Peter Jones, Author at Kuyperian Commentary

On November 21, 2013 By Peter Jones In Culture Like

Homosexuality: What Conservative Christians Aren’t Saying, Are Asking, and Should Be Doing

By Peter Jones

Homosexuality has been a hot topic in the church for some time. The intensity of the debate has picked up as the homosexual movement has continued to push its agenda. What is most disconcerting is that the church continues to compromise. This blog post is divided into three sections. First, things Christians are accused of saying about homosexuality, but usually aren’t. Second, important questions that must be answered in the sodomy debate. Third, how should the Church approach sodomy.

Are We Saying That?

Conservative Christians are often accused of saying certain things when they are not. We have not been unclear on these points. Wackos get all the press. But most conservative Christian leaders have faithfully and graciously spoken to the issue of sodomy. New books are being constantly written about how Christians should graciously interact with homosexuals. When someone accuses Christians of the things listed below it is usually a slander.

We are not saying that sodomy is the unforgivable sin. The Bible does not teach that sodomy is an unforgivable sin. All sins can be forgiven if someone repents and turns from them to Christ. I Corinthians 6:9-11 lists homosexuals among those who have been washed. There may be Christians out there who think sodomy cannot be covered by the blood of Christ. But they are not in the center of the evangelical faith and they are wrong.

We are not encouraging people to hate homosexuals. The Bible does not teach that we hate homosexuals any more than it teaches that we hate murderers or adulterers or pedophiles. We tell them to repent and turn from their sins. Again, there are some Christians out there who hate sodomites, but these are on the fringe. I do not know of any evangelical leader who would encourage hatred of homosexuals. Of course, often the accusation of homophobia is against those who are calling homosexuals to repent. If the world sees calling homosexuals to repent as hatred, then we should all declare ourselves guilty.

We are not encouraging people to be afraid of or make fun of homosexuals. Here some work needs to be done in the Christian circles. There is still this idea that homosexuals are “disgusting.” Some of this comes from their practices. Some of this comes from a junior high mentality that likes to poke fun at certain groups of people. As Christians, this is generally not acceptable. There are places to mock a homosexual agenda, but this should not be normal, especially as we talk with homosexuals one on one. They are bound for Hell. Their practices are disgusting. But so are the practices of the adulterer or the man addicted to porn or the proud self-righteous church goer. All sin disgusts God. We should stop being disgusted by them and start calling them to trust in Christ. This is a more prevalent problem than the previous two, but it is still not what most leaders in the church call their flock to do.

Three Key Questions

Here are three key questions that conservative Christians are asking when we talk about homosexuality. My answers to the questions are in each paragraph, as well as a more comprehensive answer in the final section.

First, is a homosexual lifestyle, including lust and desire for homosexual relationships, consistent with faith in Christ? Can someone be a practicing homosexual and still trust in Christ? Is homosexuality a sin? Can we call homosexuals to repentance or are they just fine the way they are? If someone will not stand up straight, look you in the eye, and say that homosexuality is a sin then he has seriously compromised in some area of his life. Anytime you get in a conversation with a Christian about sodomy ask them if they think it is a sin. If they waver or say something like, “Yes, but so is lying and we all do that,” you can be assured they have compromised.

The second question, if homosexuality is a sin, how should we approach those who practice it? How should we adomonish homosexuals in private and how should we combat the public assault by homosexuals on the Christian faith? Can we call them to repentance and expect them to change? Here is where our view of sanctification becomes the most important issue. Do we believe that Christ came just to forgive? Or do we believe that he came to help us conquer our sins? Do we believe that Christians are actually being made more holy in this life by the power of the Spirit and the Word? Or do we believe that we are all just sinners waiting to get to Heaven?

Third, how should we treat Christian leaders who have compromised on this particular issue? They are false prophets leading people to Hell. As Mark Driscoll says, “Shoot the wolves.” They are wolves. They need to be actively opposed by Christian leaders. To sit by and oppose them in our minds is compromise.

What Should the Church Do About It?

