Fri Feb 19: Parental Rights Amendment Defended?
In an email exchange with a gentleman associated with the Parental Rights Organization he attempted to defend the Parental Rights Amendment, particularly its Section Two. His defense was disturbing as it revealed that the statist, or totalitarian mindset has infected so many who would be called Christian conservatives.
I was instructed that it was fairly commonplace for the civil government to violate our rights as specified in the Bill of Rights. Specifically he said that the First Amendment right of religion and free speech was routinely violated in the case of someone yelling, "fire" in a crowded theater when there was not a fire!
Surely this man's explanation, or defense, is chilling and illogical. He argues that to protect a "right" we must write it into the U. S. Constitution even as we acknowledge the "right" of the civil government to violate the specified "right" when it seems to itself good to do so. Does it make you warm and secure to know that your rights are protected by those who have the right to refuse your rights? This is no protection at all. Especially when one considers how our civil government doesn't feel much constraint to obey the First and Second Amendments.
Here was my answer: "Your example of the alleged violation of the First Amendment in the case of someone yelling, "fire" falsely in a crowded theater is logically false.
I was instructed that it was fairly commonplace for the civil government to violate our rights as specified in the Bill of Rights. Specifically he said that the First Amendment right of religion and free speech was routinely violated in the case of someone yelling, "fire" in a crowded theater when there was not a fire!
Surely this man's explanation, or defense, is chilling and illogical. He argues that to protect a "right" we must write it into the U. S. Constitution even as we acknowledge the "right" of the civil government to violate the specified "right" when it seems to itself good to do so. Does it make you warm and secure to know that your rights are protected by those who have the right to refuse your rights? This is no protection at all. Especially when one considers how our civil government doesn't feel much constraint to obey the First and Second Amendments.
Here was my answer: "Your example of the alleged violation of the First Amendment in the case of someone yelling, "fire" falsely in a crowded theater is logically false.
Wed Feb 17: Parental Rights Amendment Needs Amendment
If you had chickens in a chicken coop and a fence defining their living space would you ask the fox to guard the coop? Further, would you tell the fox he has the authority to set aside the fence whenever he thought he had a compelling foxy interest to do so?
The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is granted to us by that same Creator mentioned in our Declaration of Independence. I am thrilled to see organizations seeking to protect that right, particularly when the United Nations is covertly working to deny it by international treaty. The Parental Rights Organization has written an amendment to our U. S. Constitution intending to protect parental rights. But in Section Two of its amendment it utterly destroys not only parental rights but all rights by granting that the Federal government may, when it thinks it serves its best interest, infringe on parental rights.
What kind of rights are we talking about when we acknowledge that the federal government may infringe them when it thinks it is good to do so?
The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is granted to us by that same Creator mentioned in our Declaration of Independence. I am thrilled to see organizations seeking to protect that right, particularly when the United Nations is covertly working to deny it by international treaty. The Parental Rights Organization has written an amendment to our U. S. Constitution intending to protect parental rights. But in Section Two of its amendment it utterly destroys not only parental rights but all rights by granting that the Federal government may, when it thinks it serves its best interest, infringe on parental rights.
What kind of rights are we talking about when we acknowledge that the federal government may infringe them when it thinks it is good to do so?
Sat Jan 31: Second Amendment and the Source of Rights
As was expected the right to keep and bear arms is under heavy attack in Congress. USA today is taking a poll on the Second Amendment's meaning. You might like to register your vote as it may become a point in their future article. Here is a link if you wish to do so: 2nd Amendment Poll.
Yes, the question is misstated since it presumes that rights are not God given but Civil Government given. Properly asked the question should be: "Do you believe that the Second amendment was meant to be understood as protecting the God given right of self defense which implicitly means keeping and bearing arms?" 'Where did God give this right to keep and bear arms?' many will ask. He did so in the Sixth Commandment, "You shall not murder", (Exodus 20:13). Historic protestant understanding of this can be found in the Westminster Shorter Catechism [1648], Question and Answer numbers 68 and 69 which state, "The sixth commandment requireth all lawful endeavours to preserve our own life, and the life of others. ... The sixth commandment forbiddeth the taking away of our own life, or the life of our neighbour unjustly, or whatsoever tendeth thereunto." Much more instruction is given in the companion Westminster Larger Catechism [1648], Question and Answer numbers 134 through 136.
