New Resources from TGC

Gospel Coalition Booklets, D.A. Carson & Tim Kellor (ed.)

Tim and Carl on "Love Wins"

Tim Challies has written a helpful review of Rob Bell's new book Love Wins.

A God who would allow people to go to hell is not a great God, according to Bell, and the traditional belief that He would is “devastating … psychologically crushing … terrifying and traumatizing and unbearable” (pp. 136-7).

God is at best sort of great, a little great—great for saving some, but evil for allowing others to perish. Dangerous words, those. It is a fearful thing to ascribe evil to God.

So what of the gospel? Where is the gospel and what is the gospel? Ultimately, what Bell offers in this book is a gospel with no purpose. In his understanding of the Bible, people are essentially good, although we certainly do sin, and are completely free to choose or not choose to love God on our own terms. Even then he seems to believe that most people, given enough time and opportunity, will turn to God...

Christians do not need more confusion. They need clarity. They need teachers who are willing to deal honestly with what the Bible says, no matter how hard that truth is. And let’s be honest—many truths are very, very hard to swallow.

Love does win, but not the kind of love that Bell talks about in this book. The love he describes is one that is founded solely on the idea that the primary object of God’s love is man; indeed, the whole story, he writes, can be summed up in these words: “For God so loved the world.” But this doesn’t hold a candle to the altogether amazing love of God as actually shown in the Bible. The God who “shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8), who acts on our behalf not so much because His love for us is great, but because He is great (Isaiah 48:9, Ezekiel 20:9,14,22,44, 36:22; John 17:1-5).

That’s the kind of love that wins. That’s the kind of love that motivates us to love our neighbors enough to compel them to flee from the wrath to come. And our love for people means nothing if we do not first and foremost love God enough to be honest about Him.

Read Tim's entire review HERE.

Carl Trueman, a professor of church history at Westminster Theological Seminary has written a helpful critique of Rob Bell's use of historical sources. In Love Wins Bell offers a quote from Martin Luther proving that the Reformer asserted that God would give men and women an opportunity to turn to Christ after they die. The problem, as Dr. Trueman points out, is that Luther wrote nothing of the sort.

On page 108 of Love Wins Bell writes:

“And then there are others who can live with two destinations, two realities after death, but insist that there must be some kind of "second chance" for those who don't believe in Jesus in this lifetime. In a letter Martin Luther, one of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation, wrote to Hans von Rechenberg in 1522 he considered the possibility that people could turn to God after death, asking: "Who would doubt God's ability to do that?"”

“Again, a good question.”

“And so space is created in this "who would doubt God's ability to do that?" perspective for all kinds of people--fifteen-year-old atheists, people from other religions, and people who rejected Jesus because the only Jesus they ever saw was an oppressive figure who did anything but show God's love.”

But, as Trueman points out, context is king. It is amazing how just a little context changes the entire meaning of what Bell claims that Luther wrote. The quote used by Bell is found within these two paragraphs from Luther. The portion Bell uses in Love Wins is highlighted in green:

“If God were to save anyone without faith, he would be acting contrary to his own words and would give himself the lie; yes, he would deny himself. And that is impossible for, as St. Paul declares, God cannot deny himself [“II Tim. 2:13”]. It is as impossible for God to save without faith as it is impossible for divine truth to lie. That is clear, obvious, and easily understood, no matter how reluctant the old wineskin is to hold this wine--yes, is unable to hold and contain it.”

“It would be quite a different question whether God can impart faith to some in the hour of death or after death so that these people could be saved through faith. Who would doubt God's ability to do that? No one, however, can prove that he does do this. For all that we read is that he has already raised people from the dead and thus granted them faith. But whether he gives faith or not, it is impossible for anyone to be saved without faith. Otherwise every sermon, the gospel, and faith would be vain, false, and deceptive, since the entire gospel makes faith necessary. (Works, 43, ed. and trans. G. Wienke and H. T. Lehmann [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968], 53-54; WA 10.ii, 324.25-325.11)”

So it is clear that Luther is affirming the exact opposite of what Bell attributes to him. Of course, the average reader, assuming Bell has done his homework, will not question the assertion. Does this make Bell dishonest or just sloppy?

Trueman concludes:

Building arguments on theological soundbites, especially from the works of prolific and sophisticated theologians such as Luther, is surely very tempting in today's instant internet age. We all want our fifteen minutes of fame but none of us want to spend any more than fifteen seconds doing the grunt work necessary to achieve it. Yet, like a lady of easy virtue, such an approach may have immediately seductive charms but ultimately proves a rather cruel mistress for the would-be historian. It also says much (and none of it flattering) about the competence of the editors at Harper, that they did not seize on this elementary error and correct it. Checking sources, especially when they seem to say something unexpected, is surely the most basic task of both author and editor.

The book will, of course, sell many copies, far more than anything I will ever write, I am sure. But then so did Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code; and that was a book with which, from the safely controversial content to the sloppy historiography, Rob Bell's latest offering would appear to have much in common.

Read Carl's entire article HERE.

Sunday's Sermon

On Sunday I preached part 7 in the current series God's Great Story: How the Gospel Changes Everything. It is entitled "The Incarnate God" and can be listened to or downloaded HERE.

"Ashamed of hell"

“Many in the church today have universalism simply as a hope. Though they may not preach it dogmatically, they don’t eliminate the possibility that all will be saved in the end. We may call them the ‘wishful universalists.’

I have been told numerous times that there are many ‘closet universalists’ in evangelical churches today. These are people who believe that all will be saved, but are afraid of being public about this belief as it is considered a heresy in orthodox Christian circles, and also because the idea that all will be saved could add to the spiritual apathy of this generation.

Related to the above question is that of evangelicals who are ashamed of hell. They are bound to believe everything the Bible explicitly teaches, so they believe in an eternal hell. But they wish that they did not have to believe it. If they speak about the topic, which is not very often, they do so with a sense of shame, as if it were something very unjust, and they keep saying that they wish it were not true.”