If sodomy is a sin then what follows? What must a church do when she is confronted by a culture that wants us to embrace or at least allow for a sinful lifestyle? Let’s begin by stating exactly what sin does. Here is a partial list.

Sin which is not repented of and turned from:

Is displeasing to God. (I Thess. 4:1-12)
Separates us from God. (Isaiah 59:1-3)
Enslaves us. (John 8:34)
Is unnatural. (Romans 1:26-27)
Destroys relationships. (James 4:1-6)
Destroys families. (David’s Adultery, II Samuel 11-19, Titus 1:10-11)
Destroys cultures and cities. (II Kings 17:7-23,Rev. 16:19)
Brings death and unfruitfulness. (Romans 6:23)
Blinds us to the truth. (Matthew 23:16, 17, 19 24, 26)
Brings down the wrath of God. (Col. 3:6)
Sends us to Hell. (I Corinthians 6:9-10, Eph. 5:5-6, Gal. 5:19-21)

No Christian who loves Christ, has understood forgiveness, and loves his neighbor would want someone to remain in that state. So what must the Church do?

She must faithfully and courageously preach the whole Bible. She must preach most clearly on those doctrines which the world finds most offensive. Here is one of the key areas where the church has failed.
She must faithfully preach Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. This means two things: First, as Savior, he has defeated sin and his blood covers all the sins of all those who trust in him. Second, as our Lord, he commands us to put off sinful desires and actions.
She must faithfully preach that Christ has given his Spirit so that we might overcome our sins. Those in Christ are freed from their sins. Sodomy is not excluded. This does not just mean forgiveness, but it also means victory over sin in our lives.
She must faithfully show love to Christ, His Church, and to homosexuals by calling them to repent and turn from their sins. This is to be done graciously, but without compromise.
She must faithfully excommunicate Christians who refuse to turn from egregious sins. This includes sodomites, adulterers, thieves, liars, pedophiles, pornography addicts, Pharisees, abusive husbands, etc. This must be done carefully and usually after many hours of pastoral care encouraging the member to put off the old man. But it must done. The failure of God’s shepherds to faithfully protect God’s flock has led to increasing compromise in many denominations and local churches.
She must faithfully work to drive wolves out of the Church. Any teacher who proclaims that sodomy is an acceptable lifestyle for a Christian is a wolf who is allowing Satan to tear the lambs into pieces. They must be fought against.
She must expect the world to hate her and persecute her. To combat this hatred she must fight with faith in Christ, steadfastness in prayer, clinging to God’s Word, holy living, the communion of saints, faithful worship, and Biblical love for neighbor.

<>создание jd

On November 13, 2013 By Peter Jones In Scribblings, Worship Like

Peter Jones: C.S. Lewis on Confessing Our Sins

In the quote below C.S. Lewis is commenting on this phrase from the General Confession in the Book of Common Prayer, “But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us miserable offenders.” At my church, we say this confession, but replace “offenders” with “sinners.” The quote is one of the best I have ever read on how to confess our sins and the results of confession. Almost every line, especially of the last paragraph, is worth your careful time.

“It is essential [when confessing our sins] to use the plain, simple, old-fashioned words that you would use about anyone else. I mean words like theft, or fornication, or hatred, instead of ‘I did not mean to be dishonest’ or ‘I was only a boy then’ or ‘I lost my temper. I think that this steady facing of what one does know and bringing it before God, without excuses, and seriously asking for Forgiveness and Grace, and resolving as far as in one lies to do better, is the only way in which we can ever begin to know the fatal thing which is always there, and preventing us from becoming perfectly just to our wife or husband, or being a better employer or employee. If this process is gone through, I do not doubt that most of us will come to understand and to share these old words like ‘contrite,’miserable’ and intolerable.’

