"Gendercide"

Joseph Meaney of Human Life International has written a powerful article concerning one of the wicked consequences of the inherintly evil act of abortion: "Gendercide."

It is a sad fact that abortion has become so sacrosanct in certain circles that many consider it taboo to put in place any measures that would go counter to an absolutely unfettered “right to abortion.”5 The greatest instance of deadly discrimination against women in recorded history is being ignored or even defended by radical feminists and others because they rank the freedom to abort higher than the right to life of girls that are selectively aborted. A staff working paper for the President’s Council on Bioethics points out the cruel irony of pro-abortion feminists refusing to restrict the “right” to abort girls because of son-preference. “The abortion right, which was grounded in the principle of equality for women, could now be used, rightly or wrongly, as a pretext for aborting female fetuses. And the slogan of pro-choice advocates of ‘every child a wanted child’ could now be invoked, again rightly or wrongly, to defend the abortion of unwanted female fetuses.”6 Such positions are contributing to an escalating international crisis.


It is a curious biological fact that a slightly higher percentage of boys at birth appears to be a natural phenomenon. Demographers noticed early on that, with variations due to ethnicity, the normal ratio of boys to girls is in the range of 103-106 males for every 100 females at birth. An example of this from 1984 is the sex ratio at birth for the United States as divided by racial/national groups; National Average 105.0 boys to 100 girls (White 105.4, Black 103.1, Chinese 104.6 and Japanese 102.6).7 One suggested biological reason for this imbalance is the naturally higher infant mortality of boys. Sex ratios at birth everywhere were remarkably stable until the advent of widely available sex detection technology in the 1970s. Amniocentesis genetic tests and later ultrasound machines opened a Pandora’s Box. Professor Jérôme Lejeune, the geneticist who developed the amniocentesis test, proved prophetic when he predicted that when given a choice people would overwhelmingly opt for a boy. He realized the catastrophic cultural and societal ramifications that would result if sex-selection became prevalent. After only three decades, preborn sex determination and easy recourse to abortion in cultures with historic son-preference has led to historically unprecedented declines in female birth rates.

Read the entire article HERE.

Would Paul Offend Us?

A little exercise over at the Sacred Sandwich considers what might be the response if Paul's epistle to the Galatians was published in Christianity Today. When you get a chance read through Galatians in one sitting and ask yourself, "How long would it take a pastor to empty out a church if he preached like this?" As a second question ask, "Does the contemporary church have as much jealousy for the Gospel as did the apostle Paul?"

Dear Christianity Today:

In response to Paul D. Apostle’s article about the Galatian church in your January issue, I have to say how appalled I am by the unchristian tone of this hit piece. Why the negativity? Has he been to the Galatian church recently? I happen to know some of the people at that church, and they are the most loving, caring people I’ve ever met.

Phyllis Snodgrass; Ann Arbor, MI

Dear Editor:

How arrogant of Mr. Apostle to think he has the right to judge these people and label them accursed. Isn’t that God’s job? Regardless of this circumcision issue, these Galatians believe in Jesus just as much as he does, and it is very Pharisaical to condemn them just because they differ on such a secondary issue. Personally, I don’t want a sharp instrument anywhere near my zipper, but that doesn’t give me the right to judge how someone else follows Christ. Can’t we just focus on our common commitment to Christ and furthering His kingdom, instead of tearing down fellow believers over petty doctrinal matters?

Ed Bilgeway; Tonganoxie, KS

Read the entire post HERE.

Jesus in the Flesh (1)

“The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”
- John 1:14

The first chapter of John’s Gospel is the clearest statement of what the early church Fathers sometimes called the en-manning of the Savior. More commonly we call this the incarnation of Christ which literally means His en-fleshment. Over the next few posts I want to tease out a bit the implications of Christ being made flesh and dwelling among us.

First, we must know where to begin with Jesus. That is, do we begin with his humanity or his divinity? I suggest, contra many liberal theologians, that the incarnation requires that our consideration of Christ must begin with His divinity. Indeed, the incarnation pre-supposes that Christ’s nature is both eternal and divine. His existence did not begin in the womb of the virgin. “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God” (John 1:1).

Looking to Jesus’ divine nature as our starting point is often times referred to as a Christology “from above.” Liberal theologians would have us embrace a Christology “from below.” That is, they separate the “Jesus of faith” from the “Jesus of history.” Their presupposition is that the real Jesus was not Divine, did not perform miracles, and was not bodily resurrected. He was simply a good man whose followers later projected upon him their own hopes and dreams. Some of these liberal theologians would say this should not present a barrier to faith. Indeed, they say, what is important is not so much historical facts but the inner experience of faith. Thus, one’s faith need not falter even if the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith are completely different personages.

