Weblog
Monday, 23 November 2009
-
Psalm 106:30-31 and Paul on "credited to him as righteousness"
I was on another blog, and responded to a person who sounds like he was coming from the Roman Catholic point of view. My friend asked me to respond to him on it, so I did.
Here is what he wrote. Note the "either/or dilemma" in the simplistic YES or NO answer. Any time someone says this, you need to automatically ask if it is just that simplistic or are there other options, or a confusion that is been hidden in the request for a simplistic answer. In this case, the issue is that word meaning is defined by context, and a simplistic answer of "if this word is used here" overlooks the meaning of the word as given by the context.
You could read the context here:
http://iustitiaaliena.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/michael-hortons-960-page-systematic-theology-is-coming-out-in-100210/#comment-131
Here is what the suspected Roman Catholic, SN: Nick wrote:Please explain Psalm 106:30-31 in light of what you said. Is it not Phinehas’ good act reckoned as righteousness? A yes or no will be most helpful.
Further, my argument seems to fit Paul’s statement elsewhere, compare:
Rom 4:24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.
Romans 10:
“9That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.”The combination of “confess” and “believe in your heart” here suggests it’s the actions God looks at. If it were merely faith as the instrument, then the confess/believe combo wouldn’t make sense.
This is what I wrote to Nick:
Hi Nick,
I did not know that there was such a lively talk going on. I am trying to follow your point about Psalm 106:30-31:
30 But Phinehas stood up and intervened,
and the plague was checked.
31 This was credited to him as righteousness
for endless generations to come
Phinehas was recognized by people, generations to come, and even by God as having done a righteous act. For the fuller context of what he did, read: Numbers 25. The Isrealite men were having sexual immorality with Moabite women, and sacrificing to their idles. Phinehas killed an Isrealite and Moabite women. And it was because of that act that God relented his judgment over Israel.
But I don't get from the verse in Psalms or narrative in Numbers that the "credited to him as righteousness" was talking about justification before God in terms of salvation. He was rightly recognized for his zeal for the honor of God, and his act is even said to have made "atonement for the Isrealites." (Numb 25:13) But where in the context of Psalms or Numbers is it talking about salvation in the sense of Phinehas' own right standing before God (as you, and Romans Catholics often claim)?
The bigger issue I see is that Paul really is talking about right standing before God because of what Jesus has done. In other words, though the wording is used in relative close terms, but context is not the same. Psalms is talking about the righteous acts of people, and Paul is talking about being accepted by God. A person may do "good" acts before men and right according to the law of God, and yet that person may not be righteous in Paul's use of the term. When people do right acts, they are doing what they SHOULD have done (Every Isrealite should have done what Phinehas did) [Luke 17:10], and thus doing what a person should do at one point in time, does not override the wrongs that the person has done in a life time of sinning against God. Paul is dealing with the question: How is a person who had done wrong (are "sinners") are they to be accepted by a holy and just God? However, this is not what Psalms 106 is talking about.
Even if you think that the subject of Phinehas in Ps 106:30-31 is about salvation, where is Jesus and faith in Jesus found anywhere in Psalm 106 (or Numb. 25)? Thus, if according to you that people are saved by their actions, and Phinehas is your example, then keep in mind that Phinehas' action is "credited to him as righteousness" without the work of Jesus (in the context of Ps 106), then it follows that IF the text of Psalms is about salvation by works, then it is salvation by works ALONE--without the work of Jesus in view. Paul would have responded, if salvation could be had by the works of man, then Christ died needlessly [Gal 2:21]. I don't think that is the official Roman Catholic view (assuming you are RC, you would know this).
Phinehas was "credited to him as righteousness" for his act of killing two people out of zeal for God, if you think that the verse is talking about salvation, then how many people have you killed? If you have not killed anyone, and the work need for salvation according to the context is to kill two people out of zeal for God, then it follows that you are not saved and will not be saved until you have done so. I am just following your line of thought, and putting that to the context. As you can see, that leads to kind of an Islamic view of salvation by jehad, and not Roman Catholic, nor Christian.