Does that sound very gloomy? Does Christianity encourage morbid introspection? The alternative is much more morbid. Those who do not think about their own sins make up for it by thinking incessantly about the sins of others. It is healthier to think of one’s own. It is the reverse of morbid. It is not even, in the long run, very gloomy. A serious attempt to repent and to really know one’s own sin is in the long run a lightening and relieving process. Of course, there is bound to be a first dismay and often terror and later great pain, yet that is much less in the long run than the anguish of a mass of unrepented and unexamined sins, lurking in the background of our minds. It is the difference between the pain of a tooth about which you should go to the dentist, and the simple straight-forward pain which you know is getting less and less every moment when you have had the tooth out.”<>

On November 9, 2013 By Peter Jones In Theology, Wisdom Like

Getting in the Ring: Faithfulness in Theological Debate

By Peter Jones

How do we debate with intellectual honesty as Christians? Christians should be passionate about the truth. But often this passion can lead us to debate in ways that are intellectually unfaithful. We retreat into our monastery and declare that we are right and everyone else is wrong. We refuse to deal with the arguments of our opponents. This retreat mentality does not come from intellectual rigor and discipline, but from laziness and weakness. A true scholar is not afraid of getting in the ring. But many Christians have not been taught how to think. Their minds are flabby and they get tired easy. So instead of getting in the ring and actually fighting they yell at their opponents at the weigh in, but refuse to show up for the match. The reason for this is fear. We are afraid of losing. We afraid of getting knocked out. So we don’t engage. Over the years, I have learned by experience and from other men how to try to engage in real, honest debate. Here are some of the ways I have learned to be faithful in theses debates.

First, I must have a biblical hierarchy of sin and this hierarchy should include both practices and beliefs. I must know what is the importance of the point under debate. This will determine how I approach the debate. For example, good Christians disagree about the mode of baptism. That debate can be carried on with rigor, but understanding that souls are not at stake. But good Christians do not disagree about Modalism. If you believe in Modalism you are not a Christian. Sometimes this can be hard. For example, baptism is not normally an issue of heresy, but if someone believes baptism automatically saves you or that all baptisms not done in their denomination are invalid there are serious problems. It may not be heresy, but it is starting to stink. Many of the most grievous errors in debate come from making major sins, minor or minor sins, major.

Second, I read the best proponents of the opposing viewpoint. A paedo-baptist who is studying the credo-baptist position should not go find the worst Anabaptist in history and read him. That is intellectually lazy and dishonest. Who are the leading Christian thinkers who disagree with you? Read them.

Third, I try to take on my opponents strongest arguments, not their weakest. (I think I learned this from Vern Poythress.) For example, it is lame for someone arguing against Dispensationalism to ignore all the passages that seem to point to deep discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants like II Corinthians 3. What is your opponent’s most convincing argument? That is where you want to begin the debate.

Fourth, we must not demonize those who disagree with us. It is easy to treat everyone who disagrees with us like a wicked, evil heretic. And of course, they might be. But slapping a label on someone before evaluating their arguments is lazy and is often a way of shutting off honest debate.. Faithfully look at their arguments and then slap a label on them that is honest with what they believe and that you can prove is true. Labeling them prior to debate, unless they themselves accept the label, is failing to get in the ring.

Fifth, I must not assume that just because someone is wrong in one area they are wrong in another. For example, someone may be wrong on women’s roles and right on paedo-baptism. A Pentecostal might be right about Genesis 1-3 and wrong about I Corinthians. We are lazy if we say, “They are wrong here so they must be wrong there.” There are connections between certain teachings. I am not arguing against connecting the dots. But we must not shut down our opponents on the point under debate because they are wrong on a separate issue.

Sixth, I have learned to not label someone unteachable just because they do not come to see things my way. This is the last refuge of the intellectually lazy. They won’t listen to me so they must have a heart of stone and a head to match. Someone is right and someone is wrong, but do not impugn your opponents motives just because they don’t change their mind.

The upshot of this is that true theological debate requires hard work and patience. It requires long hours of thinking and processing ideas. It requires being quick to hear and slow to speak. Our Lord requires faithfulness in all areas of life, including and maybe especially when we are debating others.
<>

On October 24, 2013 By Peter Jones In Culture, Wisdom Like

Food and Holiness: The Final Post, I Think

By Peter Jones

This is the final post in a series. Part I is here. Part II is here.