Ajith Fernando from Crucial Questions About Hell

Not orthodox enough for Zondervan?

When Zondervan says you do not fit within the parameters of their mission, you know you're in trouble. Zondervan (along with IVP) pretty much defines broad margin, big tent evangelicalism these days. Large publishing houses like Zondervan are also very fond of books that sell (imagine that!). That is what makes Zondervan's decision to pass on Rob Bell's latest book so remarkable.

The Grand Rapids publishing company which published Bell's last four books including the wildly popular Velvet Elvis (500,000 sold) chose not to publish Love Wins. In a story from CNN.com, Eric Marrapodi writes:

Bell's split from Zondervan came in part over this new book. "The break with Zondervan was amicable," Tauber said. "In the end the president of Zondervan made the decision. The proposal came in and they said, 'This proposal doesn’t fit in with our mission.' "

When you are are not orthodox enough for Zondervan you really have to wonder...

On a related note, a certain "Rodney Trotter" over at Ref21 has finally weighed in with his characteristic keen analysis:

Well, Mrs Trotter and myself have been most astonished at the, umm, astonishment that Rob Bell has apparently come out as a universalist. Indeed, the fact that Zondervan has now apparently broken ties with the chap shows what a stunning change of direction this is for the young theologian. Who could have predicted such a doctrinal switcharoo based on his earlier, impeccably orthodox, work?

Indeed, it took my mind back to a number of books I have read that, frankly, shook me to the core of my being through their shocking and unexpected revelations. Here are my top three:

I am Catholic by Benedict XVI (you will no doubt remember that the National Catholic Reporter controversially broke with Benedict when this was published)

We Relieve Ourselves in Them There Woods by Mr and Mrs Bear.

Many Teenagers Sometimes Disrespect Their Parents by the Rev. Dave Trendy

In the meantime, for anybody out there still trying to come to terms with the shock of Bell's new position, I have an offer for you which, I believe, may help dull the pain. Please email me for details at RodneyT@selling_the_brooklyn_bridge.org.

"No Doctrine Stands Alone"

The latest controversy over the doctrine of hell has raised the larger of issue of Christian doctrine in general. It is no surprise that there are certain doctrines, not least of all the gospel itself (1 Cor 1:18ff) which offend modern sensabilities. The project of liberal theology since Schleirmacher has been to make Christianity plausible to its "cultured despisers." This same project was carried forth by Rudolph Bultmann, Harry Emerson Fosdick and more recently by the emergent kids. The intentions to deny, ignore, or redefine key biblical doctrines are all in an effort to reach more people, which is noble. But ultimately it is a fool's errand for it does not take long to figure out that tinkering with one doctrine inevitably leads to compromises in another and so forth.

From Al Mohler:

The first issue is a changed view of God. The biblical vision of God has been rejected by the culture as too restrictive of human freedom and offensive to human sensibilities. God’s love has been redefined so that it is no longer holy. God’s sovereignty has been reconceived so that human autonomy is undisturbed. In recent years, even God’s omniscience has been redefined to mean that God perfectly knows all that He can perfectly know, but He cannot possibly know a future based on free human decisions.

Evangelical revisionists promote an understanding of divine love that is never coercive and would disallow any thought that God would send impenitent sinners to eternal punishment in the fires of hell. They are seeking to rescue God from the bad reputation He picked up by associating with theologians who for centuries taught the traditional doctrine. God is just not like that, they reassure. He would never sentence anyone — however guilty — to eternal torment and anguish.

The Christian faith is not a series of loosly connected doctrines. The Christian faith is a doctrine made up of many parts beautifully connected and interdepent.

Mohler continues:

Extending this argument further, it would surely be easier to persuade secular persons to believe in a God who would never judge anyone deserving of eternal punishment than it would to persuade them to believe in the God preached by Jonathan Edwards or Charles Spurgeon. But the urgent question is this: Is evangelical theology about marketing God to our contemporary culture, or is it our task to stand in continuity with orthodox biblical conviction–whatever the cost? As was cited earlier, modern persons demand that God must be a humanitarian, and He is held to human standards of righteousness and love. In the end, only God can defend himself against His critics.

Our responsibility is to present the truth of the Christian faith with boldness, clarity, and courage — and defending the biblical doctrine in these times will require all three of these virtues. Hell is an assured reality, just as it is presented so clearly in the Bible. To run from this truth, to reduce the sting of sin and the threat of hell, is to pervert the Gospel and to feed on lies. Hell is not up for a vote or open for revision. Will we surrender this truth to modern skeptics?

Current controversies raise this issue anew among American Christians and even among some evangelicals. Nevertheless, there is no way to deny the Bible’s teaching on hell and remain genuinely evangelical. No doctrine stands alone.

Read Mohler's entire article HERE.

Doubt as a badge honor...

The latest flap over Rob Bell's views of hell and salvation have raised once again the post-modern infatuation with doubt and uncertainty. Even as post-modernism has largely been consigned to the intellectual trash bin, the emergent kids still think it is cutting edge. "We're into questions, not answers." "We're into the journey, not the destination." Ho hum.

Kevin DeYoung has posted a quote from one of my favorite writers of pastoral reflection, David Hansen. The quote is from Hansen's wonderful book The Art of Pastoring:

There is an important place in the ministry for honest questioning over doctrinal issues. But I’m not proud of my tossing and turning over hell. Some pastors wear their agnosticism about hell as a badge of honor. I’ve tried it. I’ve acted as if struggling to believe our Lord’s words were a virtue. But I always found that when I became proud of my doubts, they suddenly become the sin of unbelief. For me, finally, waffling over hell became the sin of unbelief (p. 78).

