Pastor Wilson Has It Right Again

Pastor Wilson has it right again:

As the campaign unfolds, I will be writing more about all of this, but let this serve as a basic orientation.

This November, we are facing a choice between disaster A or disaster B. We are piloting a plane that is going to crash, and we have the choice of crashing in the sea or on the land. As I have mentioned before, I understand fully why many of my fellow conservatives would opt for crashing in the sea. Fine. We are going to do one or the other, and if you want to help decide, I certainly don't blame you. And maybe chances of survival are increased with one of the choices. But what I don't get is how my fellow conservatives can confuse "crashing in the sea" with "flying home safely."

Let me give just one "fer instance." In the most recent edition of Chronicles, Srdja Trifkovic rightly calls George Soros one of the "most evil men in the world," and the "Philanthropist From Hell." Conservatives who know this man's name likely know it from the common denunciations in our circles of the moonbat group MoveOn.org, one cause among many for which Soros serves as Sugar Daddy. Sean Hannity and his like are ruthless in their denunciations of anyone who comes within fifty yards of Soros.

Except for John McCain. One of McCain's many grotestqueries was his co-sponsorship of McCain/Feingold, a bill that virtually annihilates free speech in the one area -- political campaigns -- where the Founders would have been most concerned to preserve it. Now conservatives are famously unhappy with McCain over that, thinking it an unfortunate lapse among a number of other unfortunate lapses.

But as Trifkovic reports, that whole business was tangled up with . . . George Soros. The Reform Institute was founded in 2001, and was pushing for "campaign-finance reform." That atrocity was chaired by John McCain until 2005. The initial funding for the Institute came from George Soros, and from the Teresa Heinz-Kerry Tides Foundation. You remember Teresa, don't you? And when it opened its doors in 2001, Arianna Huffington, a close associate of Soros, was on the board. And together they all conspired to outlaw individual citizens from telling the truth to the public during the course of a political campaign.

During the course of this coming campaign, you will probably hear the name of Soros a lot. But almost all of it will be connected to Obama -- and rightly so. "Vote Obama! Crash on the rocks!" Sure, Soros would want Obama. But he would be happy with McCain, and why conservatives would be happy with McCain is beyond me.

http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=5561

Missouri Choose Life License Plate Unveiled, Available for Purchase Statewide

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
May 2, 2008

Jefferson City, MO (LifeNews.com) -- After a long and successful legal battle, Missouri residents are now able to support adoption efforts with the purchase of a Choose Life license plate. Plate supporters unveiled the artwork for the plate in a capital reception surrounding by leaders of pro-life groups and state legislators.

In January, a federal district court judge ruled Missouri officials must let a proposal for Choose Life license plates move forward despite a rejection from a committee of lawmakers.

Choose Life of Missouri has been working on securing this life-affirming license play since 2005.

Using a 2004 law that allows lawmakers to block nonprofit groups seeking specialty license plates, two Missouri state senators halted the plates in February 2006.

The group filed suit in June 2006 and won legal victories at each key juncture. The Alliance Defense Fund represented the group and said Missouri officials never should have prevented its free speech rights and those of motorists.

"Pro-life organizations shouldn't be penalized for expressing their beliefs," ADF Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster said. "Unfortunately, that’s how Missouri officials unfairly discriminated when they denied Choose Life the right to exercise their free speech rights."

The "Choose Life" license plate will help support pro-life pro-adoption efforts, pregnancy resource centers, maternity homes and adoption agencies in Missouri.

The group has set up a web site Missouri residents can use to purchase the plates.

Looking back on the battle, the law allowed any member of the Joint Committee on Transportation Oversight or any two state senators or five House members to stop a plate. Democratic Sens. Joan Bray and Rita Heard Days, both St. Louis abortion advocates, objected to the plates.

Senior U.S. District Judge Scott Wright eventually declared the law allowing the lawmakers to stop them unconstitutional saying there are no safeguards from the state discriminating against some groups of people, such as pro-life advocates.

Ultimately, the Choose Life plates across the nation have raised over $8.7 million and over 400,000 plates have been sold or renewed in the 17 state that currently have the plate available.

Related web sites: Choose Life Missouri - http://www.chooselifemissouri.org/

Charity

"[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

-- James Madison (speech in the House of Representatives, 10 January 1794)

Madison had it right. Charity is not a part of the duty of the government. The duty of the government is to execute justice. It is never in furtherance of the ends of justice to take from some simply because they have more to give it to those who have less. In the words of Romans 13, the king exists to reward those that do good and to punish those who do evil. By confiscating property from those who have, government is decreeing that productivity is evil. This should not be. This does not mean, of course, that we should not be a people that have an attitude of charity. Deuteronomy makes that clear. There are three forms of charity that God expects: private giving, the tithe and gleaning.

Deuteronomy 14:28-29

28 "At the end of every three years you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in the same year and lay it up within your towns. 29And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance with you, and the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, who are within your towns, shall come and eat and be filled, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands that you do.

Deuteronomy 15:9-11

9Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, 'The seventh year, the year of release is near,' and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the LORD against you, and you be guilty of sin. 10You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. 11For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, 'You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.'

Deuteronomy 24:19-20

19 "When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it. It shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. 20When you beat your olive trees, you shall not go over them again. It shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.

