ENOUGH! A Common Sense Energy Policy and Affordable Gas

For DECADES we've been promised by politicians that they would "fix" the energy problems our nation has. For decades they have failed to do so. They are too busy enjoying the powers of their offices, while spending the massive taxes they collect on the gas we buy. All the while, they blame "big oil," and cripple our ability to find new domestic sources of fuel and energy.
There's no doubt that "big oil" likes the BIG profits they are getting due to the low supply/high demand market for gasoline these days. Yeah, it's called capitalism. We only consider their profits "obscene" because the media and politicians WANT us to. In fact, a fact that is often conveniently left out, Big Oil has relatively LOW profit margins, and relatively HIGH investments in research and development. They only take in about HALF the profits on a gallon of gas vs. the amount of TAXES the government takes in revenue!

So, here's a modest proposal to improve oil prices that would help the economy immensely and in short order.It's TIME for a sensible, straightforward plan to REALLY fix our energy challenges and return our gas to affordable levels.

(1) Congress must FIRST REPEAL the Federal gas tax. That would be 18-20 cents a gallon savings IMMEDIATELY.

(2) Congress should drop ALL restrictions on drilling for oil in Alaska and off the coast of the US, and should allow further exploration in all areas, regions, states and territories to discover more Crude.

(3) Congress should authorize doubling the capacity of our oil refineries in the next decade -- including authorizing subsidies for companies to build them, and shield laws to keep environmentalist wackos from suing to stop them.

(4) Congress should suspend indefinitely EPA regulations demanding dozens of different gasoline formulations due to alleged levels of "pollution" in given cities and regions of the US.

(5) Congress should authorize the construction of at least 25 NEW Nuclear power plants in the next decade -- if FRANCE can do it, WE can do it BETTER.

(6) Congress should authorize the use of coal -- or to covert coal to oil -- for other energy supplies.

IF these changes were implemented, within ONE YEAR gas prices would likely be down to between $1.25-$1.50 a gallon. HOW? Simple. The speculators that are bidding up the price of oil because they EXPECT limited availability would reverse course. The framework upon which they speculate would be jerked out from under them. ALSO, suppliers -- like OPEC -- would realize that we were serious, so they would vastly increase production to create a "glut" of oil to keep us DEPENDENT on them (somewhat akin to how a pusher keeps an addict hooked on heroin or coke). IF we were RESOLUTE, we could persevere and break our habit -- but NO ONE is resolute in Washington about ANYTHING -- except maintaining their own power.

And environmentalists and Liberals need not scream their opposition to this proposal. Your guys are in power. Your policies are working. Common sense is a lost trait. These ideas will never be implemented -- at least until we're using candles and riding horses again...

Ronald Reagan on Religion and Government

I ran across this statement that the late President Ronald Reagan made during his time in office. It is a brilliant and profound statement, and remains just as true right now as it was 25 years ago.


We need religion as a guide. We need it because we are imperfect, and our government needs the church, because only those that are humble enough to admit they're sinners can bring to democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive.

- President Ronald W. Reagan

On Jeremiah Wright, Black Liberation Theology, & The Bible

Black "Liberation" Theology, like other forms of Liberation Theology, are based on the principle that "God is to be found and understood from among the poor." In other words, because Jesus was "poor" and born to a humble and oppressed people, this is where we should go to seek a proper understanding of God and His plan. This line of reasoning then INEVITABLY emphasizes to temporal condition of the poor over thier spiritual poverty, and equates the Gospel of salvation with that of "political liberation." The language of "political liberation" is dominated by the belief in "revolution" to overthrow the temporal tools of oppression and poverty -- normally in Black Liberation Theology, the WHITE dominated political and economic system -- and replace it with [of course] Marxism. In other words, Black Liberation Theology is the melding together of Black Racism, distorted pseudo-Christian Theology and Marxist-Communism.

It's treatment errs in that theology (properly understood as "the study of God") CANNOT be understood as "coming from" ANY human perspective, but ONLY from the Revelation of God Himself in His Word! Theology from ANY human source or experience viewed as authoritative is going to OBSCURE the truth of God's revelation, NOT express it.

It's treatment err's in that it makes victims of those who see themselves as the oppressed, and it therefore creates in them the false impression that somehow they are OWED [by God or by others] something in return -- and that this "repayment" may be secured by ANY means. Thus, it justifies whatever it's adherents choose to use as a strategy to achieve their own goals. Necessarily, it ignores or downplays the idea that EVERY human is "carnal, sold under sin," or has "fallen short of the glory of God," and instead insists that renewal must come NOT primarily through a personal spiritual "new birth," but by the political and revolutionary overthrow of current systems and governments. Thus, their belief in and support of Marxism -- and too often violence.

This is a PLAGUE, it is a heresy, and it should be openly confronted as such by the Biblical Church.

Southern Baptist Conference to Answer 5 Pt. Calvinism

John 3:16 Conference

Dates: November 6-7, 2008 (Thursday, Friday)

Location: First Baptist Church, Woodstock, Georgia (Johnny Hunt, Pastor)

If you're interested in a critique of each of the five points of Calvinism, here's a conference you may be interested in: John 3:16 Conference.
This conference is not going to be a "Let's bash the Calvinists" conference. This conference is going to be a biblical and theological assessment of and response to 5-point Calvinism. It will be helpful for lay people as well as preachers.

Steve Lemke, one of the speakers, explains:
Southern Baptist scholars will be presenting a Biblical response to the well-known tenets of the Presbyterian Synod of Dort. . . . This conference is intended as a majoritarian Southern Baptist response to the "Building Bridges" and "Together for the Gospel" conferences.
Given the line-up of speakers, it seems geared toward older pastors and lay people within the SBC. Furthermore, it seems that it is only intended to be heard by those who actually attend the conference: "There will be no live or archived audio or video of this conference via the Internet."


It'll be interesting to see the number of attendees. Since it is being held in Johnny Hunt's megachurch, and since most of his people will probably attend, I expect there will probably be at least 7,000 people there. If so, expect the Baptist Press to play up the significance of this number.

Featuring: (exact schedule to be posted later)

John 3:16 - Dr. Jerry Vines

Total Depravity - Dr. Paige Patterson

Unconditional Election - Dr. Richard Land

Limited Atonement - Dr. David Allen

Irresistible Grace - Dr. Steve Lemke

Perseverance of the Saints - Dr. Ken Keathley

John 3:16 to the entire world - Dr. Charles Stanley


FROM JDW: I found this today in my email, and also saw it posted on the Society of Evangelical Arminians website. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Johnny Hunt -- I've been acquainted with him for over 20 years. Dr. Jerry Vines is one of the Best Preachers I've ever heard/met, as are Dr. Paige Patterson, Dr. Richard Land, and Dr. Charles Stanley. I will likely attend this conference. Anyone want to join me there? I've been to FBC Woodstock a number of times. Besides, it will be FUN to see Southern Baptists come out as Arminians, yet retain that whole "unconditional perseverance of the saints" thing.
We who've BEEN Arminian Baptists should at least SEND a committee to welcome them to our world!

Jesus Slaves

Bumper stickers tell you a lot about the people who stick them to their cars. The pithy, quaint and sometimes profound little slogans are often packed with humor, meaning, or just frivolity.

I saw a bumper sticker last night that caught my attention -- but not in a good way. I'll see them every now and again. About 6 months ago I saw one that made Christians out to be fascists. So, a couple of times a year, I'll see something like this.

"Jesus Slaves." That's what the sticker said. White background, black type with red outlines. Jesus Slaves.

Now, had there been some context to this statement like Paul's statement, "Likewise he who is called [while] free is Christ's slave," (I Corinthians 7:22b) it would have been one thing. After all, we have been made Christ's slave by our choice. Our willingness to submit is not grievous because, as the Lord says, "My yoke [is] easy and My burden is light" (Matthew 11:30).

But, I think we're all quite certain that was not the meaning of the bumper sticker. This person likely had fallen for the too oft painted picture of a Christianity that demands and requires. You know: “Do this!” “Don’t do that!” “Go there!” “Wear this!” “Never go there!” So many times that’s the FALSE impression people get about Christ and following Him. And unfortunately, many who call themselves His followers have fallen into that same trap of performance. We must DO to earn His merits. We must pay to gain His attention.

I used to be enamored of the same view. Then, I learned the meaning of GRACE. Grace gives when we have nothing to give in return. Grace loves when we are unlovely. Grace FREES when we are enslaved. Grace fills when we are empty and begins to empty us of worldly worries, only to fill us with eternals blessings. That anyone could display a bumper sticker saying “Jesus Slaves” gives ample evidence that they do not KNOW Jesus.

