Rob and all: That long post is from Steve Schaper, who can’t post because of Linux. I will pass his on as I can. (Hi Rob!)

IM has been updated with a new article: A Career in Foolishness- Reflections on Thirty Years of Preaching.

SteveS sent me this to post. (Locked out by Linux) Be assimilated brother. Its painless.

In Matthew 6, it is “pros ton epithumesai” (sp) and “gunaikos” So, the translation should be something like “he who looks at another man’s wife in order to covet her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” “pros ton” has the force of “in order to” in Matthew, “epithumesai” is the same word used to translate “covet” whereas “lust” is an OE word translated “like”. Gunaikos would seem to mean specifically “married woman” as opposed to “gunai”, “parthenos” or
widow, or prostitute. This is clearer when cultural conditions are taken into consideration (the historical part of grammatical-historical) In keeping with the discourse, it could then be that Jesus was, as in the other elements of the Sermon on the Mount, reiterating what the Law really said, as opposed to the interpretations of the rabbis. Part of the whole “You have heard it said. . . but truly, truly, I say unto you” formula.
FWIW.

It is tricky to teach and be understood correctly about perseverance of the saints (aka eternal security) without ones hearers concluding either works to persevere or cheap grace. Without those so disposed obsessing on whether or not they’ve committed the unforgivable sin, and without people thinking it is ok to not take up their cross and follow Jesus.

Chris Smith: Chavez is a Marxist dictator. He was overthrown because he commanded the military, in addition to his death squads, to open fire on hundreds of thousands of protesters. He also supports the Marxist terrorists in Columbia who kidnap and torture missionaries. You support this guy? (Comment by Michael: Large Amen! Can America attempt to have some morals? Will the Europeans mind?)

Rob,
In the Adamic covenant, was there any provision for a civil government, and a law given to it to enforce?

Bart,
The covenantal nature of marriage is such that it would take physical intercourse to break it and induce the death penalty on the adulterer.

Ronald:

1. Francis Schaeffer
2. J. R. R. Tolkien
3. Peter Kreeft
4. Bob Yarborough
5. Edith Schaeffer

(only five???)

Dan,
In the modern Nashville-rite existentialist church, it would be very easy for a non-believer to fake their way through. In church discipline, we have to (after step three) treat the person as if a non-believer, because we can’t tell if they are regenerate and backsliding, or unregenerate, and love would require that we not just assume they are saved, and fail to try to convince them of the Gospel. I’m not so sure about the interpretation of the parable of the sower given here that the one that bore little fruit due to cares and troubles is unsaved, or that the one that responded with joy and then perished was saved. Plenty of people like the idea that God likes them and doesn’t hold anything against them, which a defective preaching of the Gospel can sadly communicate.

5. W.O. Spencer, my pastor growing up. A profound man of God who was more holy than anyone I ever knew.
4. John MacArthur: Saved me from my seminary education with his straightforward approach to ministry and preaching.
3. Paul Duke, my pastor during seminary and the finest preacher I know. Would sure love to hear him again.
2. Michael Horton
1. John Piper

I am back. And I am highly surly. Thinking about Chris’s link to the British press has ruined my day.
Bart: Wonderful children. Now, seriously. Whose are they?
DGC: Having children at a hospital? Hmmmm. Here in Ky our women have the children while working in the fields. Much less stress on the man.
Eric: Brother, at the end of the day it is saved by grace, chosen in grace, sanctified by grace and preserved by grace, while persevering in the power of the Spirit given by grace. If there was ever a lack of balance, it was in ignoring perseverance to the point of sounding as if grace did nothing more in a person than make them righteous and safe in heaven. It also makes us faithful, and persevering, and sends us forward after the prize. My word to you would be, if texts are disturbing my theology, then guess what needs to change?
RonC: Way down the blog, you said that the elect are saved, so OSAS. You said more, but that sentence could perpetuate the idea that election is salvation, which it is not. Election is unto salvation, but election without justification, sanctification, perseverance, etc is not salvation in its fullenss.
To all in the OSAS debate: nice discussion. I think its over, and we differ graciously. (or begrudgingly, take your pick.)

Chris: Welcome back. The British Press…...The European Press in general….. how could you? Listen to this about Bush’s reaction to the election/removal/return of the Castro coddling Hugh Chavez: “No conclusive evidence has yet emerged to suggest that the US supported the botched overthrow. But it is clear that it knew it was going to happen and did nothing to stop it. Throughout the ordeal America, which has roamed the globe since September 11 declaring its determination to protect “democracy and civilisation” at the barrel of a gun, lost its tongue.”

Let me make this short: I don’t care how Chavez got in office. It’s not the job of our President to gurantee the rights of Venezuela to elect a leader who hops in bed with Castro and the oil interests of supporters of terrorists and the rest of our enemies. Its the job of our President to watch out for our interests. If liberals want a leader who gurantees world prosperity while screwing us, the U.N. is a good place to start. The reason I feel this way Chris, is the rest of the world is not wanting to be nice to us- if you haven’t noticed please check recent news accounts from NYC. We are successful because we have the most freedom, the stongest economy, the most human rights and the power to defend ourselves. In this fallen world, that’s the way the game is played. The European press would like NOTHING MORE THAN FOR A NUCLEAR WEAPON TO KILL MY FAMILY and millions of other Americans so that we will learn our lesson and collapse. Nothing we do will be right in the eyes of these amoral scum. Not defending ourselves, not defending someone else, not acting in our interests, not seeking justice, NOTHING. We gave hundreds of thousands of American lives so the Europeans can right this sort of thing in English rather than in German, and they adopt this sneering, condescending tone? They write in quotes of our desire to further “democracy and civilisation?” How much American blood guranteed theirs? When the Muslims overtake Europe and European women enter the dark ages enjoyed by so many Arab cultures, the European press can send us a note. But don’t expect another Omaha beach. If they don’t see the point of our country, then they can manage the party without us.

My article was clear: it’s a fallen world. All nations are flawed and sinful. But on the scale of common sense values, this is the greatest nation in the history of the world, and anyone who doubts it should takes their wives and children to Saudi Arabia or China or Mexico or Russia or France and then come back and give us a report. And please take Alec Baldwin along for company. I will teach my children it is right to love America for its goodness, and right to pray for America for its problems. In our flawed concern for “democracy and civilisation” we have much to be proud of. I will teach my kids that terrorists and the nations who support them are bad, and that will include freely elected chums of communist dictators whose prisons and cemetaries are full of his opponents, and freely elected coddlers of OPEC who want to bring this nation to its knees.