The reader should also note that there is a promise of blessing for each of these to the extent they are practiced by the people. Therefore, as the government increases the burden of taxation on those who can provide for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, it prevents them from seeking the blessing of the Lord. Therefore, Madison is right: Charity is not a legislative duty of government. It is a duty of the people.

Religion in the Public Square

In the mid 1500 God used an unlikely tool to advance the English Reformation, King Henry VIII. For years now, the "religious right" has attempted to reintroduce religion back into our public discourse. William McGurn, in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, suggests that today, like the mid 1500s, a change may be encouraged by an unlikely source, the left. See his editorial. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121305280815658925.html?mod=todays_columnists

Salvation is Based on Relationship

How is a believer saved, through faith or by baptism? The answer to this question is “Yes.” If we look to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, starting at Question and answer 29 we find a progression of questions starting with “How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ?” and ending with question 38, “What benefits do believers receive from Christ at the resurrection?” In the course of this very precise and systematic approach to the subject, the Catechism covers the progression from effectual calling, justification, adoption, sanctification and glorification. This is very helpful to the purpose of understanding the order of salvation.

But if this is all we know, we run the risk of systematizing God. God is a person, more precisely, he is three persons, in perfect relation one to the other. He has feelings. He is grieved. He has great joy. Certainly he saves his people through a process of effectual calling, justification, adoption, sanctification and glorification. However, he does it in time and in history. He does it in relationship.

What we must hang on the systematic theology is the passion that the Scripture speaks of when it speaks of Yahweh saving his people. When Scripture speaks of Yahweh saving his people, it speaks of “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” and “believe and be baptized.” There is a command to believe. Obviously, the command anticipates a subjective response, actual belief. But it also commands a specific response, “be baptized.” So it requires a subjective state of mind coupled with an action.

An example might be in order. As I raise my children, my discipline is based on a relationship between them and me. I love my children deeply and want their good. Even though there is a typical method to my discipline, it is not a barren methodology. If one of my children offends another of my children, my discipline typically includes the command, “Say you are sorry to your sister.” In response to this command, I suppose there are several responses my offending child could take. She could refuse and walk away. Obviously, in this case the discipline has not resulted in the reconciliation desired. She could cry with tears of repentance and kiss her sister but say nothing. This is better, she has not completed the act necessary to restore the relationship set forth in my command. She could grit her teeth and with anger declare, “I am sorry.” This response, although completing the act required, does not contain the genuine response expected. Only when she, with an understanding of the offense and the proper response, says with love and repentance, “I am sorry,” does the discipline accomplish the desired result, a restoration of the relationship.

God is our father. We have damaged our relationship with him in our sin. With love, he says, if you want to be forgiven, repent, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized and you will be saved, you and your household. He has made a promise and his promise is good. Therefore, if I baptize my child in loving dependence upon his promise, in faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, as far as I know anything else, my child is saved. Is this conclusion based on a proven methodology? Is it automatic? No. It is based on a relationship and a promise.

Another Thought on the Sabbath

I would like to make another point about the Sabbath that I recently discovered. The Ten Commandments are propounded by Moses a second time in the book of Deuteronomy. Exodus is the book of worship; Deuteronomy is the book of succession. In Deuteronomy, Moses gives his farewell address to the people and sets forth the law once again. He calls the heavens to witness the commitment of the people to their renewal of the covenant.

In the second giving of the Ten Commandment, there is a change in the fourth commandment. What in Exodus had been “remember” (זָכוֹר) is now “observe” (שָׁמוֹר). This is understandable in that the first generation in Exodus would have been called to look to the past; the next generation entering into the promised land would be expected to not only remember but to be faithful to continue in the remembrance. Deuteronomy 5:2, 3 makes an intriguing claim: “The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not with our fathers did the LORD make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today.” The covenant had literally been made with the prior generation. But Moses, declares here that the covenant had been made with the second generation. They must now observe it.

What is most intriguing is a comparison of the prologues of the commandments themselves and the explication of the fourth commandment in both settings.

In Deuteronomy 5:6, Moses gives a verbatim recounting of the introduction of the Ten Commandments given in Exodus 20. "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” But in Deuteronomy 5:15, in describing why Yahweh commanded them to keep the Sabbath, he said it was because “you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and Yahweh your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm.” Well, no He didn’t. He had said that it was because He had made heaven and earth in six days and rested on the seventh day. What He had said is that because He, Yahweh, had brought them out of Egypt, out of slavery, they were to keep the Ten Commandments.

I suggest that what Moses did was to focus all of the commandments into the keeping of the Sabbath. Just as Moses had done with the consecration of the firstborn, building it upon the foundation of the Passover, Moses was here building the foundation of the commandments on the foundation of the Sabbath. (See Exodus 13) The Sabbath is the pinnacle of the ten. The Sabbath is the covenant sign and seal. The Sabbath is the memorial. Violation of the Sabbath brings on covenant curses. In relationship to the covenant keeping Yahweh, His people are to keep his covenant sign. This does not discount the rest of the commandments. But it does recognize that they were to be kept in the context of a weekly cycle of six days labor and one day rest and worship. The commandments are not given in isolation from life. They are given in the context of a life in a community. Without the cycle of life that the Sabbath provides, the rest of the commandments become meaningless.