Yes, I can say with Paul, I am a “bondservant for Jesus’ sake” (II Corinthians 4:5). And happily so -- I wouldn’t have it any other way.

JDW

Dogs under His Table

But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast [it] to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table (Matthew 15:26, 27).

Dogs. That's it? The woman was pleading for help with a demon-possessed daughter. And Jesus first speaks not a word to her. Then He tells His disciples He is called to the House of Israel -- and not to DOGS.

I'm partial to dogs. I have two Daschunds. They are sitting with me as I write this. Sweet dogs. But the connotation of the word used by Jesus was anything but an endearing term.
The Jews, while they boasted of being the children of God, gave the name of "dogs" to the heathen, for their idolatry, etc. It was, for lack of a better term, a racial (and spiritual) epithet. An insult. A putdown.

Of course there are obvious eschatological implications in Jesus' words. He had indeed come to offer the Kingdom to Israel. His concern was with the Jews. But, was it necessary for Him to be so derogatory when He finally answered this poor woman?

Three observations:

First, the Jews had no real REASON to boast against this woman or any other Gentile -- they were as guilty of sin before God as were any of the Gentile peoples. Paul details that at length in Romans 1:18-3:23.

Second, If anyone IS justified in calling this woman -- or any other human throughout history! -- as a "dog," it is the Lord Himself. He is the perfect, incarnate Son of God! This woman -- and I, and YOU -- are worse than dogs, lost in our sins, deserving of nothing. Some point out at this point that the Greek term He used meant "lap dog" or "little dog," as opposed to a scavenger dog or attack dog -- but under the circumstances, did that make the term any easier to hear?

Third, and most importantly, real faith -- as seen in this woman's response to the Lord's apparent insult -- is often NOT seen until it is challenged, until it is tried. How would this woman react -- rejection, faithlessness, pride....Acceptance, faith, humilty?

"It's true Lord, but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the Master's table." There are only two ways to "amaze" Jesus. The first is unbelief, the second is "great faith." And Jesus was amazed at this woman's great faith. And that faith was rewarded -- her daughter was delivered from demonic possession.

Do we have that kind of faith? Do I? I sometimes doubt it. To apparently be ignored, then seemingly insulted...Could I stick it out and persist in faith as she did? We never hear from this Syrophoenician woman again. She does not grace the pages of scripture beyond this one episode. What an example she leaves us. What great faith we should seek to emulate.

JDW

Progressive Rock: Can Rock Music be Artistic and Intelligent?

I've recently rekindled an interest in Progressive Rock music -- a genre that is too often absent the recognition it observes, usually because it doesn't fit the 4 minute, teeny booper, mindless pop culture syrup that passes for "music" these days.

Progressive Rock (often referred to as Prog Rock) came into being in the late 1960's and early 1970's, as some artists wanted to create a form of Rock music that had artistic credibility and also sought to engage the mind. Many of the early artists were British, but Prog Rock has become a global genre in the decades since its appearance on the scene.

The origins of Prog Rock are numerous, and some or all of these elements are identifiable in the various artists of the genre. Contributing styles include psychadelic rock, jazz, [jazz-rock] fusion, blues-rock, hard rock, metal, folk rock, experimental music, electronic art music, classical, free jazz and even some celtic elements.

The musical styles usually emphasized innovative technical and compositional stylings, lyrics that tend to be intricate, meaningful and conceptual, and sometimes based in fantasy, abstract truth and grand over-arching themes.

Pioneers in the Prog Rock genre include groups such as Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Rush, The Moody Blues, King Crimson and Emerson, Lake and Palmer. One would also have to mention groups of that era that -- if not regarded as full on Prog Rock practitioners -- were certainly influenced by and contributed to the genre to some degree, like Kansas, Styx, Asia, and Deep Purple.

The "first wave" of Prog Rock hit it's peak in the late 1970's to the mid-1980's, and then went into decline as musical stylings and popularity changed. Still, there has been a "second wave," identified as "neo-progressive" music, which had it's origins in the late 1980's and early 1990's, that have kept the genre alive and innovative. This decade there has been a resurgence in the genre's popularity in some areas, and with the exposure of more people to the art through the internet (internet radio, youtube, etc). Groups at the forefront of this "new wave" of resurgent progressive rock include Dream Theater, Amaran's Plight, Porcupine Tree, Dominici, Ayreon, Symphony X, and to a lesser extent more popular bands like Queesryche in the 1990's and Tool currently.

One of my personal favorites of the genre is Neal Morse. Morse has always been in Prog Rock, but a few years ago, he was saved. That transformation has translated into several powerful albums (okay, I'm old fashioned -- CD's!) that are as spiritually progressive as they are musically. I would recommend his CD's "?" and "Sola Scriptura." WOW -- good stuff. Prior to his solo efforts, he also performed with Spock's Beard and Transatlatic -- both solid and gifted progressive groups and musical styles.

I think because you find more innovative approaches to music in the Prog Rock genre, you also see more openness among some of its artists to express spiritual themes -- even blatantly Christian ones. My favorite place to hear a great mix of Prog Rock -- old and new -- is MOROW.Com -- a radio station available free through the internet at ITunes. I suppose you can get it via other means at their website as well.

Give it a listen and tell me what you all think.

Blessings,

JDW

The First "Baptist" Statement of Faith

This is the first "real" Baptist confession of faith. Actually, I got it a couple of years ago after "GenBap" posted it (on FWBNet or at the Baptist Online Library -- not sure which). It was written in 1611, in Amsterdam, where some 40-odd English Separatists under the charge John Smyth and Thomas Helwys fled to avoid persecution in England. The date of their exodus is not known exactly, but probably occurred in the winter of 1607/08.

During the 3+ years the Separatists remained in Amsterdam, they interacted with a diverse lot of "Christians," including continental Protestants, English religious exiles who'd fled earlier, Anabaptists (aka Mennonites) and many in the Dutch Reformed Church -- including the "Remonstrants," the supporters of Jacobus Arminius).

Many date the first "Baptist" Confession to 1609, when John Smyth penned his "Short Confession," however, by that time it was already clear that Smyth had begun to move toward Anabaptist ideas and beliefs, and his statement didn't represent the sentiments of Helwys and many of the other English Separatists. Thus, Helwys wrote his own "Declaration" in 1611, and within the next year, he and a dozen or so congregants returned to Spitalsfield, England, where they planted the first "Baptist Church."

Below is that Declaration -- I hope it's educational, and I'd enjoy knowing what stands out to you all about it....

A DECLARATION OF FAITH OF ENGLISH PEOPLE REMAINING AT AMSTERDAM IN HOLLAND.

Hebrews 11:6. Without Faith it is impossible to please GOD. Hebrews 11. Romans 14:23. Whatsoever is not of Faith is sin.

Printed. 1611.

To All The Humble minded which love the truth in simplicity Grace and peace.

A DECLARATION, ETC. WE BELEIVE AND CONFESS

1. That there are THREE which bear record in heaven, the FATHER, the WORD, and the SPIRIT; and these THREE are one GOD, in all equality, (1 John 5:7; Philippians 2:5, 6). By whom all things are created and preserved, in Heaven and in Earth. (Genesis 1).

2. That this GOD in the beginning created al things of nothing, (Genesis 1:1) and made man of the dust of the earth, (Genesis 2:7), in his own image, (Genesis 1:27), in righteousness and true Holiness. (Ephesians 4:24); yet being tempted, fell by disobedience. (Ephesians 3:1-7). Through whose disobedience, all men sinned. (Romans 5:12-19). His sin being imputed unto all; and so death went over all men.

3. That by the promised seed of the woman, JESUS CHRIST, [and by] his obedience, al are made righteous. (Romans 5:19). All are made alive, (1 Corinthians 15:22). His righteousness being imputed unto all.

4. That notwithstanding this, men are by nature the Children of wrath, (Ephesians 2:3) born in iniquity and in sin conceived. (Psalm 51:5) Wise to all evil, but to good they have no knowledge. (Jeremiah 4:22). The natural ma perceives not the things of the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 2:14). And therefore man is not restored unto his former estate, but that as man, in his estate of innocence, having in himself all disposition unto good, &no disposition unto evil, yet being tempted might yield, or might resist: even so now being fallen, and having all disposition unto evil, and no disposition or will unto any good, yet GOD giving grace, man may receive grace, or my reject grace, according to that saying; (Deuteronomy 30:19) I call Heaven and Earth to record. This day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: Therefore choose life that both thou and thy seed may live.