The New Testament, however, is univocal in presenting a Christology from above. Only after establishing the eternal and divine nature of Christ are we told that Jesus became a man. In John 1:1 we are told that “the Word was God.” He did not become God. He was not adopted by God. Jesus has been from eternity very God of very God. In contrast John tells us that “the Word became flesh” (v. 14). “Became” is in the aorist tense which is punctiliar, meaning that the Word became flesh at a particular moment in time. The Word was always divine but He became flesh in one specific moment.

In the next posts we will consider the humanity of Jesus’ body, mind, and emotions. Along the way we will consider whether or not Jesus’ humanity involved his erring or making mistakes.

Delicious Irony

Global warming alarmists get my vote as the funniest people in America. Not even falling temperatures and growing arctic ice can dampen their quest to stop global warming.

Global warming activists stormed Washington Monday for what was billed as the nation's largest act of civil disobedience to fight climate change -- only to see the nation's capital virtually shut down by a major winter storm.

Schools and businesses were shuttered, lawmakers cancelled numerous appearances and the city came to a virtual standstill as Washington was blasted with its heaviest snowfall of the winter.

It spelled about six inches of trouble for global warming activists who had hoped to swarm the Capitol by the thousands in an effort to force the government to close the Capitol Power Plant, which heats and cools a number of government buildings, including the Supreme Court and the Capitol...

One protester named Kat had planned to get arrested and be bailed out Monday but decided to stay put and donate her money to a good cause instead.

"I don't want to travel in the snow today. However, I am donating my bail money to fight mountaintop removal," she wrote to the Climate Action Web site.

Read the whole story HERE.

I am so glad that Kat is finding a way to fight the removal of mountaintops. I have not yet decided what I am going to do with my bail money. Any ideas?

Just for fun, sort of

Pro Abortion, Not Pro Choice

No one should be surprised by the fact that President Obama is planning to rescind the "conscience rule" which protected health care workers from losing their jobs if they refused to participate in abortions.

You can read the story in the Washington Post.

Again, this should surprise no one. During the campaign, President Obama promised to be a vigorous supporter and defender of abortion. The rescinding of the conscience rule is simply one more sad development in what will be a very tragic legacy.

A Theology of Suffering

Sunday's Sermon

Today's Message was part 6 in The Gospel-Driven Church - "Soul Care: Getting the Gospel In". You can listen to or download it HERE.

Tremper Longman at COS

I am looking forward to Tremper Longman being with us at COS. Dr. Longman, Professor of Biblical Studies at Westmont College in California will be the speaker on Saturday March 28th at our "Cry of the Soul" seminar based upon his book of the same title. If you are a COS attendee or live in the Philadelphia area you will want to make plans to be with us.

Also, Dr. Longman will be leading a marriage seminar on the evening of the 28th.

It is going to be a great weekend.

Tremper Longman is a prolific author. I have benefited from many of his books both academic and pastoral.

A few titles I recommend are:

Reading the Bible with Heart and Mind

Making Sense of the Old Testament

Breaking the Idols of the Heart

Immanuel in Our Place

When Heresy is Hip

Tony Jones, one of the kids playing about in the theological sand box called "the emergent church" has come to embrace yet one more heresy. He has now embraced the most roundly condemned heretic in the history of the church - Pelagius.

Kevin DeYoung comments:

Over at the Beliefnet blog, Tony Jones has been posting some thoughts about Pelagius. The series is not quite finished, but you can find the latest in the series and the other links here). The gist is pretty simple. Jones puts his thesis in bold letters in his Intro: "I have come to reject the notion of Original Sin. I consider it neither biblically, philosophically, nor scientifically tenable." For good measure, Jones excerpts from a blogger named Brian (not McLaren) and his piece "Thank You, Saint Pelagius.

"There are so many things wrong with these posts, from the erroneous historical reconstruction, to the strawmen arguments (e.g., if you believe in original sin you can't believe in human responsibility), to conversation stoppers from Jones like "Watch out, Brian, the NeoReformed stormtroopers went after Scot McKnight last week, and they'll probably come after you here!"

In July, Ted Kluck and I have a new book coming out, Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion. In the epilogue, I make the argument that the missing element in the contemporary church is a robust doctrine of original sin. It saddens me to get further confirmation that this assessment is correct...