If I had more copies of British newspapers, I could spend a lot less on bathroom tissue.

Rob, I agree that Jesus was not trying to give more reasons for people to divorce. He was always going past the letter of the law to the heart of the law, trying to get us to see that sin starts with our wrongful thoughts and motives.
As for God’s not striking Cain dead, all I can say is that it was a demonstration of His extreme goodness and grace. And aren’t we glad He is so gracious!
Bart, I have to disagree that adulterous thoughts are the same as adulterous actions. Yes, sin is sin, and we can’t go around trying to justify our wrong actions or thoughts by saying, “Well, at least I’m not as bad as So-And-So. I just committed a little sin.” But in reality, there is no comparison between a lustful thought and an actual extra-marital affair. One may lead to the other, but they are not at all the same in their effects on the people involved. I’d sure rather my spouse have a straying thought while watching a female wrestler on TV than to find him in bed with someone! ;)
By the way, three beautiful children! Congratulations!
Dann, Congratulations to you, too! We’ll be praying for you and yours. Hope all goes (or went!) well. Keep us posted, O.K.?

5, huh? Uhh, Michael Sp…just kidding!!
1. John Wesley
2. E. Stanley Jones
3. John Piper
4. Robert Coleman
5. Flannery O’Connor

Just when you thought only priests did it…

Here are the worlds most awsome children….easter_1.jpg

Killing Cain would have destroyed 1/3 of the gene pool. God needed his genetics

CS:
One scripture, one source of the scripture, one thought process. Adultery is adultery, whether in action or in thought, they are the same. Does that mean that there are zillions of people who have the right to get divorced? Yep. Should people use the idea of mental adultery as a basis for divorce? Perhaps. Internet affairs are now used as grounds for divorce. Does that mean that there are thousands of people who don’t have a clue that their everyday exploits are considered sin and therefore separating them form God? Yep.

Rob: According to Jesus, adultery is the only reason you can divorce. Of course, in another gospel, he does not even mention adultery, so even adultery is not firm. If I follow the reason that the death penalty is the reason why you cannot atone through sacrifice for murder and adultery, then you must also include the following:

1. Working on the Sabbath (Ex 31:15)
2. Practicing slavery via kidnapping (Ex 1:16)
3. Sex with an animal (Ex 22:19)
4. Allowing loose animals to kill people (Ex 21:28 – 29)
5. Drinking in church – Aaron’s sons (Lev 16?)
6. Cursing father or mother (Lev 20:9)
etc.

The point is that there are more than two things to put someone to death for, yet the person speaking said there were only 2 sins that you could not atone for with sacrifice: murder and adultery. In scripture, I see that you are not to sacrifice an animal with defect or flaw, but not that you must not sacrifice for murder or adultery. I thought this he was talking about not taking the ransom for someone who had murdered another, (Numbers 35:31 – 32, Ps 49) but he then mentioned adultery. At best, he can quote Proverbs 28, which states a man tormented by the guilt of murder will be a fugitive until death. I guess, you could create an argument with Mt 5:21, but you would have to take it out of context.

Thoughts on this one. I heard a speaker this week talk about how murder and adultery were the only two sins that you could not atone for through sacrifice. I did not get a chance to ask where he got this from, but I cannot find a scripture on this. Having studied the Pentateuch, I know that you cannot pay ransom for a murder, but have never heard of sacrifice not covering this sin. I am still looking, but wanted to get some thoughts on this.

Michael: I like the quote of Romans 8:1 (no condemnation of those in Christ Jesus). Note the rest of the chapter. It talks about those that are in the Spirit. One who continues to use grace as their backup plan is not acting in the Spirit, at least not looking at the fruit produced (Gal 5). We are still under the law, but out of respect for the sacrifice made for our sins (grace), and not as a means to earn our way to heaven. You can fall on either side of this line. On one side, grace is therethere for willfull sin; on the other, you become so caught up on the law that it consumes you. While there is nothing wrong with the logic in either position, taking them to an extreme takes you off the narrow path.

On the once saved, always saved: In many ways, it fits better with Calvanistic viewpoints than Armenians, although it seems the Armenians espouse it. I believe thoroughly that we have to pick up the cross and die daily, as the self (world) creeps in. I find myself fighting sins again and again. I know that I need to let go, but my pride gets in the way.

On the middle east: I agree that it does need to be bigger than good guys, bad guys. There are peace loving Palestinians. My point is the tactics of the armies are completely different. There is credible evidence that the Palestinians have shot their own children on television to get it blamed on the Israelis. We also have the attack on the Jewish civilians just recently. There are a couple of issues here.

1. The leaders of the two groups have different stances. The Israelis are treating this as a civilized war, and the Palestinians are not. Of course, war is hell, right?
2. There is a certain amount of indoctrination in the Palestinian children to desire to martyr oneself. This trend will take a generation or more to erradicate.

I am not sure Sharon is the best leader, from a PR standpoint, but it is not my country. ;->

Rob: You are right. I misspoke. What I meant was what you said: sanctification is what happens over a lifetime. I guess my point is that if the sanctification isn’t there, neither is the justification. And I still say that I have to answer that question for me, not everyone else.

Michael S: I agree. I guess like everything else, balance in teaching is the key. I just love your teaching/preaching (one of the only unpleasantries about moving was leaving MPC and your leadership), both in church and chapel, and I would hate to see you become unbalanced in the good news of grace message you are so great at communicating (not that that is what’s happening, I would just hate to see it). You know as well as I do that people already hear enough unbalanced preaching about the place of works in the believer’s life. I know you would never preach that, but I guess what I’m trying to say is that I would hate for people (specifically nonbelievers) to perceive that you are preaching that. I don’t even know if I’m making sense (story of my life).

EricR: God is absolutely the gracious gurantor of our perseverance. 1 Thessalonians 5:24 24 He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it. Philippians 1:6 6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. The is the strength of all who are pressing forward. It is especially the source of the strength to get up and start over. Romans 8:1 ESV Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. But I would say that the temptation for many Reformed people is to say Grace gurantees that if I commit this ______________ sin, (Fill in blank) I will still go to heaven. That is isolating grace from all that God says goes with it. And that is really really important for all of us who believe we are made right with God entirely by grace. The grace alone that saves never produces faith that is alone. But many good grace oriented Christians overly devalue what comes along with grace-produced-faith. I always have the feeling that some Christians believe obedience, the church, worship, the sacraments, perseverance, church discipline, public confession are somehow the enemies of grace, and that if we emphaisze any of them, we are attacking “grace alone.” No, no, no! These are the GRACIOUS means God uses to guide me to heaven.