Two books that give the biblical answer to "Christian inclusivism":
Jesus: The Only Way to God: Must You Hear the Gospel to be Saved? by John Piper

Faith Comes By Hearing: A Response to Inclusivism by Morgan & Peterson

Rob Bell on Good Morning America

Thanks to Denny Burk for linking to Rob Bell's appearance on Good Morning America.

The story features a tweet posted from Josh Harris which gets to the point: “There’s nothing loving about preaching a false gospel.”

The report also features Al Mohler representing the historic, orthodox consensus:
“If indeed Rob Bell denies the existence of hell, this is a betrayal of biblical truth that has severe spiritual and evangelistic consequences… Jesus was himself very, very clear about the reality and threat of hell.”

Serene Jones, President of Union Theological Seminary, represented the liberal side of the debate:
“I think that the people who are going after Rob Bell as controversial are themselves closer to heresy than Rob Bell is… Jesus’ message was basically that the love of God is stronger than anything we can do. And the forgiveness of God is stronger, so why would that God be torturing people in some made-up hell?… Centuries of theologians … have said that the question of heaven and hell was not something that we should be worrying about but rather doing good in this life and loving God.”

President Jones' answer affirms the truth of what Machen wrote almost 100 years ago. Liberalism is not so much a form of Christianity but an entirely different religion. They have embraced another gospel.

Not only our liberty but our duty...

"One thing is clear to us, we cannot be expected to meet in any union which comprehends those whose teachings on fundamental points is exactly the reverse of that which we hold dear. Cost what it may, to separate ourselves from those who separate themselves from the truth of God is not alone our liberty but our duty.”



“Separation from such as connive at fundamental error, or withhold the ‘Bread of life’ from perishing souls, is not schism, but only what truth, and conscience, and God require of all who would be found faithful.”

- Charles Spurgeon

For the book lover...

From The Book Surgeon

HT: Tim Challies

Evangelicalism and the rise of secularization

On Wednesday I was able to attend the annual Gaffin Lecture Westminster Theological Seminary. Al Mohler was the speaker and his lecture was entitled: "On the Other Side of Complexity: Christian Conviction in the Late Modern Age." It is an academic lecture, not a sermon so don't expect a long string of entertaining stories. The content however is powerful. As Dr. Mohler nears the end of his lecture he cites a study which suggests that the modern evangelical church is actually leading to an increase of secularization. It is worth your time to invest in listening to this important lecture.

Abomination

I have posted this before but it is worth hearing again:

"Your testimonies are my delight; they are my counselors."

"Whoever finds his life..."

Thanks to my wife for calling my attention to this stunning interview.

Near the end of the interview Reiko Rizzuto reflects on what would have happened if she had returned to her family. She would have done "that thing that I didn't want to do, which was give up my life...for someone else."

What is on display in Miss Rizzuto's interview is a heinous kind of narcissism which is able to justify the abandonment of one's spouse and children and call it "good." It is a corrosive morality that seeks the highest good in serving self at the expense of those who need us most.

But I must confess that the same depravity that Miss Rizzuto wears so proudly lurks in the recesses of my own heart. The same impulse to live entirely for self is a siren's song with which I am well acquainted. Indeed, what, in the end, could provide any of us with sufficient motive to lay down our lives for anyone else?

Only a suffering Savior, a King who takes up a cross, a Lord who lays down his life can give us sufficient cause to give up ourselves for the good of another. Only the cross makes sense of Jesus words: "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matt 10:39).

Understanding Hell

Worth Reading...

Hell Under Fire, Morgan & Peterson ed.

What is Hell? by Morgan & Peterson

Hell on Trial by Robert Peterson

Heaven and Hell by Edward Donnelly

Hell and the Glory of God

Jim Hamilton asks the question, "Would Rob Bell rob God of glory?" The question is appropriate for anyone who dismisses the biblical doctrine of hell.

Dr. Hamilton writes:

If there’s no hell, God can’t be trusted because he doesn’t keep his word and therefore doesn’t do justice, and if there’s no justice, mercy has no meaning.

If you don’t understand what I just typed: “if there’s no justice, mercy has no meaning,” keep thinking about it. Look the words “justice” and “mercy” up in a dictionary (click them and read the definitions on dictionary.com).

In addition, if there’s no hell, the Bible’s big story doesn’t make sense.

How does hell glorify God? Glad you asked: let’s take a narrative look at hell.

Here’s the conclusion to the short piece linked above:

“In sum, hell glorifies God because

■ it shows that he keeps his word;
■ it shows his infinite worth, lasting forever;
■ it demonstrates his power to subdue all who rebel against him;
■ it shows how unspeakably merciful he is to those who trust him;
■ it upholds the reality of love by visiting justice against those who reject God, who is love;
■ it vindicates all who suffered to hear or proclaim the truth of God’s word;
■ and it shows the enormity of what Jesus accomplished when he died to save all who would trust him from the hell they deserved. If there were no hell, there would be no need for the cross.”

"The Organized Heart"

The newest release from Cruciform Press sounds like an interesting one: The Organized Heart: A Woman's Guide to Conquering Chaos.

From the Publisher:

The fight against chaos is universal, whether it be the outward chaos of disorder and frenzy or the inward chaos of fear and self-criticism. Even if we already know how to do better, something falls apart between our good intentions and getting it done.

Most books on organization just add more rules to your life, whether it be another plan, another calendar, or another method. This book will show you a different, better way that is grounded in the grace of God.

Jesus taught that true change doesn’t come by the addition of more rules, but from the inside out, with a change of the heart that only the gospel can bring. When you identify the heart problems behind the chaos in your life, lasting change can happen. This will not only reduce the stress in your life, but help you be more effective in your service to God.

A dangerous place to be a Christian...

Afghanistan continues to be a place where it is dangerous to be a Christian. It is particularly dangerous to convert from Islam to Christianity. Such a conversion carries with it a death sentence. Those who do convert know that they are potentially laying down their lives.