We need to study the Old Testament more. Remember that Jonathan needed to attack the Philistine garrison in order to arm the Israelites? (1 Samuel 13:19-14:1ff) Arms control is an ancient tactic of all tyrants. When a civil ruler doesn't want his subjects (er, citizens) to have and bear arms it is because he has a plan for his subjects that he is pretty sure they won't like. Resistance to his will will not be tolerated. Doesn't sound like a servant of the people, does it?
The Declaration of Independence is part of the organic body of law for the USA. This specifically means that the statements and presuppositions of the Declaration of Independence are the legal context for interpreting the US Constitution. Therefore, the US Constitution legally ought to be read with the understanding that rights have their source not in civil government but in the Creator! How many Christians even understand this fact? Patrick Henry most certainly did! It was this reason which caused him to be against the Bill of Rights for he feared that in the future, unchristian men would argue that the existence of the Bill of Rights demonstrates that the civil government is the source of rights. Further, Patrick feared that unscrupulous, power-hungry politicians would cite the Bill of Rights as the complete enumeration of rights hence saying that citizens do not have any rights EXCEPT those enumerated in the US Constitution. Was the great Patrick Henry correct? Yes, indeed. But I wonder if he could even have conceived that professing Christians would ever come to think of Civil Government as the source of rights? I doubt it for this view fundamentally presupposes the denial of the Rights of King Jesus! Hence a denial of Jesus as Lord.
May God help us to think Biblically on all issues and to reject our unbiblical rationalism. (2 Corinthians 10:5)
Yes, the question is misstated since it presumes that rights are not God given but Civil Government given. Properly asked the question should be: "Do you believe that the Second amendment was meant to be understood as protecting the God given right of self defense which implicitly means keeping and bearing arms?" 'Where did God give this right to keep and bear arms?' many will ask. He did so in the Sixth Commandment, "You shall not murder", (Exodus 20:13). Historic protestant understanding of this can be found in the Westminster Shorter Catechism [1648], Question and Answer numbers 68 and 69 which state, "The sixth commandment requireth all lawful endeavours to preserve our own life, and the life of others. ... The sixth commandment forbiddeth the taking away of our own life, or the life of our neighbour unjustly, or whatsoever tendeth thereunto." Much more instruction is given in the companion Westminster Larger Catechism [1648], Question and Answer numbers 134 through 136.
We need to study the Old Testament more. Remember that Jonathan needed to attack the Philistine garrison in order to arm the Israelites? (1 Samuel 13:19-14:1ff) Arms control is an ancient tactic of all tyrants. When a civil ruler doesn't want his subjects (er, citizens) to have and bear arms it is because he has a plan for his subjects that he is pretty sure they won't like. Resistance to his will will not be tolerated. Doesn't sound like a servant of the people, does it?
The Declaration of Independence is part of the organic body of law for the USA. This specifically means that the statements and presuppositions of the Declaration of Independence are the legal context for interpreting the US Constitution. Therefore, the US Constitution legally ought to be read with the understanding that rights have their source not in civil government but in the Creator! How many Christians even understand this fact? Patrick Henry most certainly did! It was this reason which caused him to be against the Bill of Rights for he feared that in the future, unchristian men would argue that the existence of the Bill of Rights demonstrates that the civil government is the source of rights. Further, Patrick feared that unscrupulous, power-hungry politicians would cite the Bill of Rights as the complete enumeration of rights hence saying that citizens do not have any rights EXCEPT those enumerated in the US Constitution. Was the great Patrick Henry correct? Yes, indeed. But I wonder if he could even have conceived that professing Christians would ever come to think of Civil Government as the source of rights? I doubt it for this view fundamentally presupposes the denial of the Rights of King Jesus! Hence a denial of Jesus as Lord.