More recently, however, prominent “evangelicals” have questioned the validity of the doctrine of original sin. Brian McLaren mocks it, making original sin the subject of Mary’s Magnificat until it sounds ridiculous. Steve Chalke denies it, claiming that “Jesus believed in original goodness.” David Tomlinson rejects it, finding total depravity “biblically questionable, extreme, and profoundly unhelpful.” And Doug Pagitt is completely fed up with it, basing his rejection of original sin on the belief that “Augustine’s doctrine of depravity was based on a particular linguistic and cultural reading of certain passages of the Bible."

Note to Tony, Brian, Doug, etc.: Leave the theology to the grown ups.

Read DeYoung's entire post HERE.

Watch This!

Trust me and watch THIS.

What hath Tulsa in common with Corinth?

This Sunday I am preaching from 2 Corinthians 4 on how the Gospel must be the starting point for our "soul care."

In studying for the message I have been using Scott Hafemann's outstanding commentary on 2 Corinthians in the NIV Application Commentary series. If you are planning on studying, preaching, or teaching 2 Corinthians you want to get Hafemann's commentary.

Anyway, one of the problems at Corinth was their fascination with what we would call today a "health, wealth gospel." Paul finds himself having to defend his apostleship to the Corinthians. His status as a true apostle was being openly challenged by the "super apostles" of Corinth because he suffered and was not impressive in a worldly sense. "Certainly," it was argued, "that one as unimpressive and scared by suffering could not be an apostle." But Paul points to his sufferings and weakness as indications of the authenticity of his apostleship.

In his book "A Different Gospel: A Historical and Biblical Analysis of the Modern Faith Movement" D.R. McConnell writes that the so-called "Faith gospel" is:

without question the most attractive message being preached today or, for that matter, in the whole history of the church. Seldom, if ever, has there been a gospel that has promised so much, and demanded so little. The Faith gospel is a message ideally suited to the 20th century American Christian. In an age in America characterized by complexity, the Faith gospel gives simple, if not revelational answers. In an economy fueled by materialism and fired by the ambitions of the 'upwardly mobile,' the Faith gospel preaches wealth and prosperity...in an international environment characterized by anarchy...the Faith gospel confers an authority with which the believer can supposedly exercise complete control over his or her own environment.

Inspiration and Intention

The latest edition of Themelios includes an article by Jared Compton concerning the dual authorship of Scripture. It is particularly interesting considering some of the recent discussions on this blog.

Compton writes:

It was not too long ago that Kevin Vanhoozer answered the question Is There a Meaning in This Text? by relocating meaning in authorial intention,1 doing so even more robustly (not to mention, evangelically) than E. D. Hirsch had done. The difficulty, however, with any general hermeneutical theory, including speech-act, is that on the surface Scripture’s dual authorship seems to fit uncomfortably within any set of interpretive rules, particularly since one of its authors is God. While the inherent complexity in and exceptionality of Scripture’s authorship are well noted by evangelicals, hermeneutical rules are nevertheless still proposed and, quite often, even mandated. In fact, two particular rules are prescribed with some frequency. On the one hand, some evangelicals (as we shall see) suggest that inspiration demands that what one author intends the other must as well. To suggest, therefore, that God could intend more in a text than the human author runs the risk of being labeled hermeneutical Docetism, for such a proposal denies the full humanity of the text. Moreover, many of these same interpreters also
suggest that interpretation demands that what one author intends so too must the other. Suggesting that God could intend more in this case runs the risk of being
labeled hermeneutical nihilism, for one has removed the only means for interpretive control and stability. Despite the risks, other evangelicals (as we shall also see) are uncomfortable with this line of argumentation and suggest that these rules are ill-fitting, not least because the apostles themselves, they claim, do not seem to be preoccupied with following them. These evangelicals insist that our assumptions about general hermeneutics and dual authorship must be open to revision if Scripture and God’s hermeneuticians consistently transgress our rules.

The following essay will seek to enter this debate, freshly sketching the issues involved and seeking to justify these latter assertions, though not absolutely and not by directly exploring the apostles’ use of the OT. Rather, the essay will proceed at a preliminary step to that discussion and will argue that (1) inspiration does not suggest that the divine and human authors must share intentions and (2) shared intentions are not the sole means of interpretive stability.

Read the entire article HERE.

Take and Read

Here are some suggestions for reading in the days leading up to Lent:

The Cross He Bore by Frederick Leahy

Jesus Keep Me Near the Cross Nancy Guthrie (ed.)