Eleventh, it is easy in our culture to see exercise as a means of holiness. Men and women who exercise should remember I Timothy 4:7-8, which follows closely on the heels of the I Timothy 4:1-5. Paul says that physical exercise is of little value or it could be translated is only valuable for a short time. Paul is not saying exercise is wicked or unprofitable. But he is saying that we should keep it in perspective. Exercise is of limited value in this life and of no value for the next life. In our sports and super model saturated world it is difficult to keep our exercise in perspective. Go without exercise for a week or a month and see what that does for you spiritually. Did you feel guilty? If so, your perspective is off. Women, do you feel ashamed if you put on a few pounds? Then you need to adjust your thinking. Do you feel as ashamed about your gossip as you do about missing a workout? Men do you feel as guilty about your flirting with women as you do about forgetting to run? Do you put as more thought into godliness than you do into exercise? (I Timothy 4:7) I am not saying stop exercising. Exercise is good. But keep it in perspective. Make sure you are known for your pursuit of holiness more than your pursuit of the perfect body.

Twelfth, our culture is obsessed with physical appearances. We spend billions each year on beauty and health, promoting items such as tanning, implants, hair dyes, gym memberships, organic food, etc. The newspapers, magazines, billboards, commercials, and movies all have an agenda. They are not neutral observers, but preachers for a materialistic, Godless world, where what matters is being beautiful. Remember this any time you are tempted to belly up to the bar and drink what the world is pouring. We breath in this idea from birth, so it is easy for us to miss it in our thinking. How often do we judge those around based on whether or not they are lean and attractive? How do we feel if an overweight woman walks into church as opposed to a trim man? Your mind has been affected by the constant focus on the physical in our culture. Be aware of the temptation to judge all things by physical appearance and fight against it.

Thirteenth, remember for us pouring out our lives, including our bodies, is what we are here to do. (See Romans 12:1-2 and Matthew 10:38) How many Christians try to save their bodies instead of pour them out? This point is not so much what you are doing, but why. Why do you eat healthy and exercise? Why do you want to be thin and attractive? Is it so you can pour yourself out for others? Are you spending your life, even when you are trying to be healthy? Or are you just being healthy for selfish reasons? When you are old will you have poured out your body on what was good, children, church, family, and the Kingdom? Or will you have worked hard to be healthy only to find that Like Scrooge in his counting room you sit there in front of the mirror with your fit, healthy body and nothing else. You have saved your body only to lose all that matters. When they lay you in the grave make sure your body is spent.

Fourteenth, our knowledge is partial and limited. I remember an old pastor friend of mine telling me that when he was growing up ice cream was a health food. Ah, the good old days! The results of research and studies often contradict one another. One week coffee is like heroin. The next week it might be the cure for Alzheimer’s. One week eggs are a great heart attack risk. The next week they are the key to your good health. Back and forth we go. This is not a call to ignore science or refuse to do research. But it is a call to be cautious. Our academies are driven by an agenda just like anyone else. Science departments are godless and driven by evolution. Research is driven by money and the government. (For example, I remember in college finding out that a company that sells car seats was trying to up the minimum age for being in a car seat.) Health food gurus are neo-pagans who believe that the Earth is our mother. We can learn from these groups, but only with a healthy dose of skepticism . Their research may be true. It may not be. And it will probably take decades to find out. If it is true it will probably come with strings attached or fine print at the bottom of the page. We should stay away from strong, dogmatic statements based on the latest research. We should also stay away from making others feel guilty based on the latest research.