Some quick thoughts from a mental cripple on OSAS et al:
1. Yes, we must persevere to the end, because salvation isn’t a one-time thing, only to be looked back upon. Future grace and all that. (Hope I did that link right so Michael won’t insult me again :-)
But we must be careful to explain to those who have questions that it is God’s grace and strength that causes us to persevere. If left to my own devices, I WILL FAIL. Period. Total depravity. I must have God’s grace and strength in order to make it. Now this is not the same as just lying back and watching God do everything. As Schreiner says in his article (I think it was Schreiner), we cannot just refrain from any effort at holiness and say Well, God, I can’t do it. It’s up to you! That is a sign of insincerity. But I still say that, in reality, I can’t do it without God’s grace and strength. I make this distinction because I can easily see people saying, What’s the use? I’m not going to be able to persevere in the way the God of the universe wants me to, and it sounds like these people are saying that I can lose what I have by not doing everything just right. I don’t even want to start trying.
It just seems to me that, if we don’t preach/teach this right, it simply becomes You Can Lose Your Salvation all over again, with a new name. What a depressing doctrine that ignores grace!
2. This all boils down to a close look at our own hearts and motives and relationship with God. I think this is a very personal doctrine. There is no way I can (or should) go around and tell others the condition of their salvation process. God deals with people as He so chooses, and I can not possibly see His master plan. I think to be so presumptuous is probably a sin. What I have to do instead is take a good, hard look at my own heart. That’s the only way. Trying to figure it out for everyone is depressing and circular and unproductive.
I’ve got too much work to do to be typing such drivel! BTW, nice Apocalypse Now reference (Napalm in the morning), Mike B!

Mr. Rigney, the first Uncle Buck reference was mine. Keep up please. There are hordes of younger applicants wanting your job.

GUYS: I would like to make an e-mail listing on the side bar so people could correspond privately. If you DO NOT want me to list your name (and addy under the link) please write me and say so in the next couple of days.

MikeB: Thou art close to the Kingdom of God ;) ;) ;-)

#1 The Bible does not teach you can lose your salvation. From GOD’S POINT OF VIEW Romans 8:29-30 is absolutely true and is the best text for OSAS.
#2 The Bible does say examine yourselves to see if you are the real deal. Scripture does function in a “test of genuineness” fashion.
#3 Shreiner and Canaday are saying that the traditional ways of looking at warning passages (My proof texts and about a dozen in Hebrews and the parables, etc.) are 1) tests of genuinenesss or 2) loss of salvation.
#4 They are proposing a third way: that the texts are genuine warnings and are aimed at Christians with PERSEVERANCE in mind. Perseverance being what happens in the Christians life from OUR EXPERIENCE. God uses the warnings to guide his elect through life. The force of the warnings is real, because if I abandon the faith I am not saved, was not saved, will not be saved.
#5 I am saying that OSAS minimizes even eliminates this for millions of Baptists. “Since OSAS, and I am saved, the warning does not apply to me, so I will ignore it. And since you can’t fall, it always means something else and doesn’t apply to me. So all that applies to me are the assurances.”

Got the Uncle Buck ref there, Matthew! (And somebody did a Mutiny on the Bounty the other day—I haven’t fallen asleep on the job!)
BTW, the results from our survey should be back from the independent auditing firm tomorrow. Everyone waits with bated breath!

MichaelS, DGC: I love the smell of proof-texts in the morning. :) My question to you this morning, gentlemen, is, to whom are the warnings given and why? Are the warnings given to Christians who are in jeopardy of loosing their salvation? Or, are the warnings given to the unsaved who—because of some external act such as baptism, church membership, or walking an isle—believe they are a Christians, when, in fact, they are not?

MichaelS: I find it interesting that Paul admonishes: “Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified” (2 Cor. 13:5 NKJV) The test is not whether one is about to lose his/her salvation, but rather, whether he/she is “in the faith.” Those who do not “continue in the faith” or “press on toward the goal for the prize” or “pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love . . .” fail the test and are disqualified from calling themselves a Christian. (“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that NONE OF THEM WERE OF US.”). (1 John 2: 19 NKJV; Emphasis mine) (You had to know I was going there :)

Dann: What the parable of the sower teaches me is that there are a number of people who have some external appearances of salvation for a time (3 out of 4, if you want to take the parable literally) but only those who continue in the faith and produces fruit are genuinely saved. Eventually, the true state of the person will manifest itself. Take Judas, for example. To the remaining twelve, he had all the appearances of a genuine disciple of Jesus. Right to the very moment of his betrayal of Jesus, none of the remaining disciples had any idea what Judas was about to do. (“Now as they were eating, He said, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, one of you will betray Me.’ And they wee exceedingly sorrowful, and each of them began to say to Him ‘Lord is it I?’” Matt. 26:21, 22) Nonetheless, Jesus referred to Judas as “a devil.” (John 6:70). Judas didn’t forfeit his salvation because of his betrayal of Jesus. Judas was never saved in the first place. (If one assumes that a “devil” cannot be truly saved). Also, I see the parable of the unforgiving servant as a warning that a cold, unforgiving heart is, once again, a test of whether one is truly saved. To answer your question, no, I do not believe the servant demonstrated genuine repentance.

Finally, I will leave everyone with this. Jesus said, “Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!” (Matt 7:22, 23). Even though these people recognized Jesus as Lord and had all the external trappings of a genuine believer, they NEVER entered into the personal relationship necessary for true salvation.

BTW: No, I don’t believe my text can beat up your text :-) However, I do believe there is ample Biblical support for the maxim that once you are saved, you are always saved. Again, the only alternative is that once you are saved you can be lost again. That, I believe, is contrary to Scripture.

DGC: All good stuff and I agree. The parable of the sower- and many other parables of Jesus- suffer when perseverance is not emphaisized as a reality. One of the key points in my own coming to know I had a problem in this area (and in my life) was hearing Charles Stanley handle the parables. I forget the parable, but in one its says the unprofitable servant was cast into outer darkness. Stanley said this servant was saved (had to be since OSAS) and this “outer darkness” was somewhere in the Kingdom of God. It was practically an evangelical affirmation of purgatory. The motivation was this: any language in a parable that indicated salvation existed once meant the subject was OSAS. Exegetical gymnastics followed. I believe the proper position is that those who are not finally saved may have many of the signs of salvation- but not perseverance. Perseverance- which is a future, not just a present, reality- is a sign of salvation too!

