Ok, allow me a little bit of a rant here! This is a constant sore spot with me, but today I was in the local "Stuff"-Mart, and it really got under my skin! You can't even walk through the check-out line without getting slimed by all the filth!
As a rule, I don't go down the magazine aisle (Proverbs 4:14-15). I know what is there. Believers are commanded to be circumspect (Ephesians 5:15), so it's best that I just don't go down that aisle. But everybody has to go through the check-out aisle!
There, on every shelf are strange women (Proverbs 23:26-28), leering from the covers of the magazines (Proverbs 6:25) in various stages of undress (Proverbs 7:10), and the headlines scream with more impudence than Potiphar's wife (Genesis 39:7) with the titillating titles of the pornographic articles contained inside!
What can we do? Well, we can complain to the manager, but don't hold your breath for a whole lot of action. I'm not real fond of trying to bend pagans into outward conformity to our principles anyway. I don't remember the apostles calling for boycotts. What I try to do is to turn as many of the offending magazines backwards in the rack as I can while I am standing there. I try not to take the kids through the check-out line as much as possible. One thing that might be a solution is to check out through the alternate cash registers (such as the sporting goods section, lawn and garden section, customer service desk, etc.). As long as you don't have any "weighable produce" or just a huge buggy full of stuff it's usually not a problem, and you usually don't have to "run the gauntlet" of magazine racks to get to them.
Men, let's take the initiative for guarding our own eyes (Proverbs 4:25) and those of our wives and children.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Libertarianism In A Nutshell
Below are excerpts from Dr. Laurence Vance's latest article over at Campaign for Liberty titled, "Every Crime Needs A Victim."
This article does a really good job of succinctly stating the position of libertarianism. I believe libertarianism, as set forth in this article is very consistent with Bible-believing Christianity. Enjoy!
"Every crime needs a victim. Not wearing a seatbelt, not wearing helmet, texting while driving, doing business on Sunday, usurious lending practices, price gouging, ticket scalping, gambling without the state's permission, using the services of a prostitute, abusing drugs, and a host of other "crimes" that I have not mentioned are not crimes at all. They may be immoral, they may be vices, they may be bad habits, they may be dangerous, they may be foolish, they may be addictive, they may harm those who willingly participant in them, they may have no redeeming value whatsoever, but as long as those who engage in them are not harming or violating the personal or property rights of non-participants, they should not be crimes."
"First, the purpose of government is supposed to be to protect life, liberty, and property from violence or fraud. It is simply not the business of government to prohibit the advertising, sale, and use of what it deems to be harmful substances. Likewise, the government should not be concerned with keeping people from vice or bad habits and regulating or prohibiting activities that take place between consenting adults. A government with the power to outlaw harmful substances and immoral practices is a government with the power to ban any substance and any practice. A nanny state is a perversion of government."
"Religious people in particular make a grave mistake when they look to the state to enforce their morality. The actions of the state are typically the greatest examples of immoral behavior that one could possibly think of. Yet, many religious people not only look to the state to enforce a moral code, they defend, support, and make excuses for the state, its politicians, its legislation, and its wars. Some victimless crimes may indeed be sins, but it is not the purpose of religion to use force or the threat of force to keep people from sinning. Rebuke, persuasion, and instruction are certainly more biblical methods than using the power of the state to change or restrict people's behavior."
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=868
This article does a really good job of succinctly stating the position of libertarianism. I believe libertarianism, as set forth in this article is very consistent with Bible-believing Christianity. Enjoy!
"Every crime needs a victim. Not wearing a seatbelt, not wearing helmet, texting while driving, doing business on Sunday, usurious lending practices, price gouging, ticket scalping, gambling without the state's permission, using the services of a prostitute, abusing drugs, and a host of other "crimes" that I have not mentioned are not crimes at all. They may be immoral, they may be vices, they may be bad habits, they may be dangerous, they may be foolish, they may be addictive, they may harm those who willingly participant in them, they may have no redeeming value whatsoever, but as long as those who engage in them are not harming or violating the personal or property rights of non-participants, they should not be crimes."
"First, the purpose of government is supposed to be to protect life, liberty, and property from violence or fraud. It is simply not the business of government to prohibit the advertising, sale, and use of what it deems to be harmful substances. Likewise, the government should not be concerned with keeping people from vice or bad habits and regulating or prohibiting activities that take place between consenting adults. A government with the power to outlaw harmful substances and immoral practices is a government with the power to ban any substance and any practice. A nanny state is a perversion of government."