Thanks to Denny Burk for posting this:

Another Afghan convert is facing possible execution for his Christian faith. His name is Shoaib Assadullah, and he is 23 years old. Michael Foust has done some excellent reporting on this story, and I hope and pray that it will help to focus attention on Shoaib’s case. Intense international scrutiny led to the release of Said Musa last week. Let’s pray that the same might happen for brother Shoaib.

Michael Foust has printed a translation of the entire text of a letter that was smuggled out of Shoaib’s prison cell. I reprint that letter in full below. After you read the letter, please pray for Shoaib. Pray that he might be released to safety and that he would bear faithful witness to Christ no matter what happens.

Please pray for the protection and perseverance of Shoaib Assadullah, our brother in Christ.

Nine Marks Journal

The Latest Nine Marks Journal is available. The theme of this issue is the relationship between the church and the parachurch.

• J. Mack Stiles, Nine Marks of a Healthy Parachurch Ministry. A longtime parachurch veteran lays out nine things that should keep a parachurch ministry faithful to the gospel.
• Carl Trueman, How Parachurch Ministries Go Off the Rails. Parachurch ministries often go wrong because they sideline important doctrines and lack proper accountability.
• Aaron Menikoff, Are Parachurch Ministries Evil? Bad and Good Arguments for the Parachurch. This article critiques common arguments in favor of parachurch ministries; then it offers surer footing for their biblical legitimacy and practical usefulness.
• Byron Straughn, For the Parachurch: Know the Difference Between Families & Soccer Teams. Too many parachurch workers are only casually connected to a church. But this parachurch worker says they should reconsider this stance—for their good and the good of their ministries.
• Andy Johnson, For the Church: Which Parachurch Ministries Should You Support? Pastors are flooded with requests for parachurch support. Here are a few principles to help you decide whom to get behind.
• Jeramie Rinne, For the Church: How Can You Support Parachurch Ministries? How can the local church support parachurch ministries? This pastor says by attending to your church’s health, by providing accountability, and by promoting their work.
• D. A. Carson, Praying for Parachurch Ministries. A seasoned saint, scholar, and parachurch leader offers six reflections on praying for parachurch ministries.
• Jonathan Leeman, How Church Discipline Will Save the Parachurch. Imagine what the evangelical landscape would look like if local churches did more to correct sin. Might the landscape become crowded with healthy parachurch ministries?

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Thanks to Justin Taylor for posting a remembrance of Lloyd-Jones who died 30 years ago today.

Sunday's Sermon

On Sunday I preached part 7 in our series God's Great Story. It is entitled The All-Wise God and is taken from Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job, and Psalms. You can listen to or download it HERE.

I know. I know. But you really ought to read this one...

Kevin DeYoung has written what is the most helpful post I have read on the controversy surrounding Rob Bell and the promotion of his new book. You ought to read it when you get a chance.

In case you are wondering why I have been posting on this, the answer is easy: Rob Bell has influence. He is an internationally known pastor, preacher, and writer. Not long ago some evangelicals were calling him the next Billy Graham. His books and Nooma videos have been and continue to be enormously popular among Christians. Therefore, his continued drift away from historic Christian orthodoxy on issues like the Bible's reliability, the atonement, the resurrection, the judgement, and the eternal state rightfully concern many pastors.

Men used to be willing to die for the truth...

The dust up over the promotional materials for Rob Bell's newest book has been interesting. Justin Taylor has been excoriated for expressing (in a relatively gentle way) his concerns over Bell's clear compromises with Biblical truth. That criticism reflects what seems to be the new mainstream of evangelicalism which disdains the identification of error and those who promote it. Indeed, it seems that the only heresy within evangelicalism is the notion of heresy itself. It leaves me wondering if there is any more evidence needed to finally declare evangelicalism deceased.

From Phil Johnson:

I'm not looking for crass watchbloggers or anti-intellectual zealots for whom every disagreement is an excuse for insults and a shouting match. We are up to here with people like that. They are a tiny minority, I think, but a noisy one. They represent one extreme out there on the evangelical fringe: people who can't tolerate any difference of opinion.

But the other extreme seems to be a much larger, more pervasive problem (and this is the trend currently pushing the most evangelicals off the edge): people whose "tolerance" is bent in favor of distorted and unorthodox teachings. They despise unvarnished criticism. They especially hate it when a critic suggests this or that heresy is truly damnable. Evidently there is no doctrine so important that they are willing to fight for it—much less die for it. [emphasis mine]

Both our Lord and His apostles told us plainly that we would need to defend the faith against false prophets, vicious wolves in sheep's clothing (Matthew 7:15), minions of Satan disguised as angels of light (2 Corinthians 11:13-14), and corrupters of doctrine who arise within the church (Acts 20:29). Why is it that the average Christian today flatly refuses to take those warnings seriously?

As we enter the second decade of the twenty-first century, American evangelicalism is clearly confused, fragmented, and frighteningly vulnerable to false teaching. Evangelicals are too worldly-minded and untaught to be able to recognize all the deadly errors that have made themselves at home within the movement. Evangelical leaders are far too tentative and timid in denouncing those errors—up to and including the damnable ones. Rank-and-file evangelicals won't stand for it if their leaders do point out false doctrines, especially when the error is being peddled by a slick celebrity. [emphasis mine]

These problems are serious. What we commonly refer to as "the evangelical movement" is actually no movement at all anymore. It has morphed and melted down into a variegated, muddled, incoherent swamp—without any meaningful boundaries. And we are sending to the world a message that is as garbled and bewildering as this ersatz movement.

Read the entire post HERE.

More on Rob Bell's new book...

Some other thoughtful guys have weighed in on Rob Bell's forthcoming book Love Wins:

Denny Burk

Justin Taylor

Kevin Deyoung

Joshua Harris

Trevin Wax

The Propriety of Public Rebuke

In a recent interview by the Dean at Point Looma Nazarene College Rob Bell responded to Mark Driscoll's pronouncement that Bell is a heretic:

Nelson: Time Magazine, a year or two ago, called you the next Billy Graham. And then you’ve got a pastor at another Mars Hill church calling you a heretic.