Just got a note that Clear Creek Baptist Bible College (about 50 miles from me and where I have many contacts) is forcing out a music professor over Calvinism. Sheesh. What is that all about? Singing too many Isaac Watts hymns? Should we break the news about John Newton or just leave them slumbering? How about “elect from every nation?”

MikeB/RonC: We differ substantially. (Ain’t it wonderful? ;-)

The problem with the language of OSAS is that scripture uses various tenses and descriptions for salvation to balance off the “already and not yet.” We were saved, are being saved and will be saved. OSAS has nothing to say to the last two. One of problems is my unhappiness as a preacher with my handling of texts under OSAS. I was not able to preach the warnings as real because, like MikeB, I thought it meant I believed in falling from grace Here is a prime example.

Colossians 1:21-23 21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard…
My experience with OSAS is to say you believed, you are reconciled, therefore you are insured a place in heaven no matter what. (Faith past tense.) Scripture says you believed, you are reconciled and if indeed you continue in the faith he will present you before him etc. Colossians is balanced on the already/not yet.

Here is another with the “already/not yet” clearly brought out:
Philippians 3:13-14 13 Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
Paul says there is an aspect of salvation that I have not made my own, and I must press on toward it. The effectual call of God in the Gospel is the present “already” but the prize of eternal life is a future “not yet” goal.

Here is a typical warning that I would have ignored in the past:
1 Timothy 6:9-12 9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. 11 But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. 12 Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

How does this warning to Timothy have any real meaning unless 1) the threat of destruction is real, 2) the threat of wandering from the faith is real 3) The fight of faith is necessary (not just the confession) 4) In order to take hold of eternal life to which he was called. How does this work for OSAS? Are the warnings real?

REMEMBER: In the lives of the elect, these warnings work as real warnings, not as hypotheticals. God keeps the elect, but these warnings work as part of the means.

MichaelS. I certainly cannot interpret the term once saved always saved for others. However, Webster’s defines “save” as: “1 To preserve or rescue from danger 2. To keep from being spent, expended or lost . . . 6 To deliver from the consequences of sin.” It does not mean, “profess,” “Baptize,” “join,” or “walk” (as in isle). If I go on a rescue mission to save a man stranded in the mountains and I bring him back in a body bag, I certainly cannot say the man was saved. Even if I successfully bring the man out of the mountains but he dies three days latter from injuries he suffered, I cannot say he was saved. However, if I bring the man back and he goes on to live a long, fruitful life, then to say the man was saved would be an appropriate description. Furthermore, there is no in between. Either the man was saved, or he was not saved. Period. If, then, a Christian is one who is “saved” from the consequences of sin, then that person must be “SAVED” from the consequences of sin. If at some point in the future that person suffers the consequences of sin (i.e. eternal punishment) then, by the very definition of the term, the person was never “saved” in the first place. The only alternative to OSAS is that once saved, you can be lost again. Such, I believe, would be contrary to the entire teaching of the Bible.

Here is a blueprint for a war that will engulf the world. If Sharon thinks the U.S. is going to sit back and watch this, he is disturbed. This is what I mean by a lack of adequate politcal leadership on both sides to forge a realistic solution.

RonC and MikeB: Mike, I don’t know your denominational background, but I do know Ron’s, so come along for the ride. Ron, the term OSAS has produced 8 million invisible Southern Baptists who think they are saved. And several million Baptists in church who think the invisible eight million are saved. OSAS means perseverance like Jesse Jackson means minister. OSAS means “Once professed, always saved,” or “once told I’m saved/once Baptized/once a member of the church/ once down the aisle, always saved.” I grew up neck deep in this. It was an article of faith, and it meant that any person who professed Christianity once was always saved. it was point in time total salvation. It was “believed” (Past tense) as the only condition of heaven. We had a preacher here at OBI who was a former student. He was talking about a guy who was a big-time Christian when he was a student, who is now an angry, Christianity loathing atheist. He said he believed the guy was still a Christian. That is OSAS. The BFM statement is fine, and describes the fact of perseverance. But it doesn’t describe the process, which is believing the promises and heeding the warnings and obeying the commands. Running the race, not entering the race.Finishing the race, not dropping out. (Read all the warnings in Hebrews.) It really is describing “preservation” and not perseverance. OSAS says when you enter the race you win. Perseverance of the saints says when you run the race to the end, you win. Preservation says you were going to win all along because God gurantees it. I don’t think OSAS has simplified anything for the average person. It has confused the commoner. I appreciate your contention that it is milk. If so, why has not a single Baptist Catechism or Confession adopted the language?

MikeB: R.C.’s definition is good, but again, it describes preservation (God’s part) not perseverance (our part) and it is the failure to grasp our part that has produced the 8 million invisible Baptists. A genuine Christian is one who runs the race to the end without abandoning the race. He who perseveres to the end will be saved. Could we say he who perseveres to the end was saved? Sure. But scripture chooses the first version.

How is it that if we use the term “perseverance,” we are theologically correct, but if we use the term “once saved always save,” we are theologically incorrect? I’ve always thought the terms were synonymous. In his book “Essential Truths of the Christian Faith: 100 Key Doctrines in Plain Language,” (I realize this is incredibly lightweight theology for most of you) R.C. Sproul defines the doctrine of perseverance of the saints this way: “In essence the doctrine teaches that if you have saving faith you will never lose it, and if you lose it, you never had it.” (pg. 197). Where does Sproul’s definition of perseverance fail? How does this definition differ from Schreiner’s assertion that “true believers will never apostisize.”
I guess what it comes down to is this: can a genuine Christian lose his/her salvation? If the answer to that question is, no, then what is most important is that people understand that truth, not the language used to convey that truth.

An addendum to the picture thingy: Why is he touching her? Isn’t that cause for at least a maiming? “Bug, you see this hatchet?”

Gregory: Once Saved Always Saved is, I believe, a denial of the true Biblical doctrine of perseverance. In “the book” Canaday and Schreiner destroy and demolish this error. (I am dialoging with Canaday over at DB. All invited.)

Thanks for the responses on the photo. “Bug, have you ever met a serial killer?”
We have a big formal debate tonight on campus. It’s my Bible classes debating the resurrection. My daughter is heading the “against” team!! It should be fun. We’re using wrestling-type intros (Linkin Park!) so the students will get a kick out of it.