"Religious people in particular make a grave mistake when they look to the state to enforce their morality. The actions of the state are typically the greatest examples of immoral behavior that one could possibly think of. Yet, many religious people not only look to the state to enforce a moral code, they defend, support, and make excuses for the state, its politicians, its legislation, and its wars. Some victimless crimes may indeed be sins, but it is not the purpose of religion to use force or the threat of force to keep people from sinning. Rebuke, persuasion, and instruction are certainly more biblical methods than using the power of the state to change or restrict people's behavior."
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=868
Monday, January 4, 2010
Is Lutheranism Bible Christianity?
I received a request from someone the other day that I look at this statement of faith http://faithevlutheran.net/1932statement.php and give my opinion. The statement comes from what appears to be a fairly conservative Lutheran church. What follows is my reply to my friend with an assessment of Lutheranism from the scriptures.
"I looked at the statement from your friend’s church. The first “flag” that I would point out is the obvious: it is Lutheran. Luther came out the door of Roman Catholicism, but he never got off the porch. Lutherans (or Episcopalians, depending on who’s telling the joke) are Roman Catholics who flunked Latin! Seriously, you will find Lutheranism very similar in many ways to Catholicism. Look at the picture on the church’s website and you will notice all the religious decorations and crosses and drapes and the catholic “IHS” up over the platform.
Lutheranism has a priesthood and a system of sacramental salvation, just like the catholic system. I noticed that this church is independent of the synod, which is a good thing, but I’m not sure how that would work, since Lutheranism is a hierarchical system. They also say that their statement hearkens back to the “by-gone days of orthodoxy” of the Missouri synod. I suspect that what they are attempting to do is re-capture the by-gone days of evangelical fundamentalism, which was at its height back in the 30’s when this statement was written. Those were the days when “fundamentalists” of every denomination were joining together to try to stave off the modernist assault on the authority of scripture, the blood atonement, the virgin birth of Christ, the deity of Christ, etc. The problem with the movement was the ecumenical idea that we can unite around the “five fundamentals” and not divide over the “non-essentials;” the “non-essentials” usually being baptism, the Lord’s Supper, church polity, etc. These are certainly not non-essentials, as the Anabaptists who were persecuted under Luther during the reformation because of these very doctrines would surely testify!
As for the statement itself, it claims that scripture is the sole authority for doctrine, but as you read further you find doctrines that are contrary to scripture. I appreciate their stance against what we term today as “hyper-calvinism,” but they still maintain the reformed doctrines that Calvin and Luther systematized. Their position on salvation by grace through faith is biblical, but then they kick the legs out from under it in the section titled “Of the Means of Grace,” by sacramentalism.
For instance, it says “…we hold with Scripture that God offers and communicates to men the spiritual blessings purchased by Christ, namely, the forgiveness of sins and the treasures and gifts connected therewith, only through the external means of grace ordained by Him. These means of grace are the Word of the Gospel, in every form in which it is brought to man, and the Sacraments of Holy Baptism and of the Lord's Supper.” So, according to this Lutheran doctrinal statement, “God offers and communicates to men…the forgiveness of sins…only through the external means of grace…the Word of the Gospel…and the Sacraments of Holy Baptism and of the Lord’s Supper.” They very clearly add to the word of God and to the finished work of Christ by adding sacraments to salvation!
It goes on to say: Baptism, too, is applied for the remission of sins and is therefore a washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, Acts 2:38; 22:16; Titus 3:5. Likewise the object of the Lord's Supper, that is, of the ministration of the body and blood of Christ, is none other than the communication and sealing of the forgiveness of sins, as the words declare: "Given for you," and "Shed for you for the remission of sins," Luke 22:19, 20; Matthew 26:28, and "This cup is the New Testament in My blood," I Corinthians 11:23; Jeremiah 31:31-34 ("New Covenant").
