Shatner goofs Palin’s book...who then goofs Shatner’s right back...

This is classic. I don’t think Shatner was expecting this...

HT: Dan Phillips

Errors in the Bible?

Doug Wilson interviewed about Collsion

John Piper: What is the Gospel?

The American Experiment in Spreading the Wealth...The First Thanksgiving

Like White on rice: James White, John MacArthur, and others on why they did not sign the Manhattan Declaration

James White expresses his concerns over the Manhattan Declaration. Worthy points to ponder.

What is the only power given to the church to change hearts and minds? United political power? Or the gospel that is trampled under foot by every Roman Catholic priest when he “re-presents” the sacrifice of Christ upon the Roman altar, pretending to be a priest, an “alter Christus”? Am I glad when a Roman clergyman calls abortion murder? Of course. But it exhibits a real confusion, and not a small amount of cowardice, it seems, to stop identifying the man’s false gospel and false teaching simply because you are glad to have a few more on the “right” side of a vitally important social issue.

For Al Mohler’s post on why he did sign the document see here.

I signed The Manhattan Declaration because it is a limited statement of Christian conviction on these three crucial issues, and not a wide-ranging theological document that subverts confessional integrity. I cannot and do not sign documents such as Evangelicals and Catholics Together that attempt to establish common ground on vast theological terrain. I could not sign a statement that purports, for example, to bridge the divide between Roman Catholics and evangelicals on the doctrine of justification. The Manhattan Declaration is not a manifesto for united action. It is a statement of urgent concern and common conscience on these three issues -- the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage, and the defense of religious liberty.

My beliefs concerning the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches have not changed. The Roman Catholic Church teaches doctrines that I find both unbiblical and abhorrent -- and these doctrines define nothing less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But The Manhattan Declaration does not attempt to establish common ground on these doctrines. We remain who we are, and we concede no doctrinal ground.

But when Catholic Charities in Massachusetts must choose to end its historic ministry of placing orphaned children in good homes because the State of Massachusetts required it to place children with same-sex couples, this is not just a Catholic issue. The orphanage could have easily been Baptist. When Belmont Abbey college in North Carolina is told by federal authorities that it must offer abortion services in its insurance plans for employees, this is no longer just a Catholic issue. The next institution to be under attack might well be Presbyterian. We are in this together, and we had better be thankful that, in this case, we are not alone.

UPDATE:

Pyromaniac Dan Phillips briefly explains why he didn’t sign it.

John MacArthur on why he did not sign it either.

Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.

Frank Turk echos the same concerns, as does Mark at Hereiblog.

James White responds to Mohler’s statement and also a post from Frank Beckwith on the MD.

Douglas Wilson weighs in with typical wit, discernment and grace.

But my strategic concern is two-fold. The first concern is the result of the proximity of this Declaration to the Evangelicals and Catholics Together muddle. Someone could set his name to this document without compromise, as Mohler did. But the strategic issue is that this is comes out of a world that has demonstrably shown its inability to follow certain key doctrinal distinctions, when doctrinal distinctions actually are being attempted. For that reason, I want to keep my distance.

The second strategic concern has to do with the actual deployment of the gospel (if I may speak that way), as distinct from mere abstract definitions of it. The only way our nation is going to be saved is if preachers of the gospel get out there and start preaching it in a way that calls this nation to true repentance and sincere faith in Jesus Christ. In order for that to happen, the gospel that we train young men to preach must be studied, lived, taught, defined, and preached. If we want the Word to cut between joint and marrow, then our task should be one of sharpening, not dulling and blunting. Please note that the concern here is not how accurate a man must be in his understanding of the gospel to be saved (an interesting doctrinal question), but rather how much anointed precision must come upon the preaching of the gospel such that a preacher becomes an effective servant in a day such as ours. This is the strategic question.