May God help us to think Biblically on all issues and to reject our unbiblical rationalism. (2 Corinthians 10:5)
Tue Jan 20: Be Encouraged!
Psalm 2
1 Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against his Anointed, saying,
3 "Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us."
4 He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision.
5 Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying,
6 "As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill."
7 I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you.
8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."
10 Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
1 Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against his Anointed, saying,
3 "Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us."
4 He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision.
5 Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying,
6 "As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill."
7 I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you.
8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."
10 Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
Thu Oct 02: Government Power Grab Packaged as Bail Out
It was a cause for rejoicing Monday, when the House voted down the government power grab packaged as a bail out. We now face the prospect of this once again on Friday, October 3rd. This time around the bail out is even worse having added an additional 110 billion dollars of bribes, or rather pork, with the hope of buying sufficient votes to pass the power grab. Why did so many mortgage loans fail? In part because Federal policy forced affirmative action quotas upon the lenders and then altered the definition of income to include food stamps, welfare payments and disability payments. Hence bad loans were demanded by the government. Now those who caused the problem wish to present themselves as the savior. No, let the free market solve market problems. Let the financial incompetents fail and the competents take them over.
A good friend of mine forwarded to me his letter to his congressman. It is worth reading so here it is:
A good friend of mine forwarded to me his letter to his congressman. It is worth reading so here it is:
"Congressman Tanner:
Your vote on the bailout bill was quite disappointing. While claiming to be a 'blue dog' fiscal conservative, you have voted for an unprecedented indemnification of the speculators on Wall Street. This move would de-value the dollar even further, and raise the price of fuel and other commodities to new record levels. You must see that it is the inflationary action of the Federal Government (money printing) that has created the crises as it is. It can not be solved with more printed money. Karl Marx called for the "centralization of credit in the hands of the State" - an approach that is furthered by the regulatory provisions of the Bill. Now the Senate version that is sent down to you has $110 billion of Pork and pet projects attached. An $810 billion devaluation of the US dollar in order to bailout private interests. I will do everything within my power as a citizen of this state to see that the supporters of this legislation are opposed and replaced.
PM"
As is often the case with me, others can communicate things so much better than I could ever hope to...
Check the link below to see a clip of Rev. Voddie Baucham answering this question.
If God is so powerful and so good, why do bad things happen?
Check the link below to see a clip of Rev. Voddie Baucham answering this question.
If God is so powerful and so good, why do bad things happen?
Sun Aug 17: God's Love in Malachi 1:2
I recently read the following from the Rev. T. V. Moore:
The folks of Malachi's day thought that the Lord owed them something. In particular they were of the opinion that they should receive material blessings from Him because they made an attempt at worshiping Him [a pretty poor attempt when you look at the quality of their offerings as described in chapter 1:6 - 2:9]. They sought God on their own terms and when He didn't respond as they thought He should they became discouraged and upset with Him.
God is love. This is true even when he afflicts, for whom he loveth he chasteneth. We must not therefore infer that he does not love us, because he afflicts. The gardener prunes the grape which he values, not the thistle which he hates. The fruit tree that is highly prized is trimmed that it may bear more fruit, the forest tree that is designed for the flames is left to grow in unpruned luxuriance. Yet in answer to these assurances of God to us, we often say in our murmuring, "In what hast thou loved us. Where is the proof?" It is a mournful proof of human depravity that the love of God is often least acknowledged, where it is most manifested.
-- Moore, Rev. T. V.; The Prophets of the Restoration: or Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi: A New Translation with Notes; Robert Carter and Brothers; New York; 1856; p.338.
The folks of Malachi's day thought that the Lord owed them something. In particular they were of the opinion that they should receive material blessings from Him because they made an attempt at worshiping Him [a pretty poor attempt when you look at the quality of their offerings as described in chapter 1:6 - 2:9]. They sought God on their own terms and when He didn't respond as they thought He should they became discouraged and upset with Him.