Bell: Well, uh, if I were to read the gospels for the first time, and I was stuck in a motel room, and I opened up a Bible and I read the story of Jesus for the first time, and then somebody asked me, “Well, what’s this story about?” One of the things I might say is, “Huh, seems like the sinners and the tax collectors and the prostitutes loved this guy, but it seems like the religious establishment was scared to death of him.” (laughter) So, uh, that’s what I think about that. (laughter and applause). I don’t know what, um, ok, let me give you concrete answers: In the Sermon on the Mount…no, in Matthew 18 actually, Jesus says if you have a problem with your brother or sister you go to them.

Rob's call for private meetings from those who speak up against his errors is a fundamental misunderstanding of Matthew 18. Those of us who publicly challenge Rob Bell are not responding to a personal offense but to this man's very public ministry. There have been people within Bell's church who have made known their grave concerns about his errors. Nevertheless, Bell has pressed on. Prominent evangelical pastors and theologians have called upon Bell to repent of his false teachings but still he persists. He preaches, writes books, and travels the world on speaking tours. He dismisses biblical orthodoxy with a wave of his postmodern hand and is then surprised when someone objects? His protests are disingenuous at best.

Rob Bell preaches another Gospel. This is a serious charge, I know. But Bell proclaims that salvation has nothing to do with sinners being saved from the just wrath of God. Of course, this puts him at odds with Jesus himself who warned about the coming wrath. The New Testament clearly proclaims that Jesus is our propitiation; one who took upon himself the wrath we deserved that we might have peace with God. Rob Bell, on the other hand, says that there is no wrath from which we must be saved. Jesus proclaimed that the way of salvation is narrow and few will find it. Rob Bells says this is not true. He denies that we are justified before God through faith in Christ claiming that all people regardless of faith will be saved. This once again puts him squarely at odds with the Lord Jesus who proclaimed, "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (John 3:18).

This is why I say that Rob Bell proclaims another Gospel. And in case you were wondering whether or not this is a big deal:
"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ" (Galatians 1:6-10).

Al Mohler at Westminster

Al Mohler will be giving the Gaffin Lecture at Westminster Theological Seminary on Wednesday morning March 2 at 10:30 in Rust Auditorium. If you are in the Philadelphia area please try to attend.

Rob Bell sets himself against God...

So, we've known for a while that Rob Bell was going to release a book denying the doctrines of Hell and the final judgement. It's a sentimental message that will certainly resonate with many contemporary evangelicals who cannot cope with any notion of exclusion. These are the same folks who loved Velvet Elvis wherein Bell states that Christ need not be resurrected and that Christian doctrines are like springs on a trampoline - disconnect some of them and you can still enjoy a rather satisfying jump. Rob Bell, Brian MacLaren, Tony Jones and the like are giving less discerning Christians a reason to reject the very words of Scripture. Sadder still, these men are giving unbelievers a reason to be comforted in their unbelief.

LOVE WINS. from Rob Bell on Vimeo.

Rob Bell denies that we are saved from the wrath of God by grace through faith in Jesus. He denies the reality of hell. He denies the very words of Jesus that few find the way of life. And yet this is exactly what the Scriptures teach:

Matthew 5:22 - "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire."

Matthew 2:29 - "If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell."

Matthew 7:13-14 - "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

Matthew 10:28 - "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

Matthew 13:40 - "Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age."

Matthew 23:33 - "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?"

Matthew 25:41 - "Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'"

Luke 3:9 - "Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

Luke 3:17 - "His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

Luke 12:5 - "But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!"

Luke 12:49 - "I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled!"

Luke 13:23-27 - "And someone said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us,’ then he will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’ Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’ But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil!'"

John 3:36 - "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."

John 15:6 - "If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned."

Romans 1:18 - "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth."

Romans 2:5 - "But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed."

Romans 3:5 - "But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us?"

Romans 5:9 - "Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God."

Romans 9:22 - "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction..."

Ephesians 2:3 - "...among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind."

Hebrews 10:26-27 - "For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries."

1 Thessalonians 1:10 - "...and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come."

2 Thessalonians 1:5-8 - "This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus."

2 Peter 2:4-10 - "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority."

Revelation 6:16-17 - "...calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?"

It is a grievous sin to deny the very Word of God. This is precisely the project of Rob Bell and others within the dwindling emergent movement. Woe to those who speak falsehood and call it the gospel.

The error of assuming error

B.B. Warfield the great biblical scholar and defender of the Bible's inerrancy challenged skeptics to give the New Testament the same benefit of the doubt that secular texts were given:

It is not enough to point to passages difficult to harmonize; they cannot militate against verbal inspiration unless it is not only impossible for us to harmonize them, but also unless they are of such a character that they are clearly contradictory, so that if one be true the other cannot by any possibility be true. No such case has as yet been pointed out. Why should the New Testament harmonics be dealt with on other principles than those which govern men in dealing with like cases among profane writers? There, it is a first principle of historical science that any solution which affords a possible method of harmonizing any two statements is preferable to the assumption of inaccuracy or error—whether those statements are found in the same or different writers. To act on any other basis, it is clearly acknowledged, is to assume, not prove, error. We ask only that this recognized principle be applied to the New Testament.

—B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (p 439).

Worth the read...

"The Gospel & Personal Evangelism," Mark Dever from 9Marks on Vimeo.

The Gospel and Personal Evangelism

"What Does God Want of Us Anyway?" Mark Dever from 9Marks on Vimeo.

What Does God Want of us Anyway?

Just for Fun

HT: Tim Challies

Enforcing Laws, Defending Marriage...