5. That GOD before the Foundation of the World hath Predestinated that all that believe in him shall-be saved, (Ephesians 1:4, 12; Mark 16:16) and al that believe not shall be damned, (Mark 16:16) all which he knew before. (Romans 8:29) And this is the Election and reprobation spoken of in the Scriptures, concerning salvation, and condemnation, and not that GOD hath Predestinated men to be wicked, and so to be damned, but that men being wicked shall be damned, for GOD would have all men saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, (1 Timothy 2:4) and would have no man to perish, but would have all men come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9) and wills not the death of him that dies. (Ezekiel 18:32). And therefore GOD is the author of no mans condemnation; according to the saying of the Prophet. (Hosea 13). Thy destruction O Israel, is of thy self, but thy help is of me.

6. That man is justified only by the righteousness of CHRIST, apprehended by faith, (Romans 3:28. Galatians 2:16) yet faith without works is dead. (James 2:17)

7. That men may fall away from the grace of GOD, (Hebrews 12:15) and from the truth, which they have received &acknowledged, (Hebrews 10:26) after they have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the HOLY GHOST, and have tasted of the good word of GOD, &of the powers of the world to come. (Hebrews 6:4, 5). And after they have escaped from the filthiness of the World, may be tangled again therein &overcome. (2 Peter 2:20). That a righteous man may forsake his righteousness and perish (Ezekiel 18:24, 26). And therefore let no man presume to think that because he hath, or had once grace, therefore he shall always have grace: But let all men have assurance, that if they continue unto the end, they shall be saved: Let no man then presume; but let all work out their salvation with fear and trembling.

8. That JESUS CHRIST, the Son of GOD the second Person, or subsistence in the Trinity, in the Fullness of time was manifested in the Flesh, being the seed of David, and of the Israelites, according to the Flesh, (Romans 1:3 and Romans 8:5) the Son of Marie the Virgin, made of her substance, (Galatians 4:4) by the power of the HOLY GHOST overshadowing her, (Luke 1:35) and being thus true Man was like unto us in all thing, sin only excepted. Hebrews (4:15) being one person in two distinct natures, TRUE GOD, and TRUE MAN.

9. That JESUS CHRIST is Mediator of the New Testament between GOD and Man, (1 Timothy 2:5) having all power in Heaven and in Earth given unto him. (Matthew 28:18) Being the only KING, (Luke 1:33) PREIST, (Hebrews 7:24) and PROPHET. (Acts 3:22) Of his church, he also being the only Law-giver, hath in his Testament set down an absolute, and perfect rule of direction, for all persons, at all times, to be observed; Which no Prince, nor any whosoever, may add to, or diminish from as they will avoid the fearful judgments denounced against them that shall so do. (Revelation 22:18, 19).

10. That the church of CHRIST is a company of faithful people (1 Corinthians 1:2. Ephesians 1:1) separated from the world by the word &Spirit of GOD (2 Corinthians 6:17) being knit unto the LORD, &one unto another, by Baptism. (1 Corinthians 12:13). Upon their own confession of the faith (Acts 8:37) and sins. (Matthew 3:6).

11. That though in respect of CHRIST, the Church be one (Ephesians 4:4) yet it consists of divers particular congregations, even so many as there shall be in the World, every of which congregation, though they be but two or three, have CHRIST given them, with all the means of their salvation. (Matthew 18:20. Romans 8:32. 1 Corinthians 3:22). Are the Body of CHRIST (1 Corinthians 12:27) and a whole Church. (1 Corinthians 14:23) And therefore may, and ought, when they are come together, to Pray, Prophecy, break bread, and administer in all the holy ordinances, although as yet they have no Officers, or that their Officers should be in Prison, sick, or by any other means hindered from the Church. (1 Peter 4:10 &2:5).

12. That as one congregation hath CHRIST, so hath all, (2 Corinthians 10:7). And that the Word of GOD comes not out from any one, neither to any one congregation in particular. (1 Corinthians 14:36). But unto every particular Church, as it doth unto al the world. (Colossians 1:5. 6). And therefore no church ought to challenge any prerogative over any other.

13. That every Church is to receive in all their members by Baptism upon the Confession of their faith and sins wrought by the preaching of the Gospel, according to the primitive Institution, (Matthew 28:19) and practice, (Acts 2:41). And therefore Churches constituted after any other manner, or of any other persons are not according to CHRISTS Testament.

14. That Baptism or washing with water is the outward manifestation of dieing unto sin, and walking in newness of life. (Romans 6:2, 3, 4). And therefore in no wise appertains to infants.

15. That the LORDS Supper is the outward manifestation of the Spiritual communion between CHRIST and the faithful mutually (1 Corinthians 10:16, 17) to declare his death until he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26).

16. That the members of every Church or Congregation ought to know one another, so that they may perform all the duties of love one towards another, both to soul and body. (Matthew 18:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:14; 1 Corinthians 12:25). And especially the Elders ought to know the whole flock, whereof the HOLY GHOST hath made them overseers. (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2, 3). And therefore a Church ought not to consist of such a multitude as cannot have particular knowledge one of another.

17. That Brethren impenitent in one sin after the admonition of the Church, are to be excluded the communion of the Saints (Matthew 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:4, 13) &therefore not the committing of sin doth cut of any from the Church, but refusing to hear the Church to reformation.

18. That Excommunicants in respect of civil society are not to be avoided, (2 Thessalonians 3:15. Matthew 18:17).

19. That every Church ought (according to the example of CHRISTS Disciples and primitive Churches) upon every first day of the week, being the LORDS day, to assemble together to pray, prophecy, praise GOD, and break Bread, and perform all other parts of Spiritual communion for the worship of GOD, their own mutual edification, and the preservation of true Religion, &piety in the church (John 20:19. Acts 2:42 and 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2) and that ought not to labor in their callings according to the equity of the moral law, which CHRIST came not to abolish, but to fulfill. (Exodus 20:8 &c).

20. That the Officers of every Church or congregation are either Elders, who by their office do especially feed the flock concerning their souls, (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2, 3) or Deacons Men, and Women who by their office relieve the necessities of the poor and impotent brethren concerning their bodies, (Acts 6:1-4).

21. That these Officers are to be chosen when there are persons qualified according to the rules in Christ’s Testament, (1 Timothy 3:2-7. Titus 1:6-9. Acts 6:3. 4) by Election and approbation of that Church or congregation whereof they are members, (Acts 6:3. 4 and 14:23), with Fasting, Prayer, and Laying on of hands, (Acts 13:3. and 14:23). And there being but one rule for Elders, therefore but one sort of Elders.

22. That the Officers of every Church or congregation are tied by Office only to that particular congregation whereof they are chosen, (Acts 14:23, and 20:17. Titus 1:5). And therefore they cannot challenge by office any authorities in any other congregation whatsoever except they would have an Apostleship.

23. That the scriptures of the Old and New Testament are written for our instruction, (2 Timothy 3:16) &that we ought to search them for they testify of CHRIST, (10:5. 39). And therefore to be used withal reverence, as containing the Holy Word of GOD, which only is our direction in al things whatsoever.

24. That Magistracy is a Holy ordinance of GOD, that every soul ought to be subject to it not for fear only, but for conscience sake. Magistrates are the ministers of GOD for our wealth, they bear not the sword for naught. They are the ministers of GOD to take vengeance on them that do evil, (Romans 13). That it is a fearful sin to speak evil of them that are in authority, and to despise Government. (2 Peter 2:10). We ought to pay tribute, custom and all other duties. That we are to pray for the, for GOD would have them saved and come to the knowledge of his truth. (1 Timothy 2:1. 4). And therefore they may be members of the Church of CHRIST, retaining their Magistracy, for no Holy Ordinance of GOD debars any from being a member of CHRISTS Church. They bear the sword of GOD, — which sword in all Lawful administrations is to be defended and supported by the servants of GOD that are under their Government with their lives and al that they have according as in the first Institution of that Holy Ordinance. And whosoever holds otherwise must hold, (if they understand themselves) that they are the ministers of the devil, and therefore not to be prayed for nor approved in any of their administrations, — seeing all things they do (as punishing offenders and defending their countries, state, and persons by the sword) is unlawful.

25. That it is Lawful in a just cause for the deciding of strife to take an oath by the Name of the Lord. (Hebrews 6:16; 2 Corinthians 1:23. Philippians 1:8).