Last, but certainly not least, your view of the Lord’s Supper says a lot about your view of food. Is the Supper a banquet, where we feed upon the body and blood of Christ? Or is it a place where we do penance, where we hang our heads in sorrow? A low, somber view of the Lord’s Supper can lead to a low view of the created world. This is a huge topic, but a brief word will have to do. The only place outside the Gospels where the Lord’s Supper is explicitly mentioned is I Corinthians 11. There the picture is not one of somberness, but of so much food and drink people were getting drunk. Paul does not tell them to tone it down. But rather he tells them to wait on each other. The Lord’s Supper is a feast. (c.f. I Cor. 5:8) Once we see that, then I Timothy 4:1-5 makes perfect sense and the whole world becomes our banqueting table.<>контент для а

On October 22, 2013 By Peter Jones In Scribblings Like

Peter Jones: Why Who Teaches Your Children Matters

This quote is from C.S. Lewis’ essay “On the Transmission of Christianity” from the book God in the Dock. In the essay, he gives a reason for why Christianity is no longer common among British school students. He says, “As the teachers are, so they will teach.” It is an excellent essay. Here is a longer quote about how current educational failures cannot be remedied by looking at the present generation, but we must look at the generation, which is currently teaching the present generation.

“This very obvious fact-that each generation is taught by an earlier generation-must be kept firmly in mind. The beliefs which boys fresh from school now hold are largely the beliefs of the Twenties. [This was published in 1946.] The beliefs which boys from school will hold in the Sixties will be largely those of the undergraduates today. The moment we forget this we begin to talk nonsense about education. We talk of the views of contemporary adolescence as if some peculiarity in contemporary adolescence had produced them out of itself. In reality, they are usually a delayed result-for the mental world also has time bombs-of obsolete adolescence, now middle aged and dominating its form room. Hence the futility of many schemes of education. None can give to another what he does not possess himself. No generation can bequeath to its successor what it has not got. You may frame the syllabus as you please. But when you have planned and reported ad nauseam, if we are sceptical we shall only teach scepticism to our pupils, if fools only folly, if vulgar only vulgarity, if saints sanctity, if heroes heroism. Education is only the most fully conscious of the channels whereby each generation influences the next. It is not a closed system. Nothing which was not in the teachers can flow from them into the pupils. We shall all admit that a man who knows no Greek himself cannot teach Greek to his form [class]: but it is equally certain that a man whose mind was formed in a period of cynicism and disillusion, cannot teach hope or fortitude.”<>mobil rpg game

On October 22, 2013 By Peter Jones In Culture, Wisdom Like

Food and Holiness: Part II

Before I begin my second post on food I wanted to make a note about how we eat in my household. My wife grinds our own wheat. We still eat some white flour, but we also eat a lot of wheat. We go in with some friends and buy, raise, and butcher our own chickens. We joined a CSA this summer where we bought locally grown vegetables. We eat tons of grains, beans, and other whole foods. We grow a small amount of vegetables each year. The amount of processed food in our diet is low. Soda is a special treat, not a normal part of our diet. I think most people would consider us healthy eaters. However, none of this is an indicator of personal righteousness. That is the main point of these posts.

This is the continuation of an article that began here. I will have one more post tomorrow.

Sixth, what you refuse to eat does not make you more holy than someone else. You are not more holy because you refuse to eat white sugar or white flour or buy organic. Paul makes this point in Colossians 2:20-23. Men love to draw unbiblical lines of holiness to separate themselves from others. Paul says these false lines make us look holy and feel holy, but in end they are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. Paul tells us where true holiness comes in Colossians 3, especially verses 5, 8, 12-13. If we worried more about those things mentioned in Colossians 3, sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, and less about what type of flour we are eating or how much fat is in our food we would probably be more holy.

Seventh, it is a doctrine of demons to encourage abstaining from certain foods because you think they are sinful. I Timothy 4:1-5 are clear on this particular point. Teachers were saying you were unholy if ate certain food and got married. Paul denounces these men and calls them the voice of demons. This passage is emphatic and strong. Nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving. If someone doesn’t want to eat meat that is fine. But if they don’t eat meat because they think it is evil they are teaching false doctrine. All things can be eaten, provided they are sanctified by the Word and prayer.

Eighth, a lot of Christians use “the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit” argument from I Corinthians 6:19 to argue for healthy living. However, we must remember that Paul is talking about having sex with a prostitute. So if you think drinking soda, smoking cigarettes, or refusing to exercise is “defiling the temple” then you are saying that these are the equivalent of sleeping with a prostitute. Is that really what you want to say? If not, then temper your language. There may be some downstream application of this verse to our physical well-being, but we should be careful how we use it. This is of the most misused verses in the Bible.