In what can only be described as a cynical political move, the Obama Administration informed Congress that they will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA]. That means that any challenge to DOMA in the courts will not be countered by the Administration even though the President and Attorney General took oaths to defend the law of the United States. Of course, this is an egregious violation of the Executive's responsibility to enforce the laws passed by Congress. The President and Attorney General simply do not have the power to act as the judiciary and decide which laws are or are not constitutional. What is more, this happened while hundreds of United States citizens are unable to escape an increasingly dangerous situation in Libya. How can it possibly be a Presidential priority to attack the historic and, yes, biblical understanding of marriage during a time of profound challenges in foreign policy?

The Defense of Marriage Act provides much needed protection for states by allowing them to deny the legitimacy of homosexual marriage. For instance, if two homosexuals get married in San Francisco or Boston, Pennsylvania is not required to recognize that marriage. DOMA was passed by congress, signed by President Clinton and upheld by the courts. President Obama's decision to not defend DOMA in the courts all but guarantees that homosexual marriage will become the law of the land. There is now nothing protecting Pennsylvania or Texas or Iowa from having to accept as legitimate the marriage of two homosexuals married in San Francisco.

Scripture makes clear that homosexuality represents the lowest forms of human foolishness and degredation as man drifts farther away from honoring God as God (Romans 1:18ff). The state is not the church. However, any nation which celebrates or honors what God has clearly condemned as an abomination stands under His condemnation.

Al Mohler writes:

Clearly, the President believes that he has sufficient political support to make this move. While gay rights groups have been pressuring the administration for this kind of action, in the first two years of his term, the President clearly felt that such a move would be too politically expensive and risky. No longer.

Is the President right in thinking that he will not be hurt politically by this action? The game played by many liberal politicians in general, and by Democratic politicians in particular, is to say that they are personally opposed to same-sex marriage, even as they work to remove all defenses against it. The political game played by many conservatives, by the way, is to pose as defenders of marriage without taking any action that would draw political risk. Remember that when conservative politicians now call for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as exclusively the union of a man and a woman. Where were they when such an action would have required courage but was politically viable and clearly needed?

In the press briefing, Jay Carney said that the President’s personal position on same-sex marriage is “distinct from this legal decision.” Last December, President Obama told reporters that his personal position on same-sex marriage is “constantly evolving.”

Well, there may be issues in which the distinction between the legal and the moral arguments makes a real difference, but this is not one of those issues. To suggest that President Obama does not personally support same-sex marriage is to posit a dualism within him that is nothing less than Gnostic. Mr. Carney would do better to stick with his argument that the President’s support of the gay rights movement is consistent. It is not credible for the President now to play Hamlet on the question of his own position on same-sex marriage.

The most immediate meaning of this announcement is two-fold. In the first place, it means that the constitutionally appointed defender of the nation’s laws, the Attorney General of the United States, has now been ordered to cease defending this single law in the courts. That alone is almost surely sufficient to spell the doom of DOMA in short order.

In the second place, this announcement means that President Obama and his advisers now believe that the full legalization of same-sex marriage is both inevitable and without major political risk to the President and his plans for re-election. That, in itself, represents a moral earthquake. The President clearly believes that a sufficient number of Americans will either support or accept same-sex marriage — and this comes just a few years after a majority of the states passed constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage, and most by huge margins.

The President has made his decision. The Attorney General has now made his announcement. Mark your calendars for yesterday. That day now represents a tragic milestone in the betrayal of marriage.

Read the entire post HERE.

A clash of worlds in Iowa

It seems odd that anyone would have to explain why it is inappropriate for a boy to wrestle a girl. But such is the world in which we live. You have probably heard about the Iowa high school student Joel Northrup who graciously refused to wrestle a female student in a state tournament. In what can only be described as moral ineptitude and lack of common sense Sarah Spain and Rick Reilly, both of ESPN, offer only criticism of young Northrup. They seem unable to understand how a high school boy could possibly consider it odd, uncomfortable, or wrong to wrestle a girl.

Al Mohler weighs in:

This is insanity masquerading as athletic competition. The controversy over the Iowa state wrestling tournament reveals the fact that this debate represents a clash of worlds and worldviews. In one world — the world the increasingly demands the total erasure of distinctions between men and women — Joel Northrup is considered to be a religious nut. In this world, it makes sense that girls wrestle against boys and that society should celebrate this new development as a milestone in the struggle to free ourselves from the limitations of all gender roles. As if to make this point impossible to miss, Bill Herkelman, Casey’s father, said: “She’s my son. She’s always been my son.”

In the other world, Joel Northrup is seen as a young man of brave and noble conscience — a boy who forfeited a match rather than violate his conscience. The statements offered by Joel and his father are seen as moments of temporary sanity in a world going increasingly mad. The chivalry demonstrated at great personal cost by this boy athlete is to be celebrated and affirmed, and acknowledged as being deeply rooted in his Christian convictions — convictions about gender, modesty, the treatment of girls and women, propriety, decorum, and sexual purity.

Read the entire article HERE.

Always Preach the Gospel

Non-Christian listeners need instruction in the truths of Scripture, particularly concerning Christ and his redeeming work, if the preacher’s call to “believe” is to be meaningful to them. Christians likewise need instruction in the truths of Scripture, if preaching is to achieve its objective to edify them. Apart from the truths of the gospel of grace, preaching to edify sinks into moralism, for imperatives ungrounded in the indicative of God’s gracious initiative breed in hearers either self righteous hypocrisy or self-condemning despair.

Dennis Johnson, Him We Proclaim

Do you own your job?

A thoughtful yet direct post from Douglas Wilson on whether or not Christians should support collective bargaining:

Just a quick note about "collective bargaining." The real question for those who would understand the nature of unions is the question of ownership. Say there is a particular job at the office building, or at the factory, or in the shop on Main Street. Who owns that job?

The assumption behind collective bargaining is that the one who holds the job owns the job. The biblical understanding is that the one who offers the job owns the job (Matt. 20:15). This is not the same as saying that the employer is a great guy. No, the owners of jobs are frequently evil, and they abuse their position of ownership (Jas. 5:4).