So we are admittedly in a weird situation; we live in weird times. This declaration (almost certainly) rests upon a muddled understanding of the gospel, but has a crystal clear understanding of how that gospel should intersect with our culture. At the same time, there are those with a high-precision definition of “the gospel” as a stand-alone means for getting our white little buns into heaven, but who don’t have any notion of how the gospel could work as actual leaven in our day, in our time, in our culture. This latter group would include some who would refuse to sign the declaration. When I look at the former group, I stand with Frank Turk. When I look at the latter group, I stand with Al Mohler. And so, in the spirit of compromise, with Frank Turk, I respectfully decline to sign it. And with Al Mohler, I want to be identified with what is happening here in some fashion.

So, with all that said, let me get to my applause for the declaration. The declaration highlights three major areas where Christians must speak to the bloody ones, to those in unrighteous possession of their instruments of coercion. A holy word needs to be spoken to those who intend to continue their Herodian slaughter of the innocents, who intend to normalize sodomy now and other perversions later, and who intend to criminalize believers who object to being coerced into participation in such evils. And the money quote near the end of the declaration is genuinely worthwhile. The phrase “we will not comply with any edict” that perpetrates injustice in these three areas gets the tone we need exactly right.

Allister Begg on why he did not sign it.

I was present at the meetings in Manhattan in October when the draft of this document was presented.
I listened carefully and was stirred by the ensuing discussions.
I share the concerns expressed in the document.
I also have respect for those who wrote the paper and also for many who have subsequently signed it.

Why then have I chosen not to append my name as one of the initial signers? Because of my convictions about the nature of the Gospel, and the importance of Christian co-belligerency being grounded in it. The activity of the Christian as a citizen engaging in co-belligerency over civic and moral issues is not the same as the declaration of Christians mutually recognizing the reality of each other’s faith. This is what I wrote to Chuck Colson:

“Thank you for sending me the amended document. I care deeply about these issues, but I cannot in conscience sign on with those with whom I have fundamental disagreements on the nature of the Gospel. (I just re-read Calvin in the Institutes, Book IV, section 18.)”

This particular section of Calvin’s Institutes provides us with his response to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass.

It was maintained at the meeting in New York that this document was not to be viewed as a product of ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together). However, in light of the evangelical leadership behind the declaration, it is hard not to take into consideration the most recent ECT paper on “The Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Life and Faith”. In examining the place of Mary, the writers “acknowledge the primary authority of Holy Scripture.” This at least gives the impression of a concession to Roman Catholicism. Protestant theology affirms the sole authority of Scripture. Sadly contemporary evangelicalism seems little concerned with the solas of The Reformation and is therefore susceptible to initiatives, which make something other than the Gospel, the basis of unity and the focus of our declarations.

I am reminded in this connection of the declaration of Jude.

“Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”

An excerpt from the statement by Michael Horton of the White Horse Inn on why he did not sign the declaration.

This declaration continues this tendency to define “the gospel” as something other than the specific announcement of the forgiveness of sins and declaration of righteousness solely by Christ’s merits. The document recites a host of Christian contributions to Western culture, adding, “Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good. In being true to its own calling, the call to discipleship, the church through service to others can make a profound contribution to the public good.” The declaration concludes, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.” In an interview, Mr. Colson repeatedly referred to this document as a defense of the gospel and the duty of defending these truths as our common proclamation of the gospel as Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and evangelicals...

When we confuse the law and the gospel, there is inevitably a confusion of Christ and culture, and there is considerable evidence in Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and evangelical histories to demonstrate the real dangers of this confusion. In this otherwise helpful declaration, the confusion is evident once more. Alongside the theological claims that witness to the dignity of all people created in God’s image, Christianity seems to be defended as a major stake-holder in Western culture and society...

UPDATE TO THE UPDATES:

I just want to be clear that I do not doubt the sincerity, orthodoxy, or godliness of men like Al Mohler, Danny Akin, Randy Alcorn, David Dockery, etc., whom I have immense respect for in a great many areas. If the document had been framed differently as an expression of “religious leaders”, or something to that effect, I do not think there would have been an issue. It’s the tacit approval or at least watering down of the clarity of the Gospel that is of concern here. I do not think that it is intentional on the part of those who signed it. However, I also do not think that it is appropriate to ignore it either. Gal. 1:8-9; Gal. 2:11-14.