26. That the dead shall rise again, and the living being changed in a moment, - having the same bodies in substance though divers in qualities. (1 Corinthians 15:52 and 38. Job 19:15-28. Luke 24:30).

27. That after the resurrection all men shall appear before the judgment seat of CHRIST to be judged according to their works, that the Godly shall enjoy life Eternal, the wicked being condemned shall be tormented everlastingly in Hell. (Matthew 25:46).

Finis

Easter 2008 - What Happened from the Cross to the Throne? (and what it means to us)

As Easter has arrived, and Resurrection Sunday is just hours away, I thought I might deal with and explain an issue which I (and others far more intellectually savvy) are asked each spring about this time.

What happened from the time Jesus died, until His resurrection?

And there are corollary questions that go with that, like:

Where are the souls of those who died (faithful and faithless) prior to the time of Christ?

What's the difference in "hades" and "gehenna"? Aren't they both "hell?"

Is the "Paradise" which Jesus mentioned to the thief on the cross the same as "Heaven?"

Did Jesus "go to hell?"

And there are many other variations and related inquiries. I hope the following explanation will be enlightening and help to make sense of these questions....

Until the time of the Cross, ALL men who died, went to a "temporary" place for the dead -- "sheol," "hades," etc... The righteous dead -- those who died in FAITH -- departed to "Abraham's bosom," or Paradise [as did Lazarus] while the faithless dead went to "Hades" [as did the 'rich man'] (Luke 16:19-31).

NOTE: All who died in faith prior TO the time of Christ looked forward to the promised redemption of God in FAITH -- though WHAT or WHO that redemption would be had not been revealed -- the means of salvation has ALWAYS been FAITH. But we KNOW that they certainly figured it out by the time Jesus was on earth:

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad" (John 8:56).

So, prior to Christ' death and resurrection, all who died went to these "holding cells," akin to a county jail -- where they are bound over UNTIL the time of trial [or THE JUDGMENT] (Revelation 20:11ff).

As to those in Paradise -- indeed, when Jesus "dismissed His spirit," Scripture seems to indicate that Jesus did "descend into Hades" as is stated in the Apostles Creed, and affirmed in Scripture:

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water" (I Peter 3:18-20; cf. Psalm 16:10).

This "Preaching," however, WAS NOT meant to be remedial, nor to offer those who had died without faith "another chance." Rather, it was to declare to those who had died the [b]final revelation of the redemption [/b]which they had [i]already[/i] received or rejected -- and that revelation was JESUS CHRIST Himself.

Those who had died in faith were delivered from Paradise, and ushered into the VERY PRESENCE of God, heaven:

"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)" (Ephesians 4:8-10). It is worth noting that some of those "captives" who were set free apparently made a stop along the way: "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose..." (Matthew 27:52).

Thus, "Paradise" is now empty, because Jesus has through His death and resurrection become the way for ALL the redeemed to come "boldly before His throne"... HOWEVER, those in "Hades" -- the portion reserved for the faithless dead, remains "in business," adding to it's number, "enlarging it's borders," in anticipation of the Great White Throne -- THAT Day, the LAST DAY, the Day of Judgment -- Final Judgment:

"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

[i][b]And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire[/b][/i] This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:11-15).

In other words, after the Millennial Kingdom, at the Final Judgment, THEN "death and hell [HADES] are cast into the Lake of Fire [GEHENNA]" for eternity.

So, in summary, when Jesus "gave up the ghost," He "descended into Hades" and "preached unto the spirits in prison" in the sense that he presented Himself as the ultimate redemption which those in Paradise had looked forward to in faith, and those in hades had rejected in faithlessness. He then "led captivity captive," opening the way for all those who had by faith trusted God for redemption to enter into Heavenm the very presence of God. Those in hades remain there in waiting until their final judgment and their final disposition as eternal occupants of the Lake of Fire. Since Jesus' resurrection, ALL who have trusted Him upon their death are IMMEDIATELY ushered into heaven, for "to be absent from the body [is] to be present with the Lord" (II Corinthians 5:8).

Hope this presents a solid explanation of what Jesus did "from the Cross to the Throne," and what the disposition of the People of God is past, present and future.

I Will Restore...

"And I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten, the cankerworm, and the caterpiller, and the palmerworm, my great army which I sent among you" (Joel 2:26).

In my recent reflection on the Scriptures, this passage has stayed with me. It came to my mind again today, as I considered how -- as humans -- we allow so much to crowd into our minds and cloud our lives. Sometimes, it's merely the "tyranny of the urgent." Too often, it is the corruption that we are heir to in the flesh.

It's troubling that we don't even recognize this corruption that courses through our veins or that clamors for our attention in our minds. Contrary to the teachings of some, these sinister drives, doubts and temptations lurk even within Christians. Christians are human too. Christians struggle with the flesh. They struggle with the dilemmas of existence, the challenges of ethical and moral decisions. And yes, they -- WE -- fail. Not always. Not without remedy -- Thanks be to God through Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!

But I find comfort -- even repose -- in the words of Joel 2:25. God, speaking to His people Israel, promises personally to "restore...the years that the locust hath eaten, the cankerworm, and the caterpiller, and the palmerworm..." Those years -- YEARS -- that were "eaten," were consumed by our own errors. Our own sins. Our own wanderings. Our own rebellion. Those insects were "a great army which I [GOD] sent among you." Our lives, our possessions, our TIME, were laid waste -- because WE have wasted them. Our decisions, our choices, brought upon us this waste and corruption.

But God, in His GRACE, promises, "I will restore..." Not that we deserve it. Only that He, in mercy and love, will return that which we've forfeited. And then He'll give MORE...

I affirm in my own heart often, this truth: "But do thou for me, O GOD the Lord, for thy name's sake: because thy mercy [is] good, deliver thou me" (Psalm 109:21). That assurance is priceless in the peace it provides to one who too often fails -- but eternally trusts in Him.

John Piper On Self-Determination and Arminian Heresy

It's always sad to me when I see a man of God (or so I think) from a different theological perspective whom I believed to be above this kind of intra-Christian exclusivist language to charge full steam ahead into the abyss of ignorance, or worse, the territory of theological lies.

Recently, John Piper, well known Baptist Calvinist Pastor from Minnesota and popular author, spoke at the "Resurgence Conference." The title of his message was, How I Distinguish Between the Gospel and False Gospels. Already, if you're like me, you're expecting trouble. The series of quotes below are from that message. I'll at least initially leave extensive commentary to others, and only note points of interest. But to check the context and accuracy, you may see Piper's blog or the Resurgence blog, where outlines or transcripts are located:

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibr ... e_Gospels/
OR:
http://www.theresurgence.com/national_r ... nd_context

In part of his opening statement he said, "My working out of my salvation tonight is in the defense and confirmation of the gospel."

Piper lays out "Six Aspects of the Gospel Without Which There Is No Gospel." These include:

1. The gospel was planned by God beforehand
2. The gospel is an objective physical event in history
3. The gospel is an objective accomplishment—the purchase or obtaining of redemption for all who would believe
4. The gospel is an offer to be made to all that what Christ accomplished is free and may be had only by faith in him
5. The gospel is an application through faith to specific people of what Christ accomplished
6. The gospel is an eternal and infinitely happy future destiny

NOTE: Does any of this, so far, sound like something Arminians DON'T believe?!

He continued, "There are many today, as in every day, who bring to the Bible the presupposition that sinful man must have the power of self-determination in order to be held accountable by God. This is not a biblical presupposition."

NOTE: What Piper describes is not Arminianism, but Semi-Pelagianism. But do you think HE knows the difference? Do you?

But then he adds, "We don't usually think about Arminianism as a threat to the atonement. It usually comes in at the point of the accomplishment of the gospel and the offer of the gospel, not the point of the plan of the events of the gospel. But here we see that there is an intrinsic incompatibility between the basic Arminian presupposition and the gospel as including a set of planned sins against the Son of God. That presupposition is that for humans to be morally accountable agents they must have the ultimate power of self-determination at all those points where they are found blameworthy or praiseworthy."

It's downhill from here. He continutes, "That presupposition pushes people away from believing that God has the right and power in righteousness and wisdom to infallibly plan the death of his Son through the sinful acts of morally accountable men. But the Bible teaches that he did. There is no atonement and no gospel without God-planned sins against the Son of God. He died at the hands of sinful men by God's design. That is an essential part of the gospel."