Mon Jul 28: True Religion
Recently, while studying to preach from the book of Galatians, I came across the following quote:
How often do we tend toward compartmentalization in our lives? We speak in terms of it being "time for work", of having "family time", or of the ever famous "me time". But as Christians we must be ever mindful of the fact that Jesus claims dominion over every area of our lives. He is the One who enables us to work and has blessed us with families. And passages such as Deuteronomy 6:5 ("You eshall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might." - ESV) would leave no place for so-called "me time".
The false teachers who plagued the Galatians churches evidently practiced this idea of compartmentalization, Galatians 6:13. "For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law...." (ESV). And though they compelled the Galatians to be circumcised and follow the ceremonial laws of apostate Judaism they only kept these same laws when it was convenient to their own purposes.
We dare not live such divided lives if we would faithfully follow our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He rightfully claims sovereignty over every area of life. Therefore if we are to practice a true religion we must live every moment before the Lord and unto His glory. Anything less would be wrong. We dare not be guilty of the hypocrisy of the Judaisers.
Corum Deo!
Let our religion be the religion of the mind, the religion of the heart, the religion of the life, - not a theory of doctrine, however ingenious, or even correct, - not a feeling casually, though it may be strongly, excited, - not an external and ritual service, however simple or however imposing, - not an assumed garb, however splendid, and gracefully worn; but a constituent -- the governing-element of our intellectual and moral nature: not speculation - not enthusiasm - not superstition - not formalism - not hypocrisy: not exclusively doctrinal, or experimental, or liturgical, or professional, or practical; but all these in due proportion and degree, - the natural effect of the truth understood, and believed, and loved, " faith purifying the heart, working by love, and overcoming the world.”
-- John Brown, D. D., An Exposition of The Epistle of Paul The Apostle to The Galatians, Banner of Truth, 2001, pp. 362-63.
How often do we tend toward compartmentalization in our lives? We speak in terms of it being "time for work", of having "family time", or of the ever famous "me time". But as Christians we must be ever mindful of the fact that Jesus claims dominion over every area of our lives. He is the One who enables us to work and has blessed us with families. And passages such as Deuteronomy 6:5 ("You eshall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might." - ESV) would leave no place for so-called "me time".
The false teachers who plagued the Galatians churches evidently practiced this idea of compartmentalization, Galatians 6:13. "For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law...." (ESV). And though they compelled the Galatians to be circumcised and follow the ceremonial laws of apostate Judaism they only kept these same laws when it was convenient to their own purposes.
We dare not live such divided lives if we would faithfully follow our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He rightfully claims sovereignty over every area of life. Therefore if we are to practice a true religion we must live every moment before the Lord and unto His glory. Anything less would be wrong. We dare not be guilty of the hypocrisy of the Judaisers.
Corum Deo!
Sun Jul 20: Superheros
If all of the superhero movies that have been released of late are any indication, our culture is drawn to such individuals. It is true that men, whether they admit it or not, are looking for a savior. In our day and time this savior is often found in the political realm. However, very few would say that anyone on the political scene today is a superhero. So as far as the man on the street is concerned, true superheroes are the things of legend and myth. Yet I contend that superheroes exist. It's just that we don't know where to look to find them. But thanks to a gentleman named Steve Rafalsky we've been pointed in the right direction.
Below is a post he made over at www.puritanboard.com. I think you'll find his insight very interesting and thought provoking.
Below is a post he made over at www.puritanboard.com. I think you'll find his insight very interesting and thought provoking.
Tue Nov 14: Where Has the Bible Gone?
Having just passed through another election and listening to some of the reasoning for various issues I noticed that the so-called evangelical right, never referred to the Bible. Particularly in my home state of Virginia, we had the opportunity of voting on a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. I am for this amendment; even stood at the polls for three hours in the rain passing out literature asking folks to vote "yes" for marriage.