Perseverance of the Saints

The so-called “P” of TULIP: Perseverance of the Saints. If it rested on us to complete our course to Christ, we would be in sore shape about mid-day of the first day of our conversion. Thank God that He not only convicts, draws and regenerates the sinner’s stony heart, but He preserves them in His grace until He calls them home.

We believe that all who are justified will win the fight of faith. They will persevere in faith and never surrender to the enemy of their souls. This perseverance is the promise of the new covenant, obtained by the blood of Christ, and worked in us by God himself, yet not so as to diminish, but only to empower and encourage, our vigilance; so that we may say in the end, I have fought the good fight, but it was not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8:30)

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. (John 10:27-28)

I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. (Philippians 1:6)

I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. (Philippians 3:12)

John Piper

What is the Gospel?

“What is your greatest fear? If I were asking that question in many parts of the world, answers would probably cluster around basic needs such as running water, food, vaccines, and shelter. For most of us in the United States, though, our greatest fears are more likely to be things like the fear of loneliness, some cataclysmic event that throws me off the ladder of upward mobility, divorce, or the inability to find any ultimate meaning in life. None of these fears is illegitimate, yet none is ultimate. These fears haunt us only because we have the luxury of having them haunt us. Until we are confronted with the reality of God—in all of his blinding majesty, weightiness, and frightful claim on our lives—we are overwhelmed by secondary troubles. But when for some reason there is the slightest glimpse of God in his holiness, we either do our best to domesticate him, turn him into a pet by suppressing the truth, or run for the hills to escape the confrontation.

God should be your greatest fear. Yet there is no salvation from God’s just judgment from anywhere else than God himself. Only the same God who fills us with fear is able also to give us peace. If we are to escape this judgment, it will only be the result of the greatness in God’s heart and not something in our own. That God has moved toward us—even lunged toward us—not in judgment, as we should have expected, but in loving embrace and reconciliation, clothing us in Christ’s righteousness so that we can be acceptable in his holy presence, is the good news that you are called here and now to embrace. Christ lived a perfect life in the place of sinners, bore their sins on the cross, and was raised again for our justification. This means that “there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Not because of anything that you have done, experienced, attempted, or decided, but because of what he has accomplished for you, can you be assured of God’s favor. It is good news, not good advice. It is not a call to self-improvement, but to die to self altogether and be raised a new person, in Christ. It is the free gift of forgiveness of sins, right standing with God, adoption as his heirs, and liberation from the tyranny of sin. As his ambassador, I am calling you in his name to be reconciled to God by turning away from all other saviors and lords and embracing Jesus Christ as your righteousness, holiness, and redemption. Come to him now. His love is greater than your enmity toward him; his grace is greater than your sin; his peace is greater than your fears.”

Michael Horton

Yes, it’s been a while...

It has been a few weeks since my last post. A lot is going on personally. All good stuff, but time consuming. However, I did want to post a thought I’ve had here lately.

I often wonder why God does not simply transform us from the moment we are in Christ. Christians still die. Christians still get hungry and thirsty. What is the point of continuing this, if we are already “in Christ”?

Many would argue that the difficulties of life are there to shape us into the “image of Christ” (Romans 8:28-30; James 1:2-4), and I am sure that that is true. However, it has occurred to me that this still begs the question of why He would choose not to conform us to that image immediately. Certainly, it is possible. I think of the transfiguration as a type of what could be done by God upon conversion. (Matt. 17:1-13) Or, what of Elijah and being caught up in a whirlwind? (2 Kings 2:11) Or even Enoch, who walked with God and simply “was not”? (Gen. 5:24; Heb. 11:5) I think I could handle being like Enoch, nothing fancy, just gone to be with Christ. But, this does not happen to us. Why?

It strikes me that even more profound than the effect that trials have upon us is the display of God’s glory, or His “worth”, in the face of the desire for other things. Even with necessary things, He is worth more and our dependence upon Him should be increased.