Labor/management disputes often fall into a false good guy/bad guy dichotomy, and it betrays a false understanding of the antithesis. In the Bible the owners are often the bad guys. But that does not mean they are not the owners of the jobs they offer. Bad guys can own things. And the commandment does not say, "Thou shalt not steal, except from bad guys."

So there is absolutely nothing wrong with employees collectively deciding that conditions on the job are horrendous, and deciding en masse that they don't want to work there anymore. And there is no problem with them negotiating with the owner from that collective position. Say they are asking for a raise, or for safer working conditions. That is fully legitimate as well. What is not legitimate is for them to lock up the job they have abandoned as though they are the owners of it. To refuse to work a job that you simultaneously lay claim to is a claim of ownership, which in this case is a false claim.

This sin (and it is a sin) is in evidence when strikers attack what they call "scabs." Scabs are workers looking for employment, and the horrendous conditions on the abandoned job would, in their instance, be an improvement.

In other words, collective bargaining is nothing but extortion, and Christians should do everything in their power to have nothing to do with it.

Conference on Science and Faith

Westminster Theological Seminary is hosting their second annual conference on the relationship between science and faith. Last year the theme was "Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?" This year the theme is "God and Materialism."




When? April 8-9, 2011

Where? WTS campus

Registration: HERE

Speakers:
From Westminster:
Rev. Dr. Vern Poythress, professor of New Testament interpretation
Rev. Dr. K. Scott Oliphint, professor of apologetics and systematic theology
Rev. Dr. Peter Lillback, President of the seminary, and professor of historical theology
Rev. Dr. Jeffrey Jue, associate professor of church history
Rev. Dr. Brandon Crowe, lecturer in New Testament

From the Discovery Institute:
Dr. John West, social scientist, author of Darwin Day in America
Dr. Guillermo Gonzales, co-author of The Priviledged Plant
Dr. Jonathan Wells, molecular and cell biologist, co-author of The Design of Life
Dr. Paul Nelson, philosopher of biology
Dr. Jay Richards, editor of God and Evolution

The Divine ordering of salvation

Election went through the world and marked the houses to which Salvation should come and the hearts in which the treasure should be deposited. Election looked through all the race of man, from Adam down to the last, and marked with sacred stamp those for whom Salvation was designed. "He must needs go through Samaria," said Election; and Salvation must go there. Then came Predestination. Predestination did not merely mark the house, but it mapped the road in which Salvation should travel to that house, Predestination ordained every step of the great army of Salvation, it ordained the time when the sinner should be brought to Christ, the manner how he should be saved, the means that should be employed; it marked the exact hour and moment, when God the Spirit should quicken the dead in sin, and when peace and pardon should be spoken through the blood of Jesus. Predestination marked the way so completely, that Salvation doth never overstep the bounds, and it is never at a loss for the road.

Charles Spurgeon from his sermon Things That Accompany Salvation

Quotable...

"That God normally operates the universe consistently makes science possible; that he does not always do so ought to keep science humble."

- D.A. Carson

Exciting release from Crossway...

Crossway has released the highly anticipated The Four Holy Gospels featuring the art of Makoto Fujimura.

Makoto Fujimura - The Art of "The Four Holy Gospels" from Crossway on Vimeo.

Sunday's Sermon

Sunday's message was part five in the series God's Great Story. It is entitled "The Reigning God" and is taken from 1 & 2 Samuel. You can listen to or download it HERE.

Great price on a new book...

WTS Bookstore is offering Tim Keller's new book King's Cross for only $14.27 (45% off).

All sins are not created equal

Growing up in American evangelicalism I know a thing or two about sentimentality. Statements like, "God loves everyone the same" and "God's love is unconditional" are just a part of the landscape. Another one of those phrases was something along the lines of "All sins are equal" or "No sin is worse than any other." In one respect that is true enough I suppose. After all, our sins are all a product of the corruption and deceitfulness of our hearts. Our sins without exception are expressions of the sinfulness which condemns us before a holy God.

However, there is a sense in which all sins are clearly not equal. And by "not equal" I mean that not all sins are as readily forgivable within the body of Christ. Forgiveness does not mean, nor should it mean immediate or easy restoration. For example, ask the average wife which of her husband's sins would be easier to forgive: harboring lust in his heart once or committing adultery once. I dare say the results would be overwhelmingly one-sided.

Carl Trueman, in a helpful article for Ref21 suggests that to deny sentimental ideas about forgiveness and restoration remain the one great heresy in the evangelical church.

Trueman writes:

I might speak disrespectfully to my wife at some point, and that is unacceptable; but if I do it repeatedly as a means of belittling her, or if I strike her with my hand, then a fundamental bond has been broken. Further, in the case of illicit sex, one who has joined his body to that of another who is not his wife has committed a sin of special heinousness; and that has permanent consequences, both in the marriage and the church. The sin does not put the person beyond the range of the forgiveness of God, but it disqualifies him from ever again meeting the criteria Paul sets forth for office-bearing in the church. I may be forgiven; but I will always be the man who beat his wife or cheated on her. My relationship with my wife is permanently changed; and my public reputation is permanently damaged.

That was essentially what underlay my criticism of the sudden reappearance of Haggard as a pastor -- and that not even as Pastor Nobody, quietly working away in Nowhereville, but as Pastor T.V. Celeb of the Parish of Satellite Channel. A simple, non-controversial point, I assumed; though apparently somewhat offensive and unbiblical in the context of a culture where the Great Heresy is to claim that forgiveness does not mean a limitless number of second chances at anything, as if the past had simply never happened.