Ninth, to refuse fellowship with another brother over food is a perversion of the Gospel. To divide over organic vs. inorganic, natural vs. processed, meat vs. veggies, hormone free vs. hormones, exercise vs. non-exercise, white vs. wheat, etc. is to deny Christ who has made us one body in the Spirit. We lean towards self-righteousness, which means we lean towards false lines of holiness where we are on the holy side. Food is one of the ways Satan tempts us to look down on other believers. I know food is not usually a barrier between churches, but it is often a barrier between Christians. This denial of fellowship is rarely explicit. We don’t put on our front doors “No short, bald, fat guys allowed.” But with our attitudes, who we like to hang out with, how we talk about fat people, and our treatment of men and women like this we make it clear that thin, healthy people are preferred. Again, I know it can go the other way with fat people looking down on thin. But in our culture that is not the primary temptation.

Tenth, this one will make some people mad, but here goes. Many of the current food fads in Christendom are promoted by women. I am not sure if it has always been the case, but it is now. Most of the best-selling “Christian” exercise books and “Christian” eating books come from women. In my experience as a pastor, this has been the case as well. Certain women gravitate towards strange, unbiblical views on food. Pastors and husbands need to teach the women in their flocks and homes a Biblical perspective on food, health, and exercise.

To Be Continued…

On October 17, 2013 By Peter Jones In Culture, Wisdom Like

Food and Holiness: Part I

Here at Kuyperian we are trying to take every thought captive to Christ. This includes economics, politics and naturally food. Food? Yes, food. Food is a source of great anxiety for our culture. What should we eat, how much should we eat, when should we eat, and where should we eat are all questions we ask. Every week it seems there is new study telling us about the evils of this food or that food. How should we think as Christians when it comes to food? Below is my brief attempt at putting up some guardrails on a road where many are currently driving over the cliff. A couple of notes before I begin:

First, I know there are Christians who flaunt their freedom and eat like pigs because they are “free in Christ.” I know it is possible for the fat person to look down on the thin. However, in the community I live in, our culture, and the Christian world at large that is not the major issue. The bigger issue is holiness by how we eat, dieting, or exercise. That is what I address primarily in these posts. That does not mean I think being a glutton is fine. It just means that the temptation in our culture leans the other way.

Second, I am not saying what we eat is irrelevant. But I am saying it does not matter as much as our culture tells us it does.

Third, each person has to make choices about how they eat and what they eat. I understand this. However, too often our choices become a source of holiness for us and a way of dividing between Christians. I am not saying we should not think about what we eat. I am saying this has very little bearing on our own righteousness and holiness and should not be a source of division in the Body of Christ.

Fourth, there is a lot more that could be said. I do not address feasting, hospitality, drinking good beer (or bad beer) or even how important the simple act of eating together can be. Perhaps in the future I will address some of these.

With those qualifications out of the way, here are my points. I will post more tomorrow.

First, the Old Testament laws about food have been done away with. It is hard to understand what else Acts 10 can mean, especially 10:28. Any Christian who tells you, “Don’t eat pork or shellfish because the Bible forbids it” has failed to understand the New Covenant and is leading you back to the shadows of the Old Covenant. I have heard this from parishioners, from pastors, in conferences, etc. This idea dies a hard death.