SteveM: Victimization is power. We are a long way from seeing people gain power through self respect and success. Its persecution and lawsuits. See my magnum opus on this phenom. One bully and the whole school may be shut down and all of you sent to Hillary funded re-education camps. I will agree that the lawyers for the homosexual advocates have picked the wrong state. If your principal takes any heat over this it will be to your advantage. 8th grade and openly gay. When I was in the 8th grade I knew so little about sex I couldn’t have told you where babies came from.

Welcome to Steve Schaper, who says he doesn’t agree with me on everything. Imagine that.

GregoryB: In my view the Middle East solution has to be bigger than good guys, bad guys. There are many decent and peace desiring Palestinians (read the Easter piece) and also many peace hating terrorists. As the Jesse Jackson of Palestinian politics, Arafat is the biggest obstacle because he doesn’t want a solution. It is ANYTHING but peace with Israel. I am not fond of Sharon, whom I consider an example of the worst reactions of Israel and the kind of strong arm that people turn to in desperate times when they value security most of all. It was his cocky visit to temple mount that got the ball rolling. He is still the butcher of Lebanon to Palestinians. Nonetheless, he can make peace. Arafat’s ineffectiveness is the problem. There is no moral equivalency between terrorism and legitimate defense. I agree wholeheartedly. If Arafat would have taken Barak’s offer at the end of the Clinton years and moved forward with it, things wouldn’t be perfect but they would be different. Until Arafat is out of the picture, I am pessimistic. He gives the extremists reasons to do the worst and he gives no one a reason to hope for something better.

By the way. Please don’t mention the Andy Griffith thing again, ever! Thank you!

I heard all the noise from the street and decided to stay home until things cooled off here. Caught a glance of a discussion regarding homosexuality and seminaries and wanted to share something interesting happening in our school right now. An 8th grade student has been placed on homebound instruction here because of alleged death threats due to his being openly gay. In my ten years here at the school this is the first time a student has taken being gay as a badge of honor and is daring anyone to say something. Our students have done nothing to our knowledge to hurt this kid and have shown incredible tolerance. Interestingly I would call their reactions almost indifferent which I find amusing. How will it set with the gay community seeking greater and greater political clout knowing that most mainstream youth could’nt seem to care less. Anyway, our principal, a Godly and talented woman, has been informed that the school is being sued and she herself may be liable for comments she made to a gay advocacy group who met with her. She made some crazy comment about homosexuality being morally wrong, sinful and physically and emotionally abusive. She did, however, say that she and our school would not tolerate any student being harrassed but from all indications this did not happen. Now it gets interesting. Our principal contacted a lawyer friend of hers and was informed that laws in Kentucky do not protect gays per say. And that all the smoke they have been blowing cannot stand up in any Kentucky courts. I’m not sure if this is the case or not, but it fascinates me to think that all the threats of lawsuits are perhaps impossible to carry out. Maybe someone can shed some light on this for me. Good to be back.

Michael, do you own any firearms? If you do, I think cleaning them while said boyfriend is at the house might convince him that mistreating your daughter is not in his best interests. I think it would be even better if you could get one of those .50 caliber models that Bart mentioned long ago. Also, mentioning that the rifle is for “family protection” might help.

Well, I go home to Arkansas for the weekend and come back to find that there were tornados and high winds in the area. Ichthus campers had to be evacuated to local churches on Saturday night. I guess God isn’t too happy with the altar calls, either. ;-) Looks like I missed a lot of good weekend blogging. I don’t think I’ll catch up this week, though. Too many papers. Y’all might want to keep this poor student in your prayers.

Seeker’s based church: I have a gentleman in my bible study that goes to a seeker’s church. His claim is the Saturday and Wednesday night services are much deeper theologically. My problem with the church deals with a friend (of sorts) that has been going there for two years and has no intent on becomming a Christian. She says she goes there because the church is open and tolerant. Considering that the Truth is offensive to those unwilling to accept it, I have a problem with a church that can have an unbeliever sit for 2 years and never preach a message that is offensive. I wonder if the message that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation has ever been taught in the Sunday morning worship. That’s pretty offensive to a universalist, isn’t it.

I see two types of churches growing today: entertaining churches (or non-offensive) and very biblically based churches. One is grown by worldly means (which is where much of the Seeker’s growth comes from), and the other by godly. Guess which one is more likely to win souls for Christ. As far as the argument “look how many people are attending,” the counterargument is “but how many are repenting and converting?” If the answer is “very few,” then, using their own logic, you can show the failure of the church.

Carnal Christian teaching: I have seen a certain amount of this in the “once saved, always saved,” Baptist doctrine, but more in the congregation than the teaching. I also see the “God’s grace is large enough for …” doctrine, where grace becomes a coverall for those not willing to repent. It becomes justification for wrong thinking and bad actions. The topic where this got me a bit distressed this weekend was euthansia. The person mentioning grace was talking about the grace God extends to those who decide to euthanize someone in a terminal condition.

My feeling of grace is one cannot understand it at all unless he realizes he is a pitiful, evil creature, left to his own desires. I also think one has to truly reflect on Jesus’ sacrifice to understand that grace is not cheap. It cost God a lot to give us the gift of his grace. When you look at these two items, it becomes hard to say “I am going to do it anyway, because God’s grace …” Paul would have never said “I die daily” if he treated grace as such an inexpensive commodity. To continue to use grace as an excuse, once you really reflect on the price, is to treat God as a servant, rather than a master.

On the middle east: I heard a person talking about how this was a war and innocent people die. He was reflecting on how both sides lost people this weekend. I jumped into the conversation and asked if he had even noticed that the Israelis killed this weekend were in their own homes and were all women and children, while the Palestinians killed were men carrying rifles? Yes, there are horrible things happening on both sides, and innocent people do get killed on both sides, but you cannot see what is happening as the same. The Palestinians are targeting civilians and occasionally killing a soldier, while the Israelis are doing the opposite. I will accept the argument that the Palestinians are fighting for their own land, but don’t try to tell me that the Palestinians and Israelis are using identical tactics: the record shows something different. Okay, rant off.

This morning during my devotion time it occured to me that the disappearance of church discipline is directly related to two things:

1) The church growth/evangelism only mindset. I mean does anyone think a Seeker Sensitive church has even a thought of exercising church discipline? Many of these churches have almost totally deserted any meaningful concept of church membership. Covenants and Confessions are anathema to them. According to Luther and most of the other reformers, a church that won’t exercise discipline isn’t a church.

2) The Carnal Christian teaching. I mean the extreme form that says saving faith is strictly mental assent with no relationship to repentance, obedience or confession. This took away any basis for discipline, since the end result was the same for the Christian in church and the Christian who never gave obedience a thought: everyone was still going to heaven.