Outrageous Mercy by William Farley

50 Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die by John Piper

The Heart of the Cross by Boice & Ryken

The Truth of the Cross by R.C. Sproul

In Christ Alone by Sinclair Ferguson

Is God an Egomaniac?

Al Mohler has an outstanding post on whether or not God is self-centered and megalomaniacal.

He writes

Is the God of the Bible the supreme egotist? That question arises when human beings contemplate the meaning of the truth that God does everything for the sake of his own glory. Is God then a megalomaniac?

Human beings are trapped in a human frame of reference. When we think of motivation, we inevitably start with our own self-conscious knowledge of our own motivations. For a human to seek his or her own glory is narcissism in purest form. Human egotism is constantly on display. And, if we are honest, we know that we seek our own glory as a reflex.

In reality, this is the essence of sin. Our desire for glory is inherently idolatrous and selfish. Paul describes this perfectly in Romans 1:22-23: "Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." This exchange that robs God of his glory is the very heart of sin. We want the glory that is God's alone.

Read the entire post HERE.

Al Gore's Misleading Movie

You know the evidence for man-made global warming is bad when even the former vice president turned scientific snake oil salesman changes his alarmist propaganda tool.

Check out the story from The New York Times HERE.

Was Jesus a Racist?

Miguel De La Torre of Illif School of Theology, in an article written for Associated Baptist Press offers some interesting exegesis on Matthew 15:21-28.

He writes:

In the fullness of Jesus' divinity, he had to learn how to be fully human. His family and culture were responsible for teaching him how to walk, how to talk, and how to be potty-trained.

He also learned about the superiority of Judaism and the inferiority of non-Jews, in the very same way that today there are those within the dominant culture who are taught America is No. 1.

For some, this superiority takes on a racial component where European descent makes one more advanced than does Hispanic ancestry. The minority who insist on voicing their superiority can easily be dismissed as racist and thus ignored...

Nevertheless, for Christians, the imago Dei finds its fullest expression in the personhood of Jesus as he turned many "rules" upside down. This is a truth that even Jesus, in his full humanity, had to learn.

To deny this woman a healing and call her a dog reveals the racism his culture taught him. But Jesus, unlike so many within the dominant social structure of today, was willing to hear the words of this woman of color, and learn from her.

And thanks to her, Jesus' ministry was radically changed. The Canaanite woman responded by saying, "For even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters."

Her remark shocked Jesus into realizing that faith was not contingent on a person's ethnicity. In fact, Jesus had to admit that this was a woman of great faith.

Read the entire article HERE.

God in Flesh

INCARNATION

GOD SENT HIS SON, TO SAVE US

by J.I. Packer

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. JOHN 1:14

Trinity and Incarnation belong together. The doctrine of the Trinity declares that the man Jesus is truly divine; that of the Incarnation declares that the divine Jesus is truly human. Together they proclaim the full reality of the Savior whom the New Testament sets forth, the Son who came from the Father’s side at the Father’s will to become the sinner’s substitute on the cross (Matt. 20:28; 26:36-46; John 1:29; 3:13-17; Rom. 5:8; 8:32; 2 Cor. 5:19-21; 8:9; Phil. 2:5-8).

The moment of truth regarding the doctrine of the Trinity came at the Council of Nicaea (A.D.325), when the church countered the Arian idea that Jesus was God’s first and noblest creature by affirming that he was of the same “substance” or “essence” (i.e., the same existing entity) as the Father. Thus there is one God, not two; the distinction between Father and Son is within the divine unity, and the Son is God in the same sense as the Father is. In saying that Son and Father are “of one substance,” and that the Son is “begotten” (echoing “only-begotten,” John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18, and NIV text notes) but “not made,” the Nicene Creed unequivocally recognized the deity of the man from Galilee.

A crucial event for the church’s confession of the doctrine of the Incarnation came at the Council of Chalcedon (A.D.451), when the church countered both the Nestorian idea that Jesus was two personalities—the Son of God and a man—under one skin, and the Eutychian idea that Jesus’ divinity had swallowed up his humanity. Rejecting both, the council affirmed that Jesus is one divine-human person in two natures (i.e., with two sets of capacities for experience, expression, reaction, and action); and that the two natures are united in his personal being without mixture, confusion, separation, or division; and that each nature retained its own attributes. In other words, all the qualities and powers that are in us, as well as all the qualities and powers that are in God, were, are, and ever will be really and distinguishably present in the one person of the man from Galilee. Thus the Chalcedonian formula affirms the full humanity of the Lord from heaven in categorical terms.