Second, the Old Testament food laws were not about health. This idea gets a lot of mileage in our health obsessed culture despite it not being true. It makes men sound holy for being healthy. However, God never uses health language when giving the laws. He tells them to do this because they are to be holy, separate from the nations. (Leviticus 22:26) The OT dietary laws are not a manual on healthy eating. They were a reminder to the Old Testament saints that they are to be separate from the nations. In the New Covenant those OT dietary laws are broken down as God is making one new man out of two. (Ephesians 2:14-18)

Third, two of the major food sins in Scripture are gluttony and drunkenness. We understand drunkenness. But we think gluttony equals being fat or eating too much. However, having an extra piece of pie does not qualify as gluttony, just as having two beers does not qualify as drunkenness. Having some extra pounds on you does not make you a glutton. Gluttony, like drunkenness, is not hard to spot when we know what we are looking for. Primary verses on gluttony are Deuteronomy 21:20 and Proverbs 23:19-21. The picture here is not of someone who overeats and is overweight, but of someone who leads a riotous, drunken life and squanders their money and time. (c.f. Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:34) Gluttony is linked with a particular way of living, especially of wasting resources, sloth, poverty, and often theft. (Mark Horne does a great job explaining gluttony in this article.) My point is simple. Gluttony is a sin, but gluttony is not what most Christians think it is.

Fourth, natural food is not necessarily better than processed food. I understand that a lot of processed food today has been stripped of its nutrient value. However, it is important to not overreact. Nature is fallen just like man. The wheat has felt the effects of sin just like we have. God put us here to take dominion. Just because greedy men tear down what God has created does not mean we should just take nature as it is. We were made by God to take up the things in the world and transform them for our good and for his glory. This means we should be trying to make the wheat better, the cows fatter, and the apples bigger.

Fifth, where your food comes from does not matter that much. As Americans we have been taught that it is our duty to make sure our food does not come from a tainted source such as a corporate chicken farm or an overseas processing plant. But in I Corinthians 8:8 Paul says it is not a sin to eat meat offered to idols. If it is not a sin to eat meat that has been put on an altar, chanted over, and offered up to the gods, then it is not a sin to eat non-organic chickens, produce harvested by underpaid workers, and beef filled with hormones from the packing plant in Iowa. This is an argument from the greater to the lesser. Sometimes this argument is focused around buying locally. We should buy from a local farmer instead of from a corporate farm in California. Other times people cry out that justice demands that we make sure our food comes from a place where the workers are treated rightly. Whatever the argument, Paul’s point in I Corinthians 8:8 effectively blunts it. You can decide not to buy food from a certain place, but don’t make it a sin to when someone else does.

To Be Continued…

<>проверить на вирус

On October 12, 2013 By Peter Jones In Scribblings Like

Peter Jones: Feminism Kills Girls

Here is an interesting little tidbit from that renowned source of all things liberal, The Huffington Post. A pro-life group in England tried to sue because doctors did sex-selective abortions. The parents chose to abort female babies because they wanted boys. Many people were upset, including numerous “health” officials in England. One Andrew Lansley said, “Sex selection is illegal and is morally wrong.” We need to be clear what people are upset about. They are not upset about abortions in general. By at least one poll 70% of those in England support some type of abortion. The health agencies in England are pro-abortion. People are not upset about girls being aborted. There were 196,082 abortions in England in 2011. At least half of these were probably girls. The officials did not get upset or try to prosecute those doctors. No, they are upset about girls being aborted instead of boys. But unfortunately for them the Abortion Act of 1967 (this legalized abortion in England) does not prohibit sex selective abortions. A woman can have an abortion if two doctors agree that an abortion is necessary to prevent grave mental injury to a woman. This phrase is a catch all used to cover most abortions in England. Sex selection is not illegal. So parents can kill all the girls they want so they can have the boys they want.

Sex selection is the natural outcome of the attitude that promotes abortion to start with: personal freedom and choice, which have been hallmarks of the feminist agenda for decades. If someone is pro-choice, but opposes sex selective abortions they are hypocrites. If I can kill my baby, why can I not kill the girl so I can have a boy? If I can be pro-choice with the baby, why I can I not be pro-choice with the sex of the baby? So why the outrage about sex selection in England? When sex selective abortions are allowed it is the girls who get killed, not the boys. England meet China. China meet England. According to this article by 2020 China will have 35 million extra men. What did Chinese parents do when they could only have one child? They killed the girls and kept the boys. No matter what feminists say, it would be the same way in England or anywhere else. They know this so they oppose sex selective abortions when they have no rational reason to do so.