As I have been saying, it is also not the teaching of Psalms 106 nor Paul. Psalm 106 is recounting the works of God, and the heroic works of men, if you read the chapter through, you can see that it is not talking about an individuals salvation as Paul is talking about in Romans and Galatians.
I think it is just a double whammy of error to 1.) to take the verse of Psalm 106: 30-31 out of context, causing it to teach what it does not (salvation by killing out of zeal for God), and then 2. ) reinterpreting Paul out of his context to fit the false view.
Always the problem of salvation with the works of man is the issue of: How much good works does one have to have to be accepted by God? Being more consistent with this, the Roman Catholic church has openly rejected confidence of one's salvation in this life. Nick, do you want to have peace with God? If so, then, friend, look to Jesus, and not to yourself. Salvation is found in Christ and Christ alone. His redemptive work is my joy and comfort in life and in death. All confidence I have is not at all anything that I have done or will do, but entirely what He had done for me. I hope you would have this joy and comfort as well.
Thursday, 05 November 2009
-
"Hate Crimes"
The insanity of our society scares me. It scares me to what extent the foolishness of our society will go, and how that would affect our children.
I am not a prophet, nor a son of a prophet, but I hear examples of "hate crime" in other nations are trumping freedom of speech. Pastors in Canada are criminalized for stating what Muslim do believe. People are not allowed to write about their rejection of the Gay "Pride" marches. A history book on the Comics that got Muslim's upset are not going to publish the images of the comics (the same places of "education" would publish any form of hateful things to Christians, and claim that it is a matter of Academic freedom. Somehow, it is politically incorrect to say anything negative about one and not the other.).
A friend of mine said that he thinks that because we have the first amendment, that would protect us from the abuses that the Hate Crime Laws are causing in other nations. I don't know if he is aware that already, Christians are being intimidated and abused in the schools, the work places, the law courts, and with this new Hate Crime Law, Obama has just signed, it is going to give preferential treatment for Homosexuals as a separate class of humanity with more rights in the court, and make the law courts into a subjective psychological witch hunt. The law is to punish all criminals for any crime against humans, but this law it to give special status to Homosexuals and make the criminals suffer for a greater extent of the law.
There is no exclution under this law that some ideology would not be consider hate thoughts. All forms of disagreement about ideology may become suspect of hate, and therefore is suspect of being criminal.
About 9 years ago, my philosophy prof. (not a Christian that I know of) already told the class that this was coming to US, and it is the first time in law, where peoples thoughts are being judged by law. Naturally, I did not believe him, but as it seams, he was a prophet, or just one who was able to predict from what was going on in Europe and know that it would come to the US as well.
By the way, as he said to the class, what happens in Europe will then affect Canada, then makes its change to the US. That is what happened with this Hate Crime. We had plenty of warning. We can already see some of the problems before there is even a moved to make the changes into law. Yet, it still got signed. Maybe our "leaders" are wanting the same kind of abuses that too place in the US, as it is in Canada and Europe.
Oboma's presidency has had the most amount of changes that of many present that I know of (then again, I am not that old), and all that within the first few months (and more to come.). Those Republicans who voted for him should have known this coming. Oboma did promised "change" (be it for good or ill) and the kind of changes he promised where already present in writing (though he lied about them in front of a Christian audience).
"The times they are a-changing". Not only for Christians, but for non-believers as well. They too will be limited and confined by the implication of this new law.
I fear in dread how this will affect our children. As any mature person knows, the choices we make today, are not often what will affect the people now, but what will escalate in the future. It is painful to imagine the implications this choice will have on our children. As feminism became more discouraged after having their goals accomplished, and are less happy than before the movement started; as Abortion is killing the human race, and leaving many country without descendants to maintain the size of its population; as China implemented birth limits, and 4 million man outnumber the woman, leaving them without the possibility of finding a mate; there is no question that the passing of Hate Crimes will have implications affecting our children. It will subvert freedom. To what extent is going to be a matter of hine-site.
We are living in a fallen world.