He continued, "This is typical Arminian teaching. It diminishes the glory of the cross and encourages people to take into their own hands what belongs to the work of the cross, namely the purchase of their own rescue from unbelief."

NOTE: This is not only wrong, but it is blatantly false, and a man like John Piper should know that. NO Arminian worth his salt would EVER say such a thing, and for Piper to make this charge he is either: (1) completely ignorant of Arminian teaching, or (2) lying through his teeth willfully.


He further charged that "God is allowed to rescue them from the guilt of sin by the cross, but not from the bondage of unbelief by the cross. The cross does not obtain or accomplish that. I must provide the decisive impetus for overcoming my unbelief, the cross did not accomplish that. In that way part of the gospel is undone."

NOTE: If any of you actually understand this twisted logic, let me know...?

Piper further said: "The accomplishment of the cross is offered freely to be received by faith alone apart from works of the law, meaning, any work of the heart or hand at all, anything other than faith."

NOTE: But, that's what Arminians believe, right...?

He says, "Arminianism (Wesleyanism) teaches that God helps all people overcome their deadness of soul and leaves to the decisive will of man whether to follow that grace and trust Christ and as a consequence be born again. In other words regeneration does not cause faith; faith, in an act of ultimate self-termination, chooses to agree with God's grace and believe and thus be born again."

NOTE: Wait -- is he defending the Gospel -- or CALVINISM?! Insisting regeneration precedes faith is CALVINISM, not the gospel....

Piper continued, "How serious is this? Must one believe that faith is decisively caused by God through regeneration? Or can one be saved believing that faith causes regeneration?"

NOTE: Indeed, how serious is this? If Arminians reject regeneration preceding faith, does that mean we believe and preach a "false gospel?"

His summary goes something like this: "The issue comes down to this: Is the heart relationship to God one of utter reliance on God's grace in Spirit-wrought humility, such that God gets the glory for all of my salvation, both accomplishment and application?"

NOTE: Uh, yeah -- Arminians BELIEVE that John -- but Semi-Pelagians DON'T. LEARN from someone other than Calvin.

He asks, "Can the heart be truly humble and reliant in this way while the mind espouses a theology that claims that the human will is taking credit for what the humble heart is really depending on God to provide?"

NOTE: Again, not what Arminians teach....

AND, ""Arminianism in its popular form (most of evangelicalism) says we are unable without divine assistance to believe, because we are dead in trespasses and sins, but God gives assistance to all, making it possible for us to believe but not bringing us to believe. That is left for our decisive determination. At that point we are ultimately self-determining."

NOTE: No, that's what most Evangelicals believe -- but that's the heresy of Semi-Pelagianism, NOT Arminianism...

FINALLY he charges, "Arminianism/Wesleyanism recognizes more truth about our sinful and helpless condition apart from grace, and gives more credit to grace, but stumbles intellectually over the implications of sovereign grace. It cannot bring itself to embrace the apparent implications of faith as a gift of God, namely, unconditional election. It appears to them unjust and unloving. Historically, a charitable view of a good heart behind this mistaken theology have been encouraged."


Okay -- what say ye all??


J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.

William F. Buckley, Conservative Extraordinaire, Dies at 82

NEW YORK - William F. Buckley Jr., the erudite Ivy Leaguer and conservative herald who showered huge and scornful words on liberalism as he observed, abetted and cheered on the right's post-World War II rise from the fringes to the White House, died Wednesday. He was 82.

His assistant Linda Bridges said Buckley was found dead by his cook at his home in Stamford, Conn. The cause of death was unknown, but he had been ill with emphysema, she said.

Editor, columnist, novelist, debater, TV talk show star of "Firing Line," harpsichordist, trans-oceanic sailor and even a good-natured loser in a New York mayor's race, Buckley worked at a daunting pace, taking as little as 20 minutes to write a column for his magazine, the National Review.

Yet on the platform he was all handsome, reptilian languor, flexing his imposing vocabulary ever so slowly, accenting each point with an arched brow or rolling tongue and savoring an opponent's discomfort with wide-eyed glee.

"I am, I fully grant, a phenomenon, but not because of any speed in composition," he wrote in The New York Times Book Review in 1986. "I asked myself the other day, `Who else, on so many issues, has been so right so much of the time?' I couldn't think of anyone."

Buckley had for years been withdrawing from public life, starting in 1990 when he stepped down as top editor of the National Review. In December 1999, he closed down "Firing Line" after a 23-year run, when guests ranged from Richard Nixon to Allen Ginsberg. "You've got to end sometime and I'd just as soon not die onstage," he told the audience.

"For people of my generation, Bill Buckley was pretty much the first intelligent, witty, well-educated conservative one saw on television," fellow conservative William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, said at the time the show ended. "He legitimized conservatism as an intellectual movement and therefore as a political movement."

Fifty years earlier, few could have imagined such a triumph. Conservatives had been marginalized by a generation of discredited stands — from opposing Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal to the isolationism which preceded the U.S. entry into World War II. Liberals so dominated intellectual thought that the critic Lionel Trilling claimed there were "no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation."

Buckley founded the biweekly magazine National Review in 1955, declaring that he proposed to stand "athwart history, yelling `Stop' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who urge it." Not only did he help revive conservative ideology, especially unbending anti-Communism and free market economics, his persona was a dynamic break from such dour right-wing predecessors as Sen. Robert Taft.

Although it perpetually lost money, the National Review built its circulation from 16,000 in 1957 to 125,000 in 1964, the year conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater was the Republican presidential candidate. The magazine claimed a circulation of 155,000 when Buckley relinquished control in 2004, citing concerns about his mortality, and over the years the National Review attracted numerous young writers, some who remained conservative (George Will, David Brooks), and some who didn't (Joan Didion, Garry Wills).

"I was very fond of him," Didion said Wednesday. "Everyone was, even if they didn't agree with him."

Born Nov. 24, 1925, in New York City, William Frank Buckley Jr. was the sixth of 10 children of a a multimillionaire with oil holdings in seven countries. The son spent his early childhood in France and England, in exclusive Roman Catholic schools.

His prominent family also included his brother James, who became a one-term senator from New York in the 1970s; his socialite wife, Pat, who died in April 2007; and their son, Christopher, a noted author and satirist ("Thank You for Smoking").

********

Despite the fact that he had “fought a good fight,” and that he has earned his rest, this is a tremendous loss for the Conservative movement in general.

My favorite memory of Buckley was the way he used to drive Phil Donahue absolutely INSANE in old “Donahue” show days. Phil would be flapping his arms like wings and squawking like a chicken by the time Buckley got through with him. It was glorious.

My favorite works by Buckley were his many excellent newspaper columns over the years, and his tremendous “Blackford Oakes” novels. Wow.

His intellectual brilliance and ability to defeat liberals with little more than that mischievous stare and profound one liners will inspire for many years to come, and will be missed for just as long.

Blessings, Mr. Buckley. Thank you.

JDW

Wrong Turn at Jericho, Kansas?

Early in 2007, a new series debutted on CBS entitled Jericho. It was awesome. It addressed in dramatic and very human terms what would happen to the inhabitants of a small, relatively isolated town in the heartland of American in the event of a nuclear war?

The actors were excellent. The plots were intricate and laden with dramatic twists. The characters were unique, their backstories invaluable to the foundation and progress of the storyline. Jericho had such promise! When CBS cancelled the series, I went NUTS! Literally. And so did millions of others.

Late last spring, tons of "nuts" arrived at CBS network HQ, a resistance campaign referenced in the final episode of the first season when "Jake" (Skeet Ulrich) is asked to surrender to the New Bern forces, and he responds "nuts!" When CBS announced that they would renew Jericho for a short second season of 7 episodes, I was elated.

I'm still watching. The first two episodes of the new season have moved quickly, introduced new characters and turned the plot in a new direction. I miss Mayor Green (Gerald McRaney) who was killed in the last episode. I also miss Mrs. Green ( Pamela Reed), who played a pivotal role in holding the town and her family together in the wake of the attack. I understand CBS did not renew her contract for the show, apparently because the cast was "too old," which I find very disappointing, and a bit infuriating. Also missing are the teenaged store owner Dale and his "girlfriend," at least thus far. All of these losses have cut a tremendous amount of potential for both developing the characters and the greater story of Jericho. I suppose with just 7 episodes this season, it's difficult to squeeze in all these story lines -- which is why they should have ordered another 22 episodes, but I digress.

