About The Gospel

An interesting discussion is taking place at "Heavenly Heartburn"... http://heavenlyheartburn.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/the-heart-of-the-gospel/

Your thoughts?

Preaching Christ

Here, on this blog - http://unashamedofgrace.blogspot.com/2008/09/escalation-and-rhetoric.html#links there is a discussion about what a gospel presentation to a lost person should or should not contain.

Here is my take -

Christ is Prophet, Priest and King. We must present Him to the world as such. His offices must not be broken up. There simply is no scriptural warrant for that. His kingdom is within each believer, and that with God the Holy Spirit, indwelling the believer. This relationship between God the Holy Spirit and the believer is what the kingdom is all about in its present form. Later, at Christ's coming, the kingdom will be in power and judgement. In the mean time the Christian, being a subject of that kingdom, is the outward manifestation of God's rule to a lost and rebellious world; a world that has broken God's bonds, and cast away His cords; a world that loves sin, and hates its Maker.


You see, in placing so very much emphasis on a future millenial kingdom the FGer has changed the whole Biblical character of the Christian. Old line dispy's present the Gospel as a ticket to Heaven while the Bible presents a much more comprehensive picture than that. The Gospel results in the indwelling of the Spirit, death to sin, slavery to Christ, conformity to Christ - sanctification - and on to glorification. Ryrie, says that since practical sanctification is not listed in the unbreakable chain in Romans 8:29-30 that it (practical sanctification) must not be vital to the salvation experience. What a terrible mistake. I guess that is what happens when one's system thrives by fragmenting the Word of God.

Worn Out

I've had four operations across both of my knees. One of the two operations on my left knee left me with some very limited mobility there. I can not fully bend it nor can I fully straighten it, meaning I walk with some what of a limp. And, depending on the weather, that limp can be worse some days than others.

There was a time when I could walk great distances, even after the operations, but, no longer. My old job demanded that I would walk literally miles a day. It too was a plating job where I had to walk the work over to many tanks in the plating process.

Now, however, the effects of those operations are taking their toll. My left knee is deteriorating and needs to be replaced. As a result of my limp my back is always out of place. It is becoming harder and harder to even sit in a chair for any longer than ten minutes.

I am now concerned about all of this. I'm beginning to worry that I will no longer be able to do my job in the not too distant future. There are some days where walking is just down right unpleasant.

Lord, I put this situation into your hands.

The Silent Scream

I urge you to watch this video. My wife watched it while involved in pro- life causes.

Here it is...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THS2zZ4m260


Mark

A Well Thought Out Answer On Abortion

The following post was taken from this comment thread...https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=17893637&postID=2853283921249641121

(Well done , Rosemary Cole)

I have some further thoughts on your comments regarding fetuses.

I asked:They are human. If not, what are they?

You answered:"A question for the philosophers. I would proffer "potentially human"."

I hope you don't mind if I comment on your answer.

Firstly, I don't think it is a philosophical question at all. I think it has a basic, scientific answer. Let's think about this together.

1. Is the fetus human?

2. Is the fetus alive?

1. I don't think I have ever heard the abortion advocates use the phrase "potentially human" - they say it is a "potential life." It can't be argued that a fetus is not human any more that arguing that your index finger is not human... or that a piece of your brain is not human. Fetuses are human.

2. Fetuses are alive. They kick, they grasp, they grow. But then one might argue that sperm are human... and they are alive... they "swim" for pity's sake. However, sperm are not alive in the same sense as a fetus because sperm do not grow and they do not have the correct number of chromosones to be called a person. Without changing form completely by joining with an egg, they cannot ever be a human being, they are not complete - they are properly called "cells" of the father - just as an egg is "cells" of the mother. (I would say they both have a lot of potential, though!)

Back to fetuses: they don't breathe. Which brings me to consider your next comment:

"However until such time as they are "birthable" (i.e. capable of independent life outside the uterus) they are not babies "

I note that you use the word "independant life" - does this include independence from breathing apparatuses? (sp)

I have a real problem with your "independant life" stipulation to consider them babies. What of all the people who are dependant on medical measures to live - they are not capable of "independent life" either.