Still, I want to suggest that the Great Heresy has more significance than simply ruling out of office certain men because of certain post-conversion actions. We might hate to acknowledge it, but Christian forgiveness should never be confused with the possibility of second chances. Forgiveness with God is absolute, and no matter how heinous the crime, God's grace is never withheld from those who look to him for mercy. Yet actions here on earth always have consequences. We do people no favours by pretending otherwise. The gospel is not about how you can beat your wife to a pulp on Tuesday and make love to her on Wednesday as if nothing had happened. That is teaching of a kind which is so ruthlessly propagated in a myriad of sitcoms and movies. In these, casual violence and illicit sex never seem to have any real or lasting impact on anybody, as if they were as inconsequential as one's choice of breakfast cereal or brand of coffee. On the contrary: God may forgive; but we must understand that part of the inherent tragedy of the fallen human condition is that we still live with the consequences of our sin.

Trueman also points out the important pastoral and theological implications of a proper understanding of sin and forgiveness.

It is vital that the gospel is not confused with sentimental second chances. This is important, both pastorally and theologically. Pastorally, it should make us compassionate towards those who struggle with the hangover of previous actions. It allows us to understand why the Christian who lived a homosexual lifestyle before conversion may continue to wrestle with such tendencies till the day he dies. Grace is not a wiping of the slate in the sense that one return to the start and begins all over again with a blank sheet. Rather, it is divine forgiveness despite who we have been and what we still are. That is very good news. Think of the church in Corinth, a small gathering of people, many of whom had probably worked in the sex trade. The amazing thing there was not that the church was being torn apart by immorality - that is what one would expect from a group of people wrestling with their past; rather, it was the fact that there was any church there in the first place.

On the other side of the balance sheet, however, this should lead us to have a high view of Christian behaviour. We must not confuse forgiveness with the idea of the past simply disappearing as if it had never happened. The gospel is not a magic bullet which continually returns us to Year Zero in every aspect of our lives. If I beat my wife, I am a wife beater, and there will be consequences. If, as a Christian, I beat my wife, I am a Christian wife beater and to be subject to the appropriate discipline and exclusions that apply. Sorry is not a magic formula which wipes the slate clean in every sense, and neither is God's grace. There is a difference between, on the one hand, forgiveness and restoration to fellowship, and, on the other, going back to the way things were. Some actions so fundamentally change relationships, reputations, and even personalities that there is no going back. We lie to our people if we tell them otherwise.

Theologically, the insidious sentimentality of the gospel-as-limitless-second-chances brigade is also subversive of a biblical understanding of exactly who God is and what salvation looks like. Remember: as Christ was hanging from the cross, the Disney redemptionists, the pragmatists, and the sentimental were out in force. Indeed, the religious leaders, the soldiers, and the first thief all called out to Christ and told him that, if he was truly king and messiah, he should immediately come down from the cross. They could only conceive of a gospel that simply wiped the slate clean and that ignored the consequences of human actions. Only the second thief understood the real point of what was happening that day: he saw clearly that Christ's kingdom was not be inaugurated in glorious and stubborn defiance of death, but rather by going through death and utterly subverting its power. Interestingly enough, he also rebuked his dying colleague, pointing out that, yes, he did deserve to die; that, humanly speaking, there was to be no second chance for him; and that this was only right and just. [emphasis mine]

Read the entire article HERE.

Pray for our brother Said Musa

Imprisoned in Afghanistan, Said Musa faces execution for converting to Christianity.

The Daily Mail reports:

An Afghan physiotherapist will be executed within three days for converting to Christianity.

Said Musa, 45, has been held for eight months in a Kabul prison were he claims he has been tortured and sexually abused by inmates and guards.

Mr Musa, who lost his left leg in a landmine explosion in the 1990s, has worked for the Red Cross for 15 years and helps to treat fellow amputees.

He was arrested in May last year as he attempted to seek asylum at the German embassy following a crackdown on Christians within Afghanistan.

He claims he was visited by a judge who told him he would be hanged within days unless he converted back to Islam.

But he remains defiant and said he would be willing to die for his faith.

He told the Sunday Times: 'My body is theirs to do what they want with.

'Only God can decide if my spirit goes to hell.'

Defence lawyers have refused to represent him, while others have dropped the case after receiving death threats.

Mr Musa was arrested after a TV station showed western men baptising Afghans during secret ceremonies.

There are political realities to consider. The United States can place pressure on the Afghan government on behalf of Mr. Musa. Astonishingly, President Obama has remained silent.

Paul Marshall comments:

If the actions of a Florida pastor who threatened to destroy a book holy to Muslims deserved public and presidential attention, then the actions of the Afghan government, ostensibly a ‘democratic’ ally, to destroy something holy to Christians, a human being made in the image of God, also deserve public and presidential attention.

HT: Justin Taylor

A Matter of Conscience

Some good news came out of the House of Representatives this week. The Pence Amendment passed which assures that federal funds will not be given to Planned Parenthood. This is a good thing.

However, there are those in Washington who are intent on advancing a pro-abortion agenda. Health care workers in the U.S. have been protected by a conscience clause from having any participation in abortions. But on Friday the Obama administration made great strides to rob health care workers of this protection. This is truly an outrage that ought to concern every American.

Al Mohler comments:

The Obama administration has revoked nearly all of the conscience protections put in place by the administration of President George W. Bush. The policy change came just today, and was released as a new rule from the Department of Health and Human Services. As Rob Stein of The Washington Post reports, “The Obama administration rescinded most of a federal regulation Friday designed to protect health workers who refuse to provide care they find objectionable on personal or religious grounds.”

In this case, “most” means almost all of the previous rule has been rescinded. Stein described the action by stating that the Obama administration had “eliminated nearly the entire rule.” All that remains are protections put in place previously covering medical personnel who object to abortion or sterilization. Gone are all protections for those who object by conscience to abortifacient drugs and “emergency” contraceptives, the treatment of gay men and lesbians, and prescriptions for birth control sought by single women. In these cases, medical personnel have objected that their conscience and understanding of medical ethics do not allow them to facilitate acts and behaviors that are both immoral and unhealthy.

Read the entire post HERE.