Even with those characters and story lines gone, at least for now, the action and pace of the series is still excellent. But with the arrival of the new characters, a new government and nation, and a decidely inward turn to the plot direction, I am concerned about Jericho.

Unfortunately, the plot twist was perdictable. It's very "Hollywood" in the years since 9/11 and the tendency of the cultural Left to "blame America first." Last season, the United States was attacked by nearly two dozen nuclear weapons -- 23 major cities were destroyed, including most of the government in Washington, DC. What was left of the government and military separated into factions, and one faction launched a nuclear response against those whom they said were to blame. In the storyline, it was Iran and North Korea. So far, so good -- because THAT is a realistic possibility. Unless you are from Hollywood or Washington, DC.

Even during the first season viewers knew we weren't getting the whole story. We knew elements of the Government were involved in the plot. This year, however, it appears they aren't involved. Apparently, these elements of the government are COMPLETELY to blame for the nuclear attacks. Which means that the retaliatory strikes against Iran and North Korea, which destroyed those nations, were meant only to cover up "the biggest lie in history," as Jake said last Tuesday. And these evil Americans, in order to wrest control of the nation from the apparently patriotic government in Washington DC (I'm getting nauseous), sets off the nukes, then detsroys those poor, innocent Communists in North Korea and Islamofascists in Iran.

Not missing a beat, of course, this new "Government" of the "Allied States of America," has already printed up nice new textbooks for the school children of Jericho which present a clearly biased RIGHT WING view of history. This new Government is unelected, has called a new Constitutional Convention, and has shut down freedom of the Press among other civil rights.

No, I've not stopped watching yet. I'm hoping against hope that the evil elements within this new government on Jericho will be revealed to have worked with outside sources. I'm hoping that most of those who formed the "Allied States of America" will be portrayed not as dupes or fools, or else as the evil ideologues that haunt the mind of Leftists all over our land. I hope they'll get credit for trying to bring something good out of such horror -- even though some of the leeches that have attached themselves to the ASA are evil and have to be removed.

But then, I think about other series coming out of Hollywood today -- take 24 for instance -- where it's never the "bad guys" who are the ultimate bad guys, it's ALWAYS Americans. It's always government bigshots, or corporate bigshots, or military bigshots (all Conservatives, or Bible-thumpers, or greedy Capitalists) who want to overturn the noble public servants serving us in Washington, DC, or at least in the news media (the stench is almost beyond comprehension now). No, I haven't stopped watching -- but coming from Hollywood, what are the chances that any of the plot developments or character traits I've desired will come to pass? From Hollywood? I'm not sure why they didn't just go ahead and name the new President of the Allied States "Bush" or "Cheney," and dress him in SS black with a swastika emblazoned on each shoulder.

And to top it off, the "enforcers" of this new government to this point on Jericho are none other than a REAL bunch of heroes fighting now on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan -- the 10th Mountain Division! Again, I hold out great hope that these brave men will be portrayed as HEROES rather than as patsies for an evil regime. To have them protect what has so far been portrayed as an "evil government" is a very real disservice to the men and women of the 10th who've fought and died on foreign fields of battle for our nation in the current REAL war.

I still plan on watching Jericho Tuesdays at 10pm. I understand they lost almost 30% of their audience from week one to week two. I'm sorry to hear that. If, however, many of the people who tuned in observed what I did, I'm not surprised if they turned Jericho off. Just another great program that Hollywood wants to destroy, to use to superimpose their message.

I'll be watching. I'll be hoping that Jericho can right itself. But I have little confidence in CBS executives and Hollywood writers. And if things in Jericho do go the way I expect, I'll know I shouldn't have taken that last left turn in Jericho, Kansas. That will make it easier to see Jericho fade away at the end of this season.

Conservatives Get McCained - Shall We Submit?

I held my nose and voted for George Herbert Walker Bush in 1992. That was after his "Read my lips..." debacle. We got the Clintons.

I held my nose and voted for Bob Dole in 1996. He was a war hero. He was a "big government" Republican Senator who just happened to be "the next in line." We got the Clintons -- again.

I held my nose and voted for George Walker Bush in 2000. It was an act of God that he happened to be the President at the time of 9/11. He was THE leader we needed in the initial years following 9/11. Though I enthusiatically supported and voted for him in 2004, in some ways it is a vote I now regret. But He is not a Conservative either. He was fiscally irresponsible. He has failed to assert himself on a host of issues that could have made a great difference. He has presided over the surrender of Congress back to the Democrats -- though ALL elected Republicans in Washington bear the blame for that mess.

I have often said I won't be "bushed" or "Doled" again. No, now I am faced with being "McCained." After years of insults from this man, I am told I have no choice but to forget all his insults, all his betrayals of principles I hold dear, all the angry expletive laced tirades he's hurled at those who defied his views... I am told to "compromise."

I am a Conservative. I have compromised ENOUGH. I have compromised ever since Reagan left office in 1988, if not before. What shall I compromise next? What have I NOT compromised already? When do liberals and "moderates" get around to compromising? Why is it that "bi-partisanship" means Conservatives have to agree with Liberals, but Liberals have to change NOTHING?

I am a Conservative. I believe in LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. I believe in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I DO NOT believe either Republicans or Democrats share those values today. But I will NO LONGER compromise them.

I am a Conservative. I will not hold my nose and vote away my principles again. I have done it for 20 years. I have gained nothing, and more importantly, neither has our nation. If I surrender my principles again, our nation may never wake up, may never return to it's foundational principles.

I am a Conservative, I am an American. I have had enough of the political games. I am standing on principle. Come what may.

The Meltdown of Modern Conservatism

The desertion of a leading Social Conservative in Florida from the Thompson Campaign to the Huckabee camp starkly demonstrates the meltdown of the once powerful Reagan Coalition. It was composed of two of the largest constituencies of the Republican Party that emerged from the confusion of the 60's and the malaise of the 70's - two decades more about the "me" generation and personal gratification than about the principles on which this nation was founded.

The modern Conservative Movement really found it's genesis in 1964 with the ascendency of Barry Goldwater as the Republican Presidential nominee. This wing of the party was hawkish in regards to foreign policy, and willing to confront the Communist threat directly if necessary. They also believed in less government control over the economy, in limited government, less beauracracy, less regulation, lower taxes and spending. This single constituency of the party, however, could not produce a Republican majority in Congress, nor could it get a true Conservative into the White House.

Enter Jerry Falwell. Actually, it was not just Jerry and his Moral Majority founded in 1979, but others like Pat Robertson, D. James Kennedy, Charles Stanley, etc. who emerged as leaders trying to motivate Christians -- evangelicals, fundalmentalists, pentecostals and charismatics -- to re-engage in the political process. Most Christians in those camps had deserted public politics in the 1920's following the Scopes Monkey Trial and the ascendence of separatist fundamentalism as the most influential movement in the American Church.

Ronald Reagan, who left the Democrat party in 1964 to support Barry Goldwater for President, was the first man to galvanize these two different constituencies as a winning government coalition. Barry Goldwater could not win, and Nixon was not strictly speaking a "Conservative" with the exception of his foreign policy. When Reagan challenged Gerald Ford in 1976, the coalition had not coalesced around his leadership yet. Many within the "Religious Right," as the second constituency would come to be known, were still not convinced that they should be engaged in the "dirty business" of politics. After four years of Jimmy Carter -- the devastating effects of economic policy failures and recession, the victories of Communism in their quest to conquer the world, the humiliation of our impotence both militarily and diplomatically at the hands of the Iranians -- Republicans from both the Economic/Governmental Conservative wing and the Religious Right wing were beyond ready to work together for common interests and goals. In 1980, it paid off with a Reagan landslide.

In Reagan's terms, the Republicans managed to run the Senate for 6 years, but never captured the House. This made the accomplishment of several goals impossible, though Reagan brought about the greatest era of economic growth and expansion -- as well as strength and patriotism -- since at least WW II. For instance, Reagan restored a 600 ship Navy, turned the tide against the Soviets, and helped reclaim nations once lost to Communist agression. He was never able to balance the budget however, because though he created the greatest tax cuts since the creation of the tax system which doubled revenue over 8 years, the Congress failed to keep their promise not to spend more than the treasury took in. Reagan is often blamed for the deficits of the 80's, but they were primarily the doing of the Democrat House. Reagan only failed to stand up to them by being willing to veto their spending and shut down the government to enforce budget cuts.