My comfort is knowing that God alone is Sovereign over all of this, and his purpose will be accomplished in having this take place. Maybe this is part of the judgment that surely we are already in, and we have to go through, so his people could be refined as through fire. The church has always grown under persecution. It is the martyrs who were the seeds of the church. After the fire, comes the rain and the time for growth. There is lasting hope in God.11/02/09 Legislating Hate Crimes for Some People 
“Free to Live and Love as We See Fit?”
Posted: Friday, October 30, 2009 at 2:47 am ET
addthis_options = 'google, digg, facebook, delicious, myweb, myspace, reddit, twitter, live, newsvine, more'; addthis_pub = 'southernseminary'; 
As Sen. John McCain recently remarked, "elections have consequences." President Barack Obama signed the "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act" into law on Thursday, fulfilling a campaign promise and handing the gay rights community one of its most sought-after achievements.
The bill, named for two men killed in vicious attacks, extends the definition of federal hates crimes to include attacks "based on a person's race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or mental or physical disability."
Referring to Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd, the President said:
It's hard for any of us to imagine the mind-set of someone who would kidnap a young man and beat him to within an inch of his life, tie him to a fence, and leave him for dead. It's hard for any of us to imagine the twisted mentality of those who'd offer a neighbor a ride home, attack him, chain him to the back of a truck, and drag him for miles until he finally died.
Those words are eloquent in exposing the deep evil that resides in far too many human hearts. If anything, the President spoke too cautiously. It is not only "hard" for any morally sane person to imagine the mentality behind these attacks, it is and must be impossible. Such crimes of violence against any human being should and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But defining these crimes as "hate crimes" shifts the legal issue from the criminally violent act itself to the thoughts and intentions of the criminal. This is a dangerous and unnecessary step, for the very idea of a hate crime requires the government to play the role of psychiatrist and also requires a list of those who deserve special protections. How can government stop the extension of that list? If criminalizing hate is legally justifiable, should not every citizen be granted these same protections?
Even more ominously, the logic of hate crime laws inevitably leads to the idea of laws against what is defined as "hate speech." It is not fair to suggest that this specific legislation includes a hate speech provision. It is fair, however, to sound the alarm that very important rights involving the freedom to speak openly against homosexuality, for example, are now at far greater risk.
There was no surprise in the fact that President Obama signed the bill. The shock came, not in the fact that he signed it, but in what the President said in his comments. "This is the culmination of a struggle that has lasted more than a decade. Time and again, we faced opposition," said the President. "Time and again, the measure was defeated or delayed. Time and again we've been reminded of the difficulty of building a nation in which we're all free to live and love as we see fit."
Does President Obama actually mean what he said here? Does he really call for a society "in which we're all free to live and love as we see fit?" The hate crimes bill he signed into law covers gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. The courts will have to sort out all that is covered in those categories.
But the "free to live and love as we see fit" language was set in a context larger than the hate crimes bill. President Obama is an intellectually serious man. He knows that words matter. When he speaks of all citizens being "free to live and love as we see fit" he opens the door far beyond the categories of heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. Does he mean to include polygamists in this vision? The "polyamorous?" Incest? The catalogue of sexual interests claimed by some as "loves" goes far beyond these.
We are living in an age increasingly marked by what Sigmund Freud called "polymorphous perversity." I do not believe that President Obama meant to include any and all sexual interests and lifestyles under his blanket category of living and loving "as we see fit." But words really do matter, and this President now bears responsibility for signing a dangerous bill into law and then for compounding that act by using language that was self-congratulatory, dishonest, and dangerous.
In another sense, the President's language was revealing. The logic that leads to the celebration of gay, lesbian, and bisexual relationships cannot stop with those sexual categories. In an age that elevates "consent" as the only meaningful moral and legal issue, any effort to refuse similar recognition to any consensual sexual relationship, lifestyle, or practice is doomed to eventual failure. It is all just a matter of time.
Yes, Sen. McCain, elections have consequences. But words have consequences, too, President Obama. Do you really want to live with the consequences of your words spoken on Thursday?