Try a thought experiment: Think of a mother on the birthing table at full term, normal pregnancy. Is that a baby in the birth canal? You know it is. Now go back a week. Is it still a baby? Carry this on for a while. Where does it become not a baby? How far back in the development of the nine months do we go to declare it is not a baby? I have heard doctors of OB/Gyn who have become anti-abortion, changing their mind from pro-abortion, and they say that this thought experiment is what brought them to be against abortion. They know that development of the human fetus is a smooth continuum. There isn't a "bar mitzvah" in the womb - no great change from one thing to another - it is all very gradual - and so impossible to pinpoint a day, or week, that the fetus changes into a human being, into that baby in the birth canal and the day and week before birth etc.... The "big bang" days are conception and birth.

We have to pick one of these:

1. conception
or
2. birth

to answer the question of 'when life begins' ...if we want to be reasonably logical.

If we say that 2. birth is when this thing becomes a person, then it is totally logical that abortion should be allowed during all nine months of pregnancy and it should be without moral trepidation. The people that advocate that partial-birth abortion is OK are actually being consistent with their belief that BIRTH makes someone a person.

On the other hand, if we say that 1. conception is when life begins, then that brings obvious implications with it and a drain on the idea that abortion is OK and without moral consequence.

Now, if you hold that birth is when the fetus becomes human or a person, why do you say that abortion is thing that ought to be avoided at all costs?

One more thing: You said calling this a baby is: "emotive and sentimental (even manipulate) language."

When I was pregnant with our fourth child a couple of years ago and my other kids were 6, 8 and 10, they looked at the 20 week ultrasound and they said it was a "baby." It is common to call what comes out of the womb a "baby". I don't think this is emotive language. It is consistent with the view that life begins sometime before birth.

I think using the word "fetus" in lay discussions evolved in these last decades to avoid guilt over the fact that people knew that the mother on the delivery table (in my thought experiment) is delivering a "baby."

Abortion

Monday, September 8, 2008

by Bobby Grow

Gross Immorality: Christians, Candidates, and Abortion
We are back in the political season once again, and of course we are faced with a set of questions relative to the presidential candidate that we think should govern our country for the next four years. I think one of the deciding questions that one must have answered about the candidate is how he or she views the issue of abortion. For the Christian abortion does not just represent one among many questions that need to be answered, rather given the Christian tradition on the sanctity of life, how a particular candidate stands on this issue must be determinative of how the Christian will vote for a particular candidate.

I digress, what I really want to do in this post is simply describe a few of the methods used to abort babies. I think people in general, and Christian people in particular have become desensitized to the horrors represented by the methodology of abortion. I will let the Fienberg brothers describe a few methods of abortion, and maybe at a later date have them describe a few more for us.

Here we go:
Several different methods are used in performing abortions. One is dilation and curettage (D. & C.). This is one of the two preferred methods for aborting a fetus during the first trimester of pregnancy. The mother's cervix is dilated, and the surgeon inserts an instrument to scrape the wall of the uterus, cutting the baby's body to pieces and removing the placenta from its place in the uterine wall.

Suction is the other preferred method of abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. According to some estimates, it is used in 80% of these abortions. It is often used in conjunction with D. & C. The cervix is dilated, and a suction tube is inserted into the womb. The suction tears both the baby and his or her placenta from the uterus, sucking them into a jar. The force of the suction is 28 times stronger than a normal vacuum cleaner. With both methods mentioned so far, it is possible to identify human arms, hands and legs.

Saline injection is the most commonly practiced method of abortion during the second trimester. Neither D. & C. nor suction can be practiced during the second trimester because of the danger of hemorrhaging. By the fourth month of pregnancy the water bag or placenta has developed. A long needle is inserted through the mother's abdomen into this sac surrounding the baby, and some of the fluid is removed and replaced with a solution of concentrated salt. The baby breathes in and swallows the salt, and is poisoned by it. Often the outer layer of skin is burned off. With saline injection there are osmotic pressure changes in the fetus, causing brain hemorrhages. It takes about an hour for the solution to slowly kill the baby. About a day later the mother goes into labor and delivers a dead, shriveled baby. (John S. Fienberg and Paul D. Fienberg, "Ethics for a Brave New World," 51- 2)

By describing a few methods of abortion I am hoping to rattle some of those Christians out there who seem to think that this issue, or at least to focus on this issue alone as determinative for choosing a presidential candidate, is too narrow minded; should think again.If there was a presidential candidate who supported the killing, in the manners described above, of infants and babes outside of the womb; it would be a no-brainer, no one in their right mind would support such a candidate. It is incumbent upon any Christian who believes that voting for a pro-abortion presidential candidate is a viable option, to demonstrate that there is any moral difference between infanticide and abortion.
Posted by Bobby Grow at 2:21 AM

Obama's sick economic plan!