I’m sorry, but if you are trusting in baptism for the remission of your sins, you are still lost in your sins, whether you are a Lutheran or a Baptist! The reference to the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost is a quotation from Titus chapter 3, which if you read in context says absolutely NOTHING about baptism! It is referring to the spiritual transaction that takes place when the Holy Spirit regenerates the believing sinner and applies the blood of Christ’s atonement. It is what we refer to as being “born again.” The other scriptures cited are used out of context to back up their contention that baptism washes away sin and regenerates. This is one of the core errors of reformed doctrine. This is at the heart of the division between catholics/protestants and baptists: does baptism symbolize washing with water, or burial with dirt? The New Testament clearly sets forth baptism as a purely symbolic act of obedience to the command of Christ, picturing His death, burial and resurrection; to be done by immersion upon a person who is consciously able to profess faith in Christ, under the authority of a scriptural New Testament church; never by sprinkling, never upon an infant or young child, and no unscriptural church has any authority to baptize.
Likewise, if you are looking to the Lord’s Supper to “communicate and seal the forgiveness of sins” you are looking in the wrong direction! Lutherans (and other protestants) have a twisted view of the Lord’s Supper, very similar to Roman Catholicism. Whereas the Catholics believe in transubstantiation, Lutherans believe in consubstantiation. The difference is that Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Lutherans believe that the bread and wine possess the spiritual presence of Christ. Again, the scripture quotes and references are not complete quotes and are taken out of context. “Given for you” was a reference by Christ to His actual body which would be hung on the cross, but the rest of the verse was omitted. It actually says (Luke 22:19) And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
“Shed for you” was a reference by Christ to His actual blood shed on the cross for our sins. The entire verse says “Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”
Obviously these things were literal bread and juice (not alcoholic wine). Jesus was standing there talking to the disciples. There was no presence either literal or spiritual of the body and blood of Christ in those things, as He was literally there at the time. By His own command, the Lord’s Supper is done “in remembrance;” it is a symbolic memorial of Christ’s death on the cross. This is borne out by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 11:23-26:
23For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.
The Lord’s Supper is to be done “in remembrance;” as a memorial to “shew the Lord’s death till he come.”
The other obvious doctrinal error is their condemnation of “millennialism.” This gets at one of the other core errors of reformed theology, namely, using the allegorical method to explain away bible prophecy. I believe that Christ will one day rule the earth for a literal 1000 years simply because the bible clearly says that He will. Read Revelation chapter 20; it is only 15 verses long, but the first 10 deal explicitly with Christ’s 1000 years reign. I won’t take time to go any deeper, but I think you get the picture.
My counsel is to avoid Lutheranism in all its forms. Luther started his church some 1500 years after Christ started His church. The church of Jesus Christ existed since it was founded by Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry, and it was alive and well in Luther’s day. What Luther needed to do was to seek out these godly Anabaptists who held to scriptural salvation and scriptural church ordinances (not sacraments) and scriptural church polity, and instead of persecuting them, join them.
It was good to hear from you! Again, I apologize that it has taken me several days to reply. I hope this helps."
Bro. Marty
"I looked at the statement from your friend’s church. The first “flag” that I would point out is the obvious: it is Lutheran. Luther came out the door of Roman Catholicism, but he never got off the porch. Lutherans (or Episcopalians, depending on who’s telling the joke) are Roman Catholics who flunked Latin! Seriously, you will find Lutheranism very similar in many ways to Catholicism. Look at the picture on the church’s website and you will notice all the religious decorations and crosses and drapes and the catholic “IHS” up over the platform.
Lutheranism has a priesthood and a system of sacramental salvation, just like the catholic system. I noticed that this church is independent of the synod, which is a good thing, but I’m not sure how that would work, since Lutheranism is a hierarchical system. They also say that their statement hearkens back to the “by-gone days of orthodoxy” of the Missouri synod. I suspect that what they are attempting to do is re-capture the by-gone days of evangelical fundamentalism, which was at its height back in the 30’s when this statement was written. Those were the days when “fundamentalists” of every denomination were joining together to try to stave off the modernist assault on the authority of scripture, the blood atonement, the virgin birth of Christ, the deity of Christ, etc. The problem with the movement was the ecumenical idea that we can unite around the “five fundamentals” and not divide over the “non-essentials;” the “non-essentials” usually being baptism, the Lord’s Supper, church polity, etc. These are certainly not non-essentials, as the Anabaptists who were persecuted under Luther during the reformation because of these very doctrines would surely testify!
As for the statement itself, it claims that scripture is the sole authority for doctrine, but as you read further you find doctrines that are contrary to scripture. I appreciate their stance against what we term today as “hyper-calvinism,” but they still maintain the reformed doctrines that Calvin and Luther systematized. Their position on salvation by grace through faith is biblical, but then they kick the legs out from under it in the section titled “Of the Means of Grace,” by sacramentalism.