Bush 41 undid several of the things Reagan accomplished, increasing taxes which produced a recession, and increasing spending in agreement with the Democrat Congress. While he maintained the US image of military strength as evidenced by the victory in the Gulf war in 1991, he allowed the massive downsizing of the military in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Empire. While the "peace dividend" was nice, it was an illusory peace which caused the US to drop its gaurd. The trend to gut our military continued during the Clinton years, and set the country up for the current conflict with Islamofascism. IN a real way, the "success" of the Clinton years economically were the combination of several factors that worked together, and were largely the product of a Republican Congress, which came into power in 1995 -- mostly the result of their return to the principles of Ronald Reagan -- not "bipartisanship" and capitulation to liberalism.

The 90's were characterized by the Tech boom, the monetary policy of plenty of cash and low interest rates to go around, the fiscal restraint of the Republican Congress, the drastically cut military budget, and the risk Clinton took by refinancing the national debt with short term bonds -- a bet that, had interest rates actually increased in the 3-5 years terms, would have bankrupted the nation. Instead, the rates declined, and the deficit began to do the same. These elements balanced the budget by 1999 -- something Clinton could never have done had he not gotten lucky and had a Reaganesque Congress that forced his hand.

When the Republican Congress began to fail in living by the principles of Reagan, they began to lose political traction. Though they failed to stand up to Clinton at several key points in the 1990's -- particularly when Clinton shut down the Government in 1995 to KEEP liberal spending and social programs in place, and when they FAILED to impeach and remove him from office in accordance with the Constitution in 1998/99 -- the Republicans decline really came in the wake of 9/11 and the 2002 elections. Republicans seemed to believe they were entrenched in power, and they began to use that excuse to spend money -- like the Democrats had. They used the pain of the country after 9/11 and the pride of their political dominance to delude themselves into believing that Conservatives would desert their principles to keep their "power," or else to persuade liberals that they could spend on social programs and earmarks just as well as the Democrats. In 2006, the Republicans discovered they were WRONG.

Which brings us to the present, sorry state of the Republican party. Many of the "party regulars," the "country club" Republicans who had never bought into Conservatism ala Reagan (think Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, Arlen Spectre, etc...) are quite content to remain a permanent minority -- as they had been from the 1950's to the 1980's. Many of the economic/government Conservatives have been transformed, or maybe I should say they have degenerated, into country clubbers or status quo politicians who desire to hold on to personal power more than to advance an agenda and save the nation. Many of the Christians once engaged in the political arena have turned their back on the process once again, taking the head-in-the-sand position that we can't change anything and that's not part of our job description as Christians anyway. What error, what willful ignorance. And those who remain firmly involved in the process have been marginalized by not just the liberal media and Democrats, but by former allies among Republicans, who now call them fanatics, extremists and parasites.

We don't know the direction this election year will take. We can conclude that the era of Reaganism is all but dead -- and most of those who were once identified as Republicans are glad to see it go. The nomination of a McCain or a Huckabee, or even a Guiliani, would assure its demise. First, because that ticket would, if elected, be liberal on economic policies like taxes, spending, entitlement spending and programs, and ever growing government - no different than Democrats. Second, because that ticket would almost certainly gaurantee the election of a Democrat President, while expanding the Democrat majority in Congress (a practical certainty anyway).

The question then becomes, "What Next?" Will there be a Republican Party after this years approaching debacle? Will the US be able to withstand a wholly Democrat government for 4 years, much less 8? Could our political system even collapse -- because, if the Clintons return to power, ya gotta know, they'll never let it go again. What next?

I'm keeping my powder dry folks, and my foxhole too. And man, am I praying these days!

Changing My Endorsement -- Fred '08!

It is the eve of the Republican Primary here in SC. Several weeks ago, I "endorsed" Duncan Hunter as the candidate I would support and vote for. I finally heard from Duncan Hunter the first time yesterday, during the Rush Limbaugh show, on WVOC-AM radio. Good ad. Ran half a dozen times yesterday and today. So far as I know, Congressman Hunter hasn't appeared personally in this state in at least the last few weeks.

I can only surmise that Hunter is staying in the race to champion the cause of the border fence and ending the illegal immigration problem. For that, I am grateful. After NH, it was thought that he would withdraw from the race -- but at his news conference he refused to end his bid. Yet, he did virtually no campaigning here, evidently none in Nevada, and only very limited appearances in Michigan.

For those reasons, and though I am loathe to change my endorsement, I must support a candidate whose positions are most compatible with mine, and with a viable chance of winning the nomination. Because of his recent excellent performances in the debates in SC, and because he is clearly the candidate that most closely resembles the principles, policies and positions of Conservatism championed by Ronald Reagan, I am endorsing Fred Thompson for nomination of the Republican Party to run for President of the United States.

Thompson has surged here quickly in SC, and I only hope it's enough to bring him victory. I also hope he will go on into Florida and then Super Tuesday, when 22 states will vote, riding a wave of victory. I believe he is the best hope for Republican (and more importantly, Conservative) victory at this point. A Guiliani nomination would gaurantee the death of Conservatism, and a McCain or Huckabee nomination would shatter the Reagan coalition, already strained and torn by Republican failures to live up to its promises and principles since at least 1996.

Please pray for our nation -- we need Jesus over and above all else!

Theological Foundations, Part 4 -- The Arminian Remonstrance

TOTAL DEPRAVITY and PREVENIENT GRACE

Article 3

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”

Article 4

That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and else­where in many places.

Often, Reformation Arminianism is labeled by its critics (usually Calvinists) as "Semi-Pelagianism." I will discuss Pelagius and the beliefs he originated at some point in the future -- right now, let me explain briefly this false charge, and how they differ -- rather distinctly.

Semi-Pelagianism does not deny the necessity of God's grace for salvation, but it does insist that the first efforts or initial steps toward salvation are taken by the human will, and that God's supernatural grace supervenes only to "seal the deal."

The result of Semi-Pelagianism is the denial of the necessity of God's unmerited, supernatural, gracious empowering of man's will to come to salvation through faith. In short, Reformation Arminianism differs strikingly from Semi-Pelagianism in this point -- Reformation Arminianism affirms the Biblical --and incidentally the Reformed [even Calvinist] -- concept of Total Depravity. Read Article 3 again..."Man has not saving grace of himself, nor the energy of his free will...can of and by himself neither think, will nor do anything that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is)..."

In other words, man, in the strictest sense, has a "Freed Will," not a "free will." Man cannot of himself come to faith in Christ. Rather, it is "through His Holy Spirit" that He renews our "understanding, inclination or will...in order that he [man] may rightly understand, think, will and effect what is truly good..." Calvinists insist that this is actual "regeneration," which would mean that the event of the new birth must precede the actual exercise of faith. That is not the Biblical Ordo Salutis. Scripture clearly teaches it is "by grace, through faith." We enter His grace through a faith that God produces in us. How does God do that? Prevenient Grace.

If man is unable to come to faith, to believe, to do any good, how then can he believe? "No one can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:44). That process of "drawing" men unto Himself is what we might call "Prevenient Grace." As to it's effect, it draws man, it enables man to be custodian of the faith God has given, it "frees" the will of man. Prevenient Grace, however, DOES NOT produce "regeneration" and thus salvation, nor is it irresistible and outside man's ability to choose.

In short, then, Man is Totally Depraved -- men cannot will, think,do or be good. God, then, draws men to Him, enables men to believe and allows men to choose whether or if he will ultimately receive God's gift of salvation. Upon exercising saving faith, regeneration -- the "New Birth" is accomplished. An eternal destiny is changed. A spirit is "made alive," or "quickened."

It's ALL of Grace -- God's grace. And that is, in summary, the Biblical concept of Total Depravity and Prevenient Grace as understood by Reformation Arminianism.

Yes, I believe in the "doctrines of grace." :-)

JDW

Theological Foundations, Part 3 -- Comments on The Remonstrance

Article 2

That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

This article is perhaps the most straight forward and easy to deal with. Laid out for us is the General Atonement. This view is clearly declared in Scripture, contrary to the hermeneutical gymnastics often employeed by Calvinists in defense of "elite election."

Simply put, Jesus Christ died for all men, for every human, for each sin ever committed -- past, present and future. As noted above, the Remonstrants cited John 3:16 and I John 2:2 as "prooftexts." While prooftexting isn't the most sound means of Biblically supporting a position, in this case, these verses just scratch the surface.

