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit and the accusing attacks of Satan? Some thoughts:
1. The Holy Spirit puts his finger on a specific sin I have committed, something concrete I can own and confess, but the accusations of Satan are vague and simply demoralizing.
2.The Holy Spirit shows me Christ, the mighty Friend of sinners, but the devil wants me spiraling down into negative self-focus.
3. The Holy Spirit leads me to a threshold of new life, but the devil wants to paralyze me where I am.
4. The Holy Spirit brings peace of heart along with a new hatred of sin, so that I bow before Jesus in reconsecration, but the devil offers peace of mind with smug relief, so that I fold my arms and say, "There, that's over with."
5. The Holy Spirit helps me to be so open to God that I allow him to control the conversation, but the devil tempts me to take off the table certain questions I just don't want God to talk to me about.
We are thankful for our dear Friend, the Holy Spirit.
From Ray Ortland
". . . the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down . . . ." Revelation 12:10
How can I tell the difference between the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit and the accusing attacks of Satan? Some thoughts:
1. The Holy Spirit puts his finger on a specific sin I have committed, something concrete I can own and confess, but the accusations of Satan are vague and simply demoralizing.
2.The Holy Spirit shows me Christ, the mighty Friend of sinners, but the devil wants me spiraling down into negative self-focus.
3. The Holy Spirit leads me to a threshold of new life, but the devil wants to paralyze me where I am.
4. The Holy Spirit brings peace of heart along with a new hatred of sin, so that I bow before Jesus in reconsecration, but the devil offers peace of mind with smug relief, so that I fold my arms and say, "There, that's over with."
5. The Holy Spirit helps me to be so open to God that I allow him to control the conversation, but the devil tempts me to take off the table certain questions I just don't want God to talk to me about.
We are thankful for our dear Friend, the Holy Spirit.
From Ray Ortland
Friday, May 8, 2009
An Interview with Os Guinness on the 25th Anniversary of Francis Schaeffer's Death
Justin Taylor recently asked Os Guinness a few questions about Schaeffer's impact and significance.
How did you first meet Schaeffer?
I first met Francis Schaeffer in 1965 when I was a student in London. I had come to faith in Jesus through a Christian friend and through reading such writers as Dostoevsky, G.K. Chesterton, and C.S. Lewis. But it would be fair to say that while we had extraordinary biblical exposition and deep, rich theological teaching in England, there was almost no encouragement to think Christianly or to understand what was going on in the wider culture. So there I was as a student in the middle of ‘swinging London’ and the exploding Sixties, and no Christians that I knew understood what was going on at all. Then a friend took me to hear a strange little man in Swiss knickers, with a high-pitched voice, terms all of his own such as ‘the line of despair,’ and appalling mispronunciations and occasional malapropisms. But I was intrigued and then hooked. Schaeffer was the first Christian I met who was concerned to, and capable of connecting the dots and making sense of the extraordinary times that puzzled and dismayed most people. Two years later, I went to the Swiss l’Abri myself, and my first three weeks there in the summer of 1967 became the most revolutionary period in my entire life. I have never been the same since.
Can you describe his influence on you personally?
Later on, I had the privilege of living with Francis and Edith Schaeffer for three years in their home, so I came to know them both very well. To be honest, I adored Edith and have never met a woman like her. I can’t say quite the same about Francis, and I have my differences with him. But I also owe the world to him, and he has influenced me profoundly even where I differ from him. His main influence was not intellectual. I owe far more in that area to my real mentor, Peter Berger. In fact I have not read many of Schaeffer’s books, because I heard them all delivered in lectures and discussions before they were written. So Schaeffer has influenced me more in an unspoken way. I often say simply that I have never met anyone with such a passion for God, combined with a passion for people, combined with a passion for truth. That is an extremely rare combination, and Schaeffer embodied it. It is also why so many of his scholarly critics completely miss the heart of who he was, and why his son’s recent portrayal of his father is such a travesty and an outrage.
We all serve as examples to others—both positively and negatively. What are some of the main things in Schaeffer’s life and ministry that we should seek to emulate, and what are some cautionary lessons we can learn?
Of all his own books, Francis Schaeffer’s favorite was True Spirituality. It tells the story of his passionate, even desperate, search for reality in faith. But that was what was so great about him. There was no gap between his trust in God, his praying, his wrestling with issues, his lectures, his preaching, his love of the mountains, his sense of fun, his appreciation of beauty, and so on. With all his flaws, he was a very real man. Nietzsche used to say, “All truths are bloody truths to me,” and the same could be said of Schaeffer. In a day when some of the best-selling Christian celebrities and authors are windbags and even hypocrites, and so many Christian leaders are great for shallow reasons, Francis Schaeffer was very real.
At the same time, although he was a brilliant thinker, with an uncanny ability to connect the dots and see the significance of things, he was not a scholar and he relied too much on reading magazines rather than books. So he allowed himself, perhaps, to believe his flatterers' hype, or at least to go along with the puffery of his publishers and others. In the end, he lost a bit of his earlier humility, and was portrayed as the great philosopher and scholar that he wasn’t – which means that real scholars have an easy time of debunking some of his ideas.