The Incarnation, this mysterious miracle at the heart of historic Christianity, is central in the New Testament witness. That Jews should ever have come to such a belief is amazing. Eight of the nine New Testament writers, like Jesus’ original disciples, were Jews, drilled in the Jewish axiom that there is only one God and that no human is divine. They all teach, however, that Jesus is God’s Messiah, the Spirit-anointed son of David promised in the Old Testament (e.g., Isa. 11:1-5; Christos, “Christ,” is Greek for Messiah). They all present him in a threefold role as teacher, sin-bearer, and ruler—prophet, priest, and king. And in other words, they all insist that Jesus the Messiah should be personally worshiped and trusted—which is to say that he is God no less than he is man. Observe how the four most masterful New Testament theologians (John, Paul, the writer of Hebrews, and Peter) speak to this.

John’s Gospel frames its eyewitness narratives (John 1:14; 19:35; 21:24) with the declarations of its prologue (1:1-18): that Jesus is the eternal divine Logos (Word), agent of Creation and source of all life and light (vv. 1-5, 9), who through becoming “flesh” was revealed as Son of God and source of grace and truth, indeed as “God the only begotten” (vv. 14, 18; NIV text notes). The Gospel is punctuated with “I am” statements that have special significance because I am (Greek: ego eimi) was used to render God’s name in the Greek translation of Exodus 3:14; whenever John reports Jesus as saying ego eimi, a claim to deity is implicit. Examples of this are John 8:28, 58, and the seven declarations of his grace as (a) the Bread of Life, giving spiritual food (6:35, 48, 51); (b) the Light of the World, banishing darkness (8:12; 9:5); (c) the gate for the sheep, giving access to God (10:7, 9); (d) the Good Shepherd, protecting from peril (10:11, 14); (e) the Resurrection and Life, overcoming our death (11:25); (f) the Way, Truth, and Life, guiding to fellowship with the Father (14:6); (g) the true Vine, nurturing for fruitfulness (15:1, 5). Climactically, Thomas worships Jesus as “my Lord and my God” (20:28). Jesus then pronounces a blessing on all who share Thomas’s faith and John urges his readers to join their number (20:29-31).

Paul quotes from what seems to be a hymn that declares Jesus’ personal deity (Phil. 2:6); states that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Col. 2:9; cf. 1:19); hails Jesus the Son as the Father’s image and as his agent in creating and upholding everything (Col. 1:15-17); declares him to be “Lord” (a title of kingship, with divine overtones), to whom one must pray for salvation according to the injunction to call on Yahweh in Joel 2:32 (Rom. 10:9-13); calls him “God over all” (Rom. 9:5) and “God and Savior” (Titus 2:13); and prays to him personally (2 Cor. 12:8-9), looking to him as a source of divine grace (2 Cor. 13:14). The testimony is explicit: faith in Jesus’ deity is basic to Paul’s theology and religion.

The writer to the Hebrews, purporting to expound the perfection of Christ’s high priesthood, starts by declaring the full deity and consequent unique dignity of the Son of God (Heb. 1:3, 6, 8-12), whose full humanity he then celebrates in chapter 2. The perfection, and indeed the very possibility, of the high priesthood that he describes Christ as fulfilling depends on the conjunction of an endless, unfailing divine life with a full human experience of temptation, pressure, and pain (Heb. 2:14-17; 4:14-5:2; 7:13-28; 12:2-3).

Not less significant is Peter’s use of Isaiah 8:12-13 (1 Pet. 3:14). He cites the Greek (Septuagint) version, urging the churches not to fear what others fear but to set apart the Lord as holy. But where the Septuagint text of Isaiah says, “Set apart the Lord himself,” Peter writes, “Set apart Christ as Lord” (1 Pet. 3:15). Peter would give the adoring fear due to the Almighty to Jesus of Nazareth, his Master and Lord.

The New Testament forbids worship of angels (Col. 2:18; Rev. 22:8-9) but commands worship of Jesus and focuses consistently on the divine-human Savior and Lord as the proper object of faith, hope, and love here and now. Religion that lacks these emphases is not Christianity. Let there be no mistake about that!

From Concise Theology by J.I. Packer

Missional AND Reformed

Westminster Seminary California held a conference in January called "Missional and Reformed." Check out the audio HERE.

Uh Huh!