What fruit feminism has wrought! The feminists and those who buy into the feminist agenda by insisting on abortion find themselves throwing women and girls into the grave. Feminism kills girls. And so what was spoken by the wise man has been fulfilled, “All who hate me [God’s wisdom] love death.” (Proverbs 8:36)

<>

On October 11, 2013 By Peter Jones In Culture, Family and Children Like

Charles Hodge on True Education

Marc Hays posted earlier the opinion of three different contemporary writers on Christian education, specifically public school. Here is a quote from an older Christian, Charles Hodge. This comes from his commentary on Ephesians 6:4.

“This whole process of education is to be religious, and not only religious, but Christian. It is the nurture and admonition of the Lord which is the appointed and the only effectual means of attaining the end of education. Where this means is neglected or any other substituted in its place, the result must be disastrous failure. The moral and religious element of our nature is just as essential and as universal as the intellectual. Religion, therefore, is as necessary to the development of the mind as knowledge. And as Christianity is the only true religion, and God in Christ the only true God, the only possible means of profitable education is the nurture and admonition of the Lord. That is, the whole process of instruction and discipline must be that which he prescribes and which he administers, so that his authority should be brought in constant and immediate contact with mind, heart and conscience of the child. It will not do for the parent to present himself as the ultimate end, the source of knowledge and possessor of authority to determine truth and duty. This would be to give his child a mere human development. Nor will it do for him to urge and communicate every thing on the abstract ground of reason; for that would be to merge his child in nature. It is only by making God, God in Christ, the teacher and ruler, on whose authority every thing it so be believed, and in obedience to whose will every thing is to be done, that the ends of education can possibly be attained. It is infinite folly in men to assume to be wiser than God, or to attempt to accomplish an end by other means than those which he has appointed.”

Hodge makes some excellent points in this paragraph, which I would like to draw to your attention.

First, education must include the will and the moral character if it is to be called education at all. I would add that education will always be religious and moral in nature. The only question is will the religion be explicit or hidden. Public schools train our children to worship and form their moral character all the while claiming that they are morally neutral.

Second, God, since he is the only God, is the only right source of education. To try to gain a proper moral formation, that is true education, apart from God is like doing heart surgery with a butter knife.

Third, notice how Hodge says that the child’s heart, mind, and conscience must be brought into constant and immediate contact with God’s authority. This is a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 6:7. Here is why an education that excludes the Lord is a lie and is no education at all. God really does rule the world through His Son Jesus Christ and we really are to trust in Him and obey him and his Word really is the foundation for everything. To eliminate God’s authority from education is to eliminate the primary lesson that is to be learned.

Fourth, God is to set the curriculum. That curriculum is to make our children like their Savior Jesus. That does not eliminate math or science or literature. But it does eliminate math or science or literature without Jesus. This also means that returning some vague, amorphous “god” to public education is insufficient. It must be “God in Christ.”

Fifth, any attempt to educate our children any other way is infinite folly and guaranteed disaster. We cannot eliminate the Creator and the Savior from our education and not also ultimately eliminate wisdom, joy, beauty, truth, and righteousness.

Sixth, many Christians have adopted the mindset that education is primarily about earning a living wage. We get a good education so we can get a good job and earn money. This is insufficient as the end of education. Education’s end is the glory of God through making disciples of his Son Jesus Christ who apply his Word to all of life.

<>java download games

On October 8, 2013 By Peter Jones In Scribblings Like

Peter Jones: What Technology Requires of Us?

I am continuing to read and think about technology and it’s impact on our lives. Here is a quote from Neil Postman’s Technopoly that I thought laid out a wise approach to new technologies. Postman can be alarmist at times, but his evaluation of the way technology has impacted society is helpful. The last phrase in this quote was what struck me.

“Every technology-from an IQ test to an automobile to a television set to a computer-is a product of a particular economic and political context and carries with it a program, an agenda, and a philosophy that may or may not be life-enhancing and that therefore requires scrutiny, criticism, and control.” (p. 184-185)

Often Christians do not spend adequate time doing those last three things that Postman mentions.<>изготовление