Need I say more . . . :-)

This picture of my 17 year old daughter and her boyfriend has suddenly filled me with the desire to send her to a convent in Bulgaria. Is this feeling rational? Am I reading in too much? Someone please help me here.

Here are some people who need to.....well, I won’t say what they need to do. But believe me they REALLY NEED TO DO what I am thinking about. Several times. Promise Keepers is setting up a male only theocracy in America? Wow. That’s all I ever heard about at the one PK I attended. Can anyone say paranoid?

MikeB: Careful. McFarland was using episodes of Andy Griffith as a launching point for talks YEARS ago. (TV addict, as you recall.) Then he discovered the very curriculum you have shared, and uh…let us say the wound is still deep. He is a bitter, bitter, angry person. That’s all I can say. Well, he’s dangerously obsessed with this. I’m worried for the guy at entertainment ministry.com, frankly. Steve- please man. Control yourself. Don’t go the way of Baretta.

Thanks for all the cool links. You are the linkmeister. I have ordered a UTILIKILT. (BTW- I believe Blogger is having some problems lately. I get a lot of blanks when I ask to look at blogger.htm in my server.)

Here is a great Psalm. (I love it that we read and sing so many Psalms at our church!) Psalm 31:1-8 In you, O LORD, do I take refuge; let me never be put to shame; in your righteousness deliver me! 2 Incline your ear to me; rescue me speedily! Be a rock of refuge for me, a strong fortress to save me! 3 For you are my rock and my fortress; and for your name’s sake you lead me and guide me; 4 you take me out of the net they have hidden for me, for you are my refuge. 5 Into your hand I commit my spirit; you have redeemed me, O LORD, faithful God. 6 I hate those who pay regard to worthless idols, but I trust in the LORD. 7 I will rejoice and be glad in your steadfast love, because you have seen my affliction; you have known the distress of my soul, 8 and you have not delivered me into the hand of the enemy; you have set my feet in a broad place.

Michael: I think this is more your style of ministry.

This is for you, Bart.

Michael: You might want to attach this to “Dancing at the Fundamentalist Ball.” I like the basic twirl.

. . . and, just in case you are one of THOSE kind of people who are always happy . . .

Sorry guys, but this just struck me as funny. Please forgive me it this offends; it’s late.

MikeB: I am working on the banana thing. I have a book by that guy, same title, and I thought he died! Maybe they kept the column going with someone else, but same name and style. Anyway, I do recall finding out a number of things I never really wanted to know, like how much of various bodily substances one creates in a lifetime. thankee

Banana peels, anyone :-)

Michael: Maybe this will calm the savage best in ya, big guy. Go to the archive section, wander around for a while and have a little fun. You might even want to add this to your links.

Mini rant: I am tired of this. This being the seeker sensitive crowd and their gurus carping to the rest of us about what a great job they are doing and how we suck. It’s a lie. Got that: IT IS A LIE. In areas where the seeker mega-churches are booming overall church attendance is DOWN. DOWN as in decreased over the last ten years. They destroy smaller churches. They are like the dxxx Borg. They promote huge programs that appeal to the consumer mindset of Americans and drive all the “shopping” families and individuals to themselves. Then they call it a spiritual awakening. They act as if what worked for them is dictated by the Holy Spirit to the rest of us. They are pragmatic, which is annoying enough, but this is America, I kind of expect that. But then they are so sanctimonious about being bigger and better than the little guy’s church. WHAT REALLY WASTES ME IS THE REPEATED PICKING ON CHURCHES WHO DON’T DO IT THEIR WAY. Shut the heck up!!!!! All this pompous crap about (whiney voice) “I don’t see why a non-Christian would go in any church but one just like ours. They can’t understand the words you use. They won’t like your songs. blah blah blah.” Puhleeeze put the halo away. And would the Christian media just SHUT UP about them. Anyone who can sound like an expert talking to a full auditorium is the next deity to these headline grabbing idiots. Ok

My first year of seminary was 1979. I lived on campus three days a week. There were several homosexual men attending at that time, and they made no real secret of it. In fact, I think the year after I left, the Prez at that time, Roy Honeycutt, actually expelled a student who made an issue of his homosexuality. (Music school) Ron Cooper can speak for the situation a few years down the road when he was a student, and the homosexuals went to war with Pres. Mohler. I don’t think this is a problem in any way – in ANY way- relegated to RCC. The ministry attracts homosexuals for reasons noble and perverse. Cardinal B is right imo.

Philly Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua on gays in the priesthood: “We feel that a person who is homosexually oriented is not a suitable candidate for the priesthood, even if he has never committed any homosexual act… .There’s an obligation of celibacy in every priest. There’s a difference between a heterosexual candidate, what his choice of celibacy is, and that of a homosexual celibate. When a heterosexual celibate chooses to become a celibate in the priesthood, he’s taking on a good – that is, his own desire to become a priest – and he’s giving up a very good thing, and that is a family and children that could follow. That would not be true of a homosexually oriented candidate. He may be choosing the good, but… he’s giving up what the church considers an aberration, a moral evil.

“Secondly, the risk of someone who is homosexually oriented is higher in the priesthood. In the sense that he’s constantly associated with males, always associated in the seminary, outside, when he becomes a priest – I’m not saying that it will always happen by any means – I think we have, it’s possible we have homosexuals who have been very chaste, and I don’t ascribe that it means that they will commit a sin; I’m not saying that at all. But the risk is much higher.

“We have found that, when you have someone – even using the example of an alcoholic, oriented toward alcoholism, they may be wonderful in the seminary but when they get into the tension of the priesthood there is a tendency at times to seek some kind of outlet, and that’s why some priests who have never touched a drink as candidates, when they become priests, they have fallen into alcoholism. The risk is higher.”

DGC: Great stuff. You are so right on the money with the prophets. I had a course on the prophets with the great Dr. Ed Bevin in college and it changed my life. I never realized God was so thoroughly passionate about justice! I only heard about the cross (praise the Lord for that) but Amos, etc really opened my eyes. The common grace of God in history is no sissified force. Thanks for bracing, fresh words.

Everyone: The wonderful Jonah Goldberg on NRO this week. Here is his take on the Euro-lefties whining over the second place finish of Le Pen.