My body gets hungry to remind me that He is the Bread of Life. (John 6:48, 51) I get thirsty to remind me that He gives living water. (John 7:38, Rev. 7:17). I am wet and chilled in a thunder storm to remind me that He has covered me with the garments of salvation. (Is. 61:10) And on it goes. What do I have that I did not receive? (1 Cor. 4:7)

Not only is our dependence upon Him made known to us in these things, but His worth is also displayed to others when we show our contentment in Him in the face of lacking these and other things. A picture of this would probably be 2 Corinthians 8.

We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, 2 for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. 3 For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, 4 begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints— 5 and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us.

Notice that this was a display of the grace of God given among the churches of Macedonia. This generosity was not a testimony to their goodness or sacrifice, but that, even through great persecution and lack, they gave because Christ was more satisfying to them than their earthly needs. Importantly, they didn’t give to earn God’s favor. They gave because they had His favor already, and it was enough.

Is His mercy and grace enough for you? I want it to be enough for me. I pray that it is.

The Evolution of Divorce

Read the full article here.

Prior to the late 1960s, Americans were more likely to look at marriage and family through the prisms of duty, obligation, and sacrifice. A successful, happy home was one in which intimacy was an important good, but by no means the only one in view. A decent job, a well-maintained home, mutual spousal aid, child-rearing, and shared religious faith were seen almost universally as the goods that marriage and family life were intended to advance.

But the psychological revolution’s focus on individual fulfillment and personal growth changed all that. Increasingly, marriage was seen as a vehicle for a self-oriented ethic of romance, intimacy, and fulfillment. In this new psychological approach to married life, one’s primary obligation was not to one’s family but to one’s self; hence, marital success was defined not by successfully meeting obligations to one’s spouse and children but by a strong sense of subjective happiness in marriage — usually to be found in and through an intense, emotional relationship with one’s spouse. The 1970s marked the period when, for many Americans, a more institutional model of marriage gave way to the “soul-mate model” of marriage.

Fruit

I wrote about this in an email to a friend recently and thought I’d put it up here for discussion, if any are so inclined.

I had kind of an interesting train of thought the other day. We, in Adam, grasped forbidden fruit to be like God – the creature striving to be the Creator. Christ, humbly, did not think equality with God a thing to be grasped but laid down His perfect life in perfect obedience for our sake. The Righteous for the unrighteous. He Who know no sin became sin THAT we might be the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). Many have called this the “Great Exchange”.

As a function of that exchange we are given a new nature and sealed by His Spirit. (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph 1:13-14). His Spirit via the new nature bears “fruit”. (Gal. 5:22-23) Fruit is singular in Galatians even though nine attributes, or “slices” so to speak, are mentioned.

So, here is the thought: Christ exchanged the fruit of our sin for the fruit of His Spirit. In striving to be as God, we became as devils. Yet, in His humble obedience, He redeemed us so that one day we will be like Him. (1 John 3:2). He gave us freely through His obedience what we could not grasp in our rebellion.

Translators Will Overhaul NIV

Big news in Christianity Today concerning Zondervan’s pledge to overhaul the TNIV in a move at correcting the “mistakes” made in its gender-neutral slant in translation.

Can a True Christian Believe the Prosperity Gospel?

Collision: 13-minute preview

"Collision: Hitchens vs. Wilson" - EXCLUSIVE 13 minute preview from LEVEL4 on Vimeo.

I am bummed that it’s only going to be in theaters in New York and Los Angeles. Sign of the times where a movie about robots is distributed internationally, but a movie about men debating the answers to the fundamental questions of life goes straight to DVD.

Print Your Own Scripture Memory Cards

Announced at the ESV Bible Blog:

Using the ESV API, Michael Scott has developed a handy tool to help you with scripture memorization. His website takes a list of references and automatically fetches the texts, formatting them into business card sized cards for easy printing.

Check it out at www.mcscott.org.

Very cool.