Consider other passages which echo the Holy Spirit in His work to draw all to Christ:

• 2 Cor 5:14-15 - "For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again."
• Timothy 2:3-6 - For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."
• 1 Timothy 4:10 - "For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe."
• Titus 2:11 (ESV) - "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people."
• 2 Peter 3:9 (KJV) - "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

The expression I've heard -- both from SOME Calvinists and MOST Arminians is, "Christ's death was sufficient for all, but efficient only for those who believe. More will be discussed about why not ALL are then saved -- for if I was a consistent Calvinist, I would have to be a universalist as well -- since God's will CANNOT be thwarted...Right?

One other issue that needs to be addressed. Some have called this concept of the General Atonement the "Universal Atonement," or sometimes the "Unlimited Atonement." My own conviction is that these are misleading phrases that take on negative theological connotations. That Jesus died for all DOES NOT mean that His sacrifice is thus automatically applied to all, as "Universalism" would imply. And that Jesus' death is sufficient for all does not mean that His Sacrifice is "unlimited"to the extent that all MUST then be saved.

God has made man a free moral agent, and does sovereignly enable him to choose to follow Christ or reject Him. But we'll talk about that when we get to Prevenient Grace.

So, in summary, the first two articles of the Arminian Remonstrance declare that God has an eternal purpose and predestined plan by which depraved humans can enter into His grace -- through faith in Jesus Christ. Additionally, the atonement which Christ purchased with His blood on the Cross was [and IS] for all men -- but it is only applied to those who trust the Lord, coming to Him in faith and repentance.

Blessings,

JDW

It's 2008 -- Election Year -- Why Do I Dread It So?

I will continue my commentary on The Arminian Remonstrance later tonight or tomorrow, but since it is the night of the first big political contest for the Presidential election in the Iowa Caucus, and since my own state of South Carolina will hold its primary in just a few weeks (still WAY too soon in my book), I figure it's time to talk about whom I am going to support.

I complained last year about how early the presidential campaign started, and my opinion is no different now. No sooner had the 2006 mid-term elections ended than candidates annouced their bids, started campaigning and showed up on the news every night. It's ridiculous, and the constant campaigning and never-ending lust of candidates for office will be the death of our nation... Okay, I'll reserve more comment on that until later.

As I said at least twice last year, I couldn't vote for ANY Democrat, under ANY circumstances. That hasn't changed, and barring a miracle, never will. That said, I've also remained non-commital on most of the Republican candidates. To put it bluntly, no Republican is a Conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. No candidate is a leader of the Conservative movement, and none has proven to me that they are reliable in keeping their word on a variety of issues.

If I could sorta take the candidates apart and build my own -- a composite candidate -- I'd probably take the economic policies of Ron Paul, the immigration policies of Duncan Hunter, the social positions of Mike Huckabee, the business sense of Mitt Romney, the personal heroism of John McCain, the law and order record of Rudy Guiliani and the foreign policy of Fred Thompson. Naturally, that's not an option.

So, I'll start by looking at a few of the candidates negatives -- positions that persuade me I cannot vote for certain candidates -- at least not at the primary level. First, I can't vote in the primary for a candidate who supported amnesty for illegal immigrants, supported an unconstitutional "campaign finance reform" plan, undermined the federal court choices for President Bush and supports homosexual unions or marriage -- or at least opposes a constitutional amendment clarifying what marriage is. Though I respect his service to the nation and personal courage, I can't vote for John McCain.

Rudy Guiliani is a fiscal Conservative, but a social liberal -- he supports abortion and homosexual marriage. His personal life is a mess -- his kids won't support him, he has been married three times with evidence of hanky-panky while in office.... I respect his law and order reputation and his rock solid leadership in crises and on foreign policy positions -- but I can't vote for Rudy.

Massachusetts was a mess when Mitt Romney was elected Governor. As much as was possible fiscally, and being forced to work with a democrat legislature and a liberal state beauracracy, he did a decent job. However, for a dedicated Mormon, he was quite the social liberal, at least until he decided he was going to run for President, or slightly before. Since he entered the race, he has "changed" his positions on abortion (now pro-life), illegal immigration (once favored a form of amnesty) and he championed a government run healthcare plan in his state (a position he still hasn't deserted). The "flip-flopper" award for the primary season goes to Mitt -- and until I can see some more evidence or be convinced that he isn't just saying what I want to hear, I can't vote for him in the primary.

The candidate I most dislike at this point in the campaign is going to surprise some people. As a governor, he raised taxes -- several times and in several ways -- while also almost tripling spending in his state. He supported amnesty for illegal aliens, including giving their children in-state tuition, issuing state drivers licenses to them, and providing other social services for illegals. He has criticized the war effort against Islamofacism, and has called for the closure of Gauntanamo Bay, Cuba -- a detention facility for illegal combatants in the war against our terrorist enemies -- to "gain their favor." He's suggested we ought to bring these prisoners into the United States courts and accord to them constitutional privileges. Consistent with his "merciful" stance toward those in prison, he granted pardons to over 1,000 violent criminals -- more than the previous three Governors of the state, and one of those was Bill Clinton.

But the most disquieting thing I've witnessed lately is the cynical campaign tactics he's employeed. For instance, asking in feigned innocents about his opponent Mitt Romney's Mormon faith on a radio program, "I don't know much about Mormon's -- don't they believe the devil and Jesus were brothers?" He knew better than that -- He's a Baptist preacher -- he better know what Mormon's believe! That was just a political cheap shot. And the press conference a few days ago in which he announced that he had produced a negative ad about Mitt Romney -- but that he would not run it publicly. Then -- this was as audacious as it was brilliant -- he told the press he'd show it to them just to prove it was "bad." He didn't have to run the ad -- these media stooges ran out and did it for him free, and he got to innocently claim that he didn't want it run. Please.

I admire his stands on abortion, on the marriage amendment and opposition to homosexual unions or marriage, and on his support for faith in the public square. But he is NOT a Conservative in the Reagan tradition, and I cannot support Mike Huckabee in the primary.

Then there's Ron Paul. He's a consistent libertarian -- in fact, he was the Libertarian Party candidate for President (against Ronald Reagan!) in 1988. I actually really like most of his economic policy positions, and surprisingly he is generally pro-life. He is also completely clueless regarding the conflict in which we are engaged globally. He blamed the United States and our foreign policy for 9/11, believes we should withdraw our troops immediately from all foreigh bases and fields of battle, and basically return to the isolationism of the 19th century. On that issue he is as bad or worse than several of the democrats! And on that basis alone, Ron Paul will not get my vote.

That leaves two candidates: Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter. Fred Thompson entered the race late -- which isn't so bad to me, since the race shouldn't have started so early in 2007 anyway. I am troubled by Fred only on a couple of issues. He was my Senator in Tennessee from 1998-2002, and yet he voted AGAINST impeachment and conviction of Bill Clinton of perjury -- the strongest and most obvious charge he faced. Clinton should have been removed from office -- and I wrote Thompson after his vote and told him he needed to return to acting, because I'd never vote for him for Senator again. Well, he took my advice and didn't run for re-election in 2002 (right...). He also hasn't demonstrated a deep and abiding drive to be the President. Some say he's "lazy," he says he doesn't LIKE campaigning. I'm of a mind to be understanding to Fred -- I'd hate campaigning too. He says he wants to be President but not to campaign -- I can forgive him that. Fred is not out of the question as a candidate I could support.

The most consistent Conservative in the race for President has been a Congressman from California for nearly 20 years. He has consistently voted and acted in the mold of Ronald Reagan -- he is economically Conservative, totally supportive of the military and our war effort, socially he is a Conservative, opposing abortion and homosexual marriage, as well as advocating the role of faith in civic life and discourse -- a prerequisite for my vote -- and his record and rhetoric match! Plus, he strongly opposes illegal immigration, and has been the ONLY Congressman to actually get a border fence constructed in his district along the border with Mexico. He may suffer from too much optimism about accomplishing anything in Washington, and he suffers in many areas from a lack of name recognition. He is also not one of the most exciting and pumped up speakers -- but, to turn a phrase -- his words are stone. He is principled. He believes. That's why, in the South Carolina Primary, I'll be casting my vote for Duncan Hunter.

I am under no illusions. It is unlikely Hunter will be the nominee -- but I am compelled to vote on principle in the primary. And Hunter is the most principled, the man I most identify with. If he does drop out of the race before South Carolina -- after all, Iowa and New Hampshire come first -- and maybe another state[?] -- then I will cast my vote for Fred Thompson. But that hasn't happened yet. And if it does, I'll have to re-evaluate the other candidates to decide whom I can vote for. But, frankly, I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. We'll see...

But for now, Go Duncan Hunter, 2008!


JDW