“The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable,’” wrote George Orwell in 1946. It was true then and it’s true now. Jean-Marie Le Pen, the French ultra-nationalist who came in second last week in the French elections, to the joy of everybody who thinks the French should shut the hell up, may be a racist isolationist. He may think the Holocaust was a “little detail” of World War II (indeed, from a certain French perspective it was just outsourcing of much-needed work to their German neighbors). But none of this makes him a fascist in the sense that fascism means something beyond “something not desirable.”
Now, I don’t like Le Pen. Never have. In fact, if fascists are simply undesirable political people in the Orwell tradition, than he is most definitely a fascist in my book. Then again, by that standard, so are Jesse Jackson, Alec Baldwin, Rosie O’Donnell, Crown Prince Abdullah, Susan Sarandon, Carson Daly, Aaron Sorkin, Margaret Cho, Jar-Jar Binks, and the duck from the AFLAC commercials, just to name a few.
But the truth is Le Pen never scared or outraged me in the way he does people who water their ferns three times a day do. (Okay, I guess conscientious fern-watering doesn’t make you a liberal any more than being nasty makes you a fascist, so if it helps, imagine the ferns resting on copies of Mother Jones).
But, you know, there is something about the guy I kind of like. I can’t quite put my finger on it. It’s not his hair. Or even his old-world way of talking…it’s…oh, wait, I know what it is: He makes the fern-waterers water their plants from the inside out.
“Saying democracy itself is in peril, leaders across the French political spectrum today launched an emergency effort to prevent the far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen from turning his second-place finish Sunday into a successful run for the French presidency….” is how the Washington Post’s Keith Richburg began a dispatch on the disarray in France.
Everyone take a moment to cackle over how these people were so smug about the Florida recount.” (MS- HA ROFL)

And now, from the nation that brought us World War II, Hitler, Himmler, Mengele, Auschwitz, Skinheads, etc. the following piece of typical European analysis regarding yesterday’s school shooting in Germany: “So-called ‘American conditions’ have reached us. We cannot let these excesses of violence become a part of our daily life,” said Konrad Freiberg, the head of Germany’s police union.” (From Fox news)

DGC: I am a little fuzzy on your definition of common grace. By definition, common grace is grace given to persons without regard for whether they are converted or not. Yes, common grace is presented as a prelude to saving grace, and it certainly is a gift from the ultimate source of Grace, God himself, with the intended end being that all might acknowledge God, but common grace does not regenerate, convert, etc. or bring about that end in many of those who recieve it. And my choice of “redeems” is a bit of a provocation. I have more in mind redemption from the position of the 95Ts guys.

The Glory of the Nations: How Common Grace Redeems Nationalism

DGC: O ye of little faith, how long must I be with you? How long must I put up with you…..
MikeB: A big leap, but what a horrible day in Germany yesterday. Of course, the Germans/Europeans will blame us for the school shooting.

Speaking of the German drinking team . . . here is an excerpt from a sermon by Martin Luther titled “On Soberness and Moderation”:

“The Italians call us gluttonous, drunken Germans and pigs because they live decently and do not drink until they are drunk. Like the Spaniards, they have escaped this vice. Among the Turks it is really the worst sin for a man to be drunk. So temperate are they that they do not even drink anything which inebriates. That is why the can make war and win; while we drunken sows sleep they keep awake, and thus can consider their strategy and then attack and conquer. When the time comes for us to defend ourselves and be prepared, we get drunk. This had become so widespread that there is no hope for it; it has become a settled custom.

At first it was the peasants who drank to excess, then it spread to the citizens. In my time it was considered a great shame among the nobility. Now they are worse than the citizens and peasants; now those who are the greatest and best are beginning to fall, indeed, even the princes; and among those who are the ablest it has become a noble and princely virtue. Now the ten-year-old milksops, and the students, too, are beginning, and ruining themselves in their flower; when the corn should be growing and flourishing it is beaten down by a storm. We preach, but who stops it? Those who should stop it do it themselves; the princes and more. Therefore, Germany is a land of hogs and filthy people which debauches its body and its life. If you were going to paint it, you would have to paint a pig.”—From Luther, Sermons I, Luther’s Works

No accusations of nationalism to be found there.

MikeB: I am truly moved. Actually I love Peter G. It has been a great day. Three of the four Spencer’s wore their hats at dinner! I still have yours. Delivery or pick-up? And, turn it over to McFarland. Angus would turn us all into Pirates. (On second thought- so will McFarland.)

ChrisS: So grateful for your time, Chris. You dished it out and took it like a pro. We salute you. Take any chair you want as a keepsake. (Really- nothing but respect. Thanks and God’s blessings.)

I’d like to dedicate this next song to our fearless leader, Michael Spencer. Pretty soon he won’t be fit to live with. I suppose well have to set him adrift and turn the ship over to Angus. (Casting me adrift thirty five hundred miles from a port of call. You’re sending me to my doom, eh? Well, you’re wrong, Christian! I’ll take this boat, as she floats, to England if I must. I’ll live to see you – all of ya – hanging from the highest yardarm in the British fleet!)

Uh, hum. . . where was I? Oh, yah. If anyone has Peter Gabriel’s “So” album, put ‘er in, crank ‘er up and let’s jam! (I believe it’s track 7 I’m looking for).

BIG TIME

Hi there.

I’m on my way, I’m making it
I’ve got to make it show, yeah
so much larger than life
I’M going to watch it growing

the place where I come from is a small town
they think so small
they use small words
-but not me
I’m smarter than that
I worked it out
I’ve been stretching my mouth
to let those big words come right out

I’ve had enough, I’m getting out
to the city, the big big city
I’ll be a big noise with all the big boys
there’s so much stuff I will own
and I will pray to a big god
as I kneel in the big church

big time
I’m on my way-I’m making it
big time big time
I’ve got to make it show yeah
big time big time
so much larger than life
big time
I’m going to watch it growing
big time

my parties all have big names
and I greet them with the widest smile
tell them how my life is one big adventure^
and always they’re amazed
when I show them round my house, to my bed
I had it made like a mountain range
with a snow-white pillow for my big fat head
and my heaven will be a big heaven
and I will walk through the front door

big time
I’m on my way-I’m making it
big time big time
I’ve got to make it show-yeah
big time big time
so much larger than life
I’m going to watch it growing
big time big time
my car is getting bigger
big time
my house is getting bigger
big time
my eyes are getting bigger
big time
and my mouth
big time
my belly is getting bigger
big time
and my bank account
big time
look at my circumstance
big time
and the bulge in my big big big big big big big

Congratulations, Michael, on you success over at Razormouth.

(“Kline was enthralled.” “I don’t care if he was enthralled, raptured, and reached orgasm!”)