_____________________________
I am always glad to hear from readers and listeners. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates throughout the day on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.
Tuesday, 03 November 2009
-
Christianity?
There is a growing number of people who claims that they where Christians at one point, and have left Christianity to try new things, such at Buddhism, New Age, atheism, etc [as if any of those are new]. When it comes to Christianity, they talk with this assurance, "Christianity? Been there done that, and got the T-shirt!"
The obvious thing is that after talking with some of these people, they don't know a lick of Christianity. Sure they maybe know the names of big players in the Bible, and things people do who go to a church. Yet, what is the heart of Christianity or Christian distinctives? Their short experience of Christianity becomes a matter of what they did, or called themselves. Even that gets distorted by bad experience or false accusations they have heard from someone. They do not eve know the Christianity they now claim to reject. The further problem is that many of these people will not be confronted with people who really do know Christianity, and point out these false assumptions. In the US where 80+% people claim to be Christians, tells you how little among them really knows the Christianity claims to be one of.
Why is it that many people may have grown up in a church and still not know Christianity? Well, I think partly to blame is the church and the families are not communicating Christianity. But instead of looking for blames, I think it is firstly important to admit that the many people who grownup at a church have no idea of what Christianity is. Like the AAA, you got to first admit you got a problem. Unless they, and the Christian know this, they would be mistaken with whatever false ideas they have, and make that out to be Christianity, and the Christian would take for granted that everyone going to the church already knows Christianity and would not bother to teach the heart of Christianity itself. The key Christian distinctives got to be preached and taught at the church. You are not going to find it preached on the TV (especially not found in those supposed Christian shows or sermons), the world is not going to preach the Christian message, but rather distort the Christian message. [I will hope to get to the Christian distinctives in upcoming post.]
Christians are in the habit of using lingoes or Clichés that don't mean anything to anyone else, and turns out it does not mean anything to the church members as well. The problem is not the words, but the connection between the word and the meaning is lost to many people. The words become incantations or phrases that describe more of those who use them and those who do not. Don't get me wrong, I love the words, and I think we need to keep them. But we need to talk with people in such a way as to explain the meaning more than just use the words without meaning.
I am helping with kinds a our church, and I give these kids the same homework every time we meet. They are to ask me 3 questions. One kid asked, "How can we better share the gospel with non-believing friends?"
That was great. I loved the question. But I asked them back a question, "Do you know what the 'gospel' means?" They looked at me like they were just given a pop-quiz. I went through the entire group, and not one of them where able to define the mean of the word. They are 12 year olds, so sure, they would have trouble, but I would venture to guess that even the adults in the church would have problems answering the question.
I explain to them that the word means nothing if they do not know the meaning. It is like saying, "How can we better share the 'woknee' with people?" You got to first know what it is that you are trying to share with people, before you are able to do so.
Maybe I leave the question with you as well: What is the "gospel"?
Monday, 26 October 2009
-
Abuse in the playground of adults
I find it very "interesting" the amount of real intolerance there is in the US against Christianity. The exuse for their intolerance is often the claim that Christians are "intolerant". But what does the person mean by "intolerance"? How do they define it?
Without defining their accusation (maybe they can't even do it), Christians are often accused and restricted from speaking-up in public—they are treated with intolerance. The word "intolerance" has become a license to abuse Christians.
At this point, I am not debating if Christianity is intolerant and should be silenced (I don't think Christians are; but it would be the case the opposition has to make). The issue I raise is if any people should be called names and abused? (The adult PC term for this is "labeling.")
It seams to me that what is going on in the public schools, TV Shows, work place, and general conversation is much like the abuse that take place in the elementary school playground. To diminish the worth and dignity of the other child, the abusive child would mock, called names, and insults to the other child, such as "you meanie!" Or to put it in adult terms, "you are intolerant!"
After labeling the other person that way, it is easier, as it seams, to abuse the person as not to be given respect and dignity—or an explanation for the abuse given.An "Agenda of Intolerance"
John Myers
John Myers received his B.S. degree in journalism from Auburn University. He is a member of the staff of Christian Leadership Ministries where he is the editor for The Real Issue and is responsible for a number of other publications. He and his wife have two children and live in the Dallas area.