Is there something in particular that you think people today misunderstand about Schaeffer?
A host of misunderstanding swirls around Francis Schaeffer’s reputation today. The two that concern me most are about his apologetics and his significance. Many who cite his apologetic approach have a comically wooden understanding of how he approached people to win them to faith. I have yet to see the book that does justice to the sheer brilliance of his way of presenting the gospel.
As far as his influence, he had a massive impact on the lives of individuals, including me, but his wider significance was as a ‘gatekeeper,’ or a door opener. When almost no Evangelicals were thinking about culture and connecting unconnected dots, Schaeffer not only did it himself but blazed a trail for countless others to follow. Many who trumpet their disagreements with him today owe their very capacity to disagree to his influence a generation ago. A little man in stature, he was a giant in influence, and many who have gone further have done so only by standing on his shoulders. I for one owe far more to Francis Schaeffer than I can ever say, and I live daily in his debt.
How did you first meet Schaeffer?
I first met Francis Schaeffer in 1965 when I was a student in London. I had come to faith in Jesus through a Christian friend and through reading such writers as Dostoevsky, G.K. Chesterton, and C.S. Lewis. But it would be fair to say that while we had extraordinary biblical exposition and deep, rich theological teaching in England, there was almost no encouragement to think Christianly or to understand what was going on in the wider culture. So there I was as a student in the middle of ‘swinging London’ and the exploding Sixties, and no Christians that I knew understood what was going on at all. Then a friend took me to hear a strange little man in Swiss knickers, with a high-pitched voice, terms all of his own such as ‘the line of despair,’ and appalling mispronunciations and occasional malapropisms. But I was intrigued and then hooked. Schaeffer was the first Christian I met who was concerned to, and capable of connecting the dots and making sense of the extraordinary times that puzzled and dismayed most people. Two years later, I went to the Swiss l’Abri myself, and my first three weeks there in the summer of 1967 became the most revolutionary period in my entire life. I have never been the same since.
Can you describe his influence on you personally?
Later on, I had the privilege of living with Francis and Edith Schaeffer for three years in their home, so I came to know them both very well. To be honest, I adored Edith and have never met a woman like her. I can’t say quite the same about Francis, and I have my differences with him. But I also owe the world to him, and he has influenced me profoundly even where I differ from him. His main influence was not intellectual. I owe far more in that area to my real mentor, Peter Berger. In fact I have not read many of Schaeffer’s books, because I heard them all delivered in lectures and discussions before they were written. So Schaeffer has influenced me more in an unspoken way. I often say simply that I have never met anyone with such a passion for God, combined with a passion for people, combined with a passion for truth. That is an extremely rare combination, and Schaeffer embodied it. It is also why so many of his scholarly critics completely miss the heart of who he was, and why his son’s recent portrayal of his father is such a travesty and an outrage.
We all serve as examples to others—both positively and negatively. What are some of the main things in Schaeffer’s life and ministry that we should seek to emulate, and what are some cautionary lessons we can learn?
Of all his own books, Francis Schaeffer’s favorite was True Spirituality. It tells the story of his passionate, even desperate, search for reality in faith. But that was what was so great about him. There was no gap between his trust in God, his praying, his wrestling with issues, his lectures, his preaching, his love of the mountains, his sense of fun, his appreciation of beauty, and so on. With all his flaws, he was a very real man. Nietzsche used to say, “All truths are bloody truths to me,” and the same could be said of Schaeffer. In a day when some of the best-selling Christian celebrities and authors are windbags and even hypocrites, and so many Christian leaders are great for shallow reasons, Francis Schaeffer was very real.
At the same time, although he was a brilliant thinker, with an uncanny ability to connect the dots and see the significance of things, he was not a scholar and he relied too much on reading magazines rather than books. So he allowed himself, perhaps, to believe his flatterers' hype, or at least to go along with the puffery of his publishers and others. In the end, he lost a bit of his earlier humility, and was portrayed as the great philosopher and scholar that he wasn’t – which means that real scholars have an easy time of debunking some of his ideas.
Is there something in particular that you think people today misunderstand about Schaeffer?
A host of misunderstanding swirls around Francis Schaeffer’s reputation today. The two that concern me most are about his apologetics and his significance. Many who cite his apologetic approach have a comically wooden understanding of how he approached people to win them to faith. I have yet to see the book that does justice to the sheer brilliance of his way of presenting the gospel.
As far as his influence, he had a massive impact on the lives of individuals, including me, but his wider significance was as a ‘gatekeeper,’ or a door opener. When almost no Evangelicals were thinking about culture and connecting unconnected dots, Schaeffer not only did it himself but blazed a trail for countless others to follow. Many who trumpet their disagreements with him today owe their very capacity to disagree to his influence a generation ago. A little man in stature, he was a giant in influence, and many who have gone further have done so only by standing on his shoulders. I for one owe far more to Francis Schaeffer than I can ever say, and I live daily in his debt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)