For instance, it says “…we hold with Scripture that God offers and communicates to men the spiritual blessings purchased by Christ, namely, the forgiveness of sins and the treasures and gifts connected therewith, only through the external means of grace ordained by Him. These means of grace are the Word of the Gospel, in every form in which it is brought to man, and the Sacraments of Holy Baptism and of the Lord's Supper.” So, according to this Lutheran doctrinal statement, “God offers and communicates to men…the forgiveness of sins…only through the external means of grace…the Word of the Gospel…and the Sacraments of Holy Baptism and of the Lord’s Supper.” They very clearly add to the word of God and to the finished work of Christ by adding sacraments to salvation!
It goes on to say: Baptism, too, is applied for the remission of sins and is therefore a washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, Acts 2:38; 22:16; Titus 3:5. Likewise the object of the Lord's Supper, that is, of the ministration of the body and blood of Christ, is none other than the communication and sealing of the forgiveness of sins, as the words declare: "Given for you," and "Shed for you for the remission of sins," Luke 22:19, 20; Matthew 26:28, and "This cup is the New Testament in My blood," I Corinthians 11:23; Jeremiah 31:31-34 ("New Covenant").
I’m sorry, but if you are trusting in baptism for the remission of your sins, you are still lost in your sins, whether you are a Lutheran or a Baptist! The reference to the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost is a quotation from Titus chapter 3, which if you read in context says absolutely NOTHING about baptism! It is referring to the spiritual transaction that takes place when the Holy Spirit regenerates the believing sinner and applies the blood of Christ’s atonement. It is what we refer to as being “born again.” The other scriptures cited are used out of context to back up their contention that baptism washes away sin and regenerates. This is one of the core errors of reformed doctrine. This is at the heart of the division between catholics/protestants and baptists: does baptism symbolize washing with water, or burial with dirt? The New Testament clearly sets forth baptism as a purely symbolic act of obedience to the command of Christ, picturing His death, burial and resurrection; to be done by immersion upon a person who is consciously able to profess faith in Christ, under the authority of a scriptural New Testament church; never by sprinkling, never upon an infant or young child, and no unscriptural church has any authority to baptize.
Likewise, if you are looking to the Lord’s Supper to “communicate and seal the forgiveness of sins” you are looking in the wrong direction! Lutherans (and other protestants) have a twisted view of the Lord’s Supper, very similar to Roman Catholicism. Whereas the Catholics believe in transubstantiation, Lutherans believe in consubstantiation. The difference is that Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Lutherans believe that the bread and wine possess the spiritual presence of Christ. Again, the scripture quotes and references are not complete quotes and are taken out of context. “Given for you” was a reference by Christ to His actual body which would be hung on the cross, but the rest of the verse was omitted. It actually says (Luke 22:19) And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
“Shed for you” was a reference by Christ to His actual blood shed on the cross for our sins. The entire verse says “Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”
Obviously these things were literal bread and juice (not alcoholic wine). Jesus was standing there talking to the disciples. There was no presence either literal or spiritual of the body and blood of Christ in those things, as He was literally there at the time. By His own command, the Lord’s Supper is done “in remembrance;” it is a symbolic memorial of Christ’s death on the cross. This is borne out by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 11:23-26:
23For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.
The Lord’s Supper is to be done “in remembrance;” as a memorial to “shew the Lord’s death till he come.”
The other obvious doctrinal error is their condemnation of “millennialism.” This gets at one of the other core errors of reformed theology, namely, using the allegorical method to explain away bible prophecy. I believe that Christ will one day rule the earth for a literal 1000 years simply because the bible clearly says that He will. Read Revelation chapter 20; it is only 15 verses long, but the first 10 deal explicitly with Christ’s 1000 years reign. I won’t take time to go any deeper, but I think you get the picture.
My counsel is to avoid Lutheranism in all its forms. Luther started his church some 1500 years after Christ started His church. The church of Jesus Christ existed since it was founded by Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry, and it was alive and well in Luther’s day. What Luther needed to do was to seek out these godly Anabaptists who held to scriptural salvation and scriptural church ordinances (not sacraments) and scriptural church polity, and instead of persecuting them, join them.
It was good to hear from you! Again, I apologize that it has taken me several days to reply. I hope this helps."
Bro. Marty
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)