Professor Claims He Was Denied Due Process
Dr. Dilawar Edwards has been a teacher of educational media for over 20 years at California University of Pennsylvania near Pittsburgh. That is, until the fall of 1993, when he was summarily relieved of his teaching duties.
Certain members of the administration have been at odds with Edwards since 1989. It was then a student lodged an informal complaint with the academic vice president against Edwards, a tenured professor and former chairman of the department of education, claiming he was indoctrinating the class with his Christian beliefs.
The vice president issued a letter to Edwards instructing him to "cease and desist" from using course related materials "of a religious nature" and "doctrinaire material of a religious sort."
Edwards had revised and refined his class syllabus during his tenure, and was commended by a previous chairman of the education department for his work on the class. He had duly filed his syllabus at the appropriate times with his chairman in accordance with procedure for review by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.
He said his syllabus was designed to address public and parental concerns, free speech, censorship, and methods of identifying and preventing various biases within educational media materials and textbooks.
While Edwards abided by the cease and desist order, he repeatedly asked administrators to provide objective standards and criteria which would help him clarify what was overtly religious about his teaching. He also requested clarification of the boundaries and limitations in such discussion.
Administrators replied that, as a professor, Edwards ought to know "what are materials of a religious nature," and he should "use good common sense," and be "less focused and more circumspect."
"They took cover under the establishment clause, saying that the state university can't allow one of it's teachers to be teaching his religion," said Raj, Edwards' brother and a former professor.
"Under court testimony, his students said he did not espouse any particular religion and at that time they had no idea of his personal religious beliefs and practices," he added.
Edwards said he received threats from his administration of "discipline or discharge." After he had exhausted all local remedies for reconciliation, he filed suit in the Western District Federal Court against the university for violation of his academic freedom. Eventually, Edwards filed for summary judgment, which is still pending.
After Edwards filed his suit, he claimed his right to due process was violated in a series of actions directed against him.
First, in the spring of 1993, while Edwards was on leave, David Campbell, the education department chairman, resurrected the 1983 syllabus for Edwards' class. Campbell's action nullified the syllabus Edwards had created and which had been filed for the NCATE to review.
Then, his chairman instructed the bookstore to send back books ordered by Edwards for his summer course without his knowledge or approval, which, he maintains, disrupted his class schedule and severely curtailed his academic freedom.
Also, two days before the fall '93 term was to begin, chairman Campbell informed Edwards he was removing him from the course he had taught for over 20 years. Instead, he was to teach educational testing and measurement, a course he had never taught before.
Finally, on October 25, the department dean and chairman called Edwards to a meeting where they handed him a packet and then told him he was immediately relieved of his duties, with pay.
At the first opportunity, he opened the packet given to him and found a letter addressed to him, dated October 22, from the president. The letter contained a list of charges made by Campbell against Edwards.
"No conclusions about the matters that follow will be made until you have an opportunity to present your side of the story," the letter stated.
In reviewing Edwards' case, the American Association of University Professors stated that "under standards supported by this association, the enforced separation of professor Edwards from his teaching duties, prior to any hearing before a committee of his peers, is a severe sanction."
Before Edwards was to appear before the university president to answer charges in November, he filed for a temporary restraining order. The court granted the requests and he was reinstated pending court hearings.
Edwards' brother Raj insisted that "we have to penetrate that shield of immunity" by the state that protects administrators from having to answer personally for their actions.
"The acceptance without review of charges by Edwards' student, the order to cease and desist, the change of the syllabus, the removal of course books, the last-minute change in teaching responsibility, and the clear denial of due process reveal an agenda of absolute intolerance for the rights of Christian faculty," explained Dr. Scott Luley, director of Christian Leadership Ministries' Free Speech Project.
"This is the very effort Christian Leadership strives to combat through the Free Speech Project. Christian professors must stand firm for their Constitutionally granted rights or they will be pushed under a relentless tide of opposition."