IM articles in the works: The Glory of the Nations: How Common Grace Redeems Nationalism. What I’ve Learned in Thirty Years of Preaching.
Here’s one of the first links I ever posted on IM: A Review of the Left Behind Movie at NRO. Still hilarious.

Another quote from an old IM: “I think Jan Crouch’s hair is the darnest thing since the Tower of Babel. I think Benny Hinn is sincere, but probably unstable. I think T.D. Jakes is preaching gnosticism. TBN in general convinces me television is utterly incompatible with Christianity. Most Contemporary Christian music makes me wish I was wandering in the Antarctic wastes. A tour through the Christian fiction section of my local Christian bookseller reveals enough mediocrity to fill a small country. Christian radio, for the most part, makes NPR look downright intelligent. Evangelical cinema is bad- just plain bad. The best Christian movie ever made- Chariots of Fire- was produced by a Muslim. Yep, those are my opinions, and as my dad used to say, all of them and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee. These are my evangelical brethren, and in general, I think their product stinks. I know billions of evangelicals love this stuff, and always will. Evangelicals will soon be building amusement parks, world-wide satellite systems, movie studios and publishing conglomerates. But if the past is a predictor of the future, we’ll just be swimming in an ocean of tacky.”

A quote from the IM archives: “Let’s get specific. If Jesus lived in America, would he vote? (Opinionated) Would he vote for the candidate who supported NOW or Right to Life? (opinion) Would Jesus vote for candidates that wanted to remove religion from public life or protect the role of faith in communities? (another opinion) Would Jesus vote for more taxes and bigger government or less taxes and smaller government? (Opinion) Would Jesus have an opinion on the public endorsement of homosexual marriage? Illegitimacy? Bio-technology? Cultural issues like school violence or Rap lyrics? School vouchers? Home schooling? (opinions all) Hey listen, quote me: If I didn’t think Jesus would vote the way I do, I wouldn’t vote that way. I would vote the way Jesus would.” – MS

EricR: I think it would be an interesting article on THE REASONING PROCESS rather than the screaming process. For those who believe things aren’t black and white, you have the answer! Now what am I supposed to do, wait for the NEJM or the next issue of Time?

Did you mean write up the abortion thing? I would be glad to if you want me to. I’ve shied away from writing an article on it, because, you know, it’s been done to death. I certainly can fire off a good’un on it if you want, though.
I said I was going to tally the results at 5:30, not publish. This is important research! I need to get ann independent team of experts to tally and interpret everything before I can publish the results. These research proposals are delicate things.

EricR: Write it up and I will publish it. And if its really a hit- I will take credit for it and spend the results.
More on the Saudi’s: Read all of this and hold your babies tight. These are our FREAKIN’ FRIENDS!!!
I sent Joel the link to Piper’s article. Looks like he liked it.

Well, it’s almost 5:30 Rigney. The World is waiting.

I have an argument that I have never heard answered about abortion (I don’t mean answered well—I mean no one has ever even attempted to answer it. The most I’ve gotten in response is derision). It is this: the burden of proof should fall on the shoulders of those supporting abortion. I usually do it like this: Can you prove that an unborn child (fetus, whatever) is NOT a human being with all the rights that other humans have? If not (and proof is a mighty big word), then we should place a moritorium on abortion until we know for sure. Period. In everything else we do in society that involves life and death is that way: criminal proceedings (beyond a reasonable doubt), police deadly force, demolishing a building (“I thought everyone was out, your honor.” “Did you know for sure?” “Well, no. But there were some pretty smart people who told me the building was empty.” “Well, in that case—case dismissed!”). Why do people act like it should be the other way with abortion?
This argument kind of takes the rhetoric of opinion out of the whole thing. A million people can posit a million theories on whether a fetus counts as a life, but the bare-bones fact of the matter is that scientifically, we just have no proof either way. Isn’t it smarter, then, to act so that no life is lost if we are wrong?

Bart: If you run the numbers, you find an interesting set of facts that are ignored by the media. By the numbers, blacks are overrepresented on death row, IF you compare their numbers to their percentage in the populace as a whole. The same can be said of blacks in prison, in general. However, when you look at the number of capital crimes committed, blacks are underrepresented on death row.

Now, for the rich versus poor argument on the death penalty, etc.: While the system is weighted against the poor to an extent, the poor found innocent get a far greater shake, as the rich man still has to pay out huge sums to be found innocent. Regardless, the question is not whether one person gets a better defense, but whether the poor person gets a proper defense. If you assert that only the rich man gets a good defense, then you must assert that the poor man always gets a bad defense. I do not believe that this is true.

We use the disparity between classes to push a lot of things through. We ask “do the rich get better …” rather than “do the poor get good enough …” This is a slippery slope, as the rich will always get better until we effectively institute true communism and everyone has the exact same. Since anarchy is more likely to be the outcome, this means never. As we cannot equalize, and equalizing financially does not solve problems (as in the cost of education versus the quality), we need to fix the problem of inedequate representation and leave it at that.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson once fought hard for abortion, because he felt the rich got better treatment when they legally aborted. Rather than try to solve the problem, his solution was to legalize so everyone would get equal care. Of course, he is now better known for the ultrasound movie of an 11 week fetus being killed (oh, sorry, I guess I should be PC and say aborted) called Silent Scream, which reversed his position on abortion.

Off the rambling: If the poor are getting improper legal representation, we need to solve that problem separate of the issue of the death penalty, unless we can prove that better representation would have prevented the death penalty conviction. Doing away with the death penalty will not solve the real issue, which is faulty representation, although it will make it much easier to push under the carpet.

Incest
Facism
Surprising Truth

Gregory: I have quite a good time with my African-American Students who are pro-abort. I share with them the wit and wisdom of the adorable Margaret Sangster and they grow strangely silent.

Michael: It is apparent that Glenn feels that the psalms about God knowing us in the womb were either figurative or David’s personal waxing. The strong push for abortion was strengthened by the disparity between the way rich and poor women were treated after having an illegal abortion. It was thought that it was cruel to subject the poor to lesser care, so the humanitarian thing to do is allow everyone to kill their babies, as long as they do it before you can actually see the baby. At 6 weeks, the “fetus” already looks quite human, despite what is being touted. In addition, we have ample evidence that the “fetus” feels pain when being ripped apart (although it should not take a genius to figure this one out). The average procedure takes but a few minutes of horrible pain and the baby passes on to meet his or her creator.

Interstingly enough, many Nazis used t