Email this to a friend
copyright © 1995-2009 Leadership U. All rights reserved.
Updated: 14 June 2004
Thursday, 22 October 2009
-
Escape from Anti-Christianity
I read this a few years back and it was wonderful then as it is wonderful to read again. It was written by a person who really was a teacher of unbelief, and God opened his eyes to the problems with what he was believing and teaching others.
Here is a part of the full article:Escape from Nihilism
Dr. J. Budziszewski
Dr. J. Budziszewski, a defender of the natural-law tradition, is the author of several books including Written on the Heart, The Resurrection of Nature, The Nearest Coast of Darkness, True Tolerance and What We Can't Not Know: A Guide. He is a professor of Philosophy and Government at the University of Texas at Austin.
......A seventh and reinforcing reason for nihilism was that for all of the other reasons, I had fallen under the spell of the nineteenth-century German writer Friedrich Nietzsche. I was, if anything, more Nietzschean than he was. Whereas he thought that given the meaninglessness of things, nothing was left but to laugh or be silent, I recognized that not even laughter or silence were left. One had no reason to do or not do anything at all. This is a terrible thing to believe, but like Nietzsche, I imagined myself one of the few who could believe such things--who could walk the rocky heights where the air is thin and cold.
But the main reason I was a nihilist, the reason that tied all these other reasons together, was sheer, mulish pride. I didn't want God to be God; I wanted J. Budziszewski to be God. I see that now. But I didn't see that then.
The Stupidity of the Intelligent
I have already said that everything goes wrong without God. This is true even of the good things He's given us, such as our minds. One of the good things I've been given is a stronger than average mind. I don't make the observation to boast; human beings are given diverse gifts to serve Him in diverse ways. The problem is that a strong mind that refuses the call to serve God has its own way of going wrong. When some people flee from God they rob and kill. When others flee from God they do a lot of drugs and have a lot of sex. When I fled from God I didn't do any of those things; my way of fleeing was to get stupid. Though it always comes as a surprise to intellectuals, there are some forms of stupidity that one must be highly intelligent and educated to commit. God keeps them in his arsenal to pull down mulish pride, and I discovered them all. That is how I ended up doing a doctoral dissertation to prove that we make up the difference between good and evil and that we aren't responsible for what we do. I remember now that I even taught these things to students; now that's sin.
It was also agony. You cannot imagine what a person has to do to himself--well, if you are like I was, maybe you can--what a person has to do to himself to go on believing such nonsense. St. Paul said that the knowledge of God's law is "written on our hearts, our consciences also bearing witness." The way natural law thinkers put this is to say that they constitute the deep structure of our minds. That means that so long as we have minds, we can't not know them. Well, I was unusually determined not to know them; therefore I had to destroy my mind. I resisted the temptation to believe in good with as much energy as some saints resist the temptation to neglect good. For instance, I loved my wife and children, but I was determined to regard this love as merely a subjective preference with no real and objective value. Think what this did to my very capacity to love them. After all, love is a commitment of the will to the true good of another person, and how can one's will be committed to the true good of another person if he denies the reality of good, denies the reality of persons, and denies that his commitments are in his control?
Visualize a man opening up the access panels of his mind and pulling out all the components that have God's image stamped on them. The problem is that they all have God's image stamped on them, so the man can never stop. No matter how much he pulls out, there's still more to pull. I was that man. Because I pulled out more and more, there was less and less that I could think about. But because there was less and less that I could think about, I thought I was becoming more and more focussed. Because I believed things that filled me with dread, I thought I was smarter and braver than the people who didn't believe them. I thought I saw an emptiness at the heart of the universe that was hidden from their foolish eyes. Of course I was the fool.
......
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9801/budziszewski.htmlThe fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good.
Psalm 14:1
TrueWeblog Archives
About Me
-
The fool says in his heart, There is no God. Psalm 14:1; 53:1 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 1 Corinthians 1:20 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. 1 Corinthians 3:19
Chatboard (5)