Barack Obama said the following back in May………

“We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,"

Hmmm, we must seek the approval of other countries and if they don’t say O.K., we will have to give up our SUVs, go hungry, and give government power over our thermostats. I believe Kerry called this lunacy meeting the global test. Evidently in these people’s eyes we should submit to a coercive global government and reduce our prosperity to the world average to be kind and fair. Can you imagine the world-view one must have to make such a statement. Actually I can. It sounds like a statement that would come directly from a sermon by Obama's pastor, Jermiah Wright.

No, Mr. Obama! The solution is to bring freedom and capitalism to the rest of the world so they can raise their prosperity. Destroying the American economic system is not the answer. The danger of believing the manipulated global warming hysteria is displayed here for all to see.

Political Cartoons

Conservative And Proud Of It!

http://www.johnmccain.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om2gNE48gDI

Time to circle the wagons, Christians!

Life In A Machine Tool Shop

Big meeting yesterday at work. I was told that my new hours will be 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM, with 3 days on, 2 off, 2 on, 2 off, and back to 3 on; meaning weekends are part of the normal work week.

Sleep, family life, social life... Oh well...

Good Times

Into a Conservative's life a little good must fall...

Well, well, the "Air America" oulet in my home town, AM 950, WROC, has dropped Air America programming in favor of ESPN sports.

I am enjoying this, muchly! In fact I'm rolling on the floor with glee.

Then, to top things off, MSNBC bounces Keith Olbermann from the political desk.

Ahhh, there is some fun during an election year after all.

Oh yeah, this all happened in the same year that Hillary got beat in the primaries.

Wonderful!

Somebody I Have Come To Admire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

Rock on, Sarah!

A New Link?

I want to go on record that I appreciate the work of Bock and Blaising in their book "Progressive Dispensationalism". I enjoyed that book very much. I enjoyed their treating God's dealings in the OT covenants as one organic whole, and that of progressive revelation, all finding fulfillment in Christ.

That said, however, I still find dispensationalism, at least the classic version of it, a plague on Christianity. In that light I am thinking of adding a new link on my sidebar. Here is the link...
http://www.againstdispensationalism.com/

Happy reading.
Mark

Down With Vista

Once again it took exactly one half hour for this computer to boot up today.

Will it boot up at all tomorrow? Who knows.

Is this any way to run a blog? "Geek Squad" has told me that it isn't anything that $300.00 won't fix. With two in college I don't have that kind of money. Therefore I must leave the comments restricted for now. (not that anybody is all that interested in commenting. :-) ).

Oh, and that "Vista" thingy? This is the second time in six months that I've had major problems with it.

Stay with XP!

DOWN WITH VISTA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A Come Back Of Sorts

Well, as I watch the sitemeter dwindle to nothing I figure it's time to post a little something. I simply hate watching the sitemeter do that. O well. It is time to rebuild. Some readers will come back, some won't. That's reality.

These past several days I've toyed with the idea of deleting this blog. Then I thought that I would grow to regret such a move in a very short while, so I canned that idea.

So now what?

Thinking back over these nearly three years I guess I must conclude that there truely is nothing new under the sun. I've been involved in discussions about LS/Calvinism on both this my blog as well as on many other blogs. The Free Gracers have seen all of my arguments as I have seen all of theirs. What new ground is there to cover.

Does that mean that I will no longer go into that subject again?

Well, let's consider some things: Though I am actively collecting the works of Ryrie ( I have his study Bible as well as "So Great Salvation" - which I have read cover to cover - I am going to used book shops to see what of his works I can find there - I now have two kids in college so my finances are limited ) Yet I still hate classic, or "normative" dispensationalism, and its evil little daughter, Free Grace Theology.

Again, Does that mean that I will no longer go into that subject again?

FAT CHANCE!!!

A system that separates the Promises from the Person of Christ simply MUST be opposed, and vigorously so.

Christ is Prophet, Priest and King. We must present Him to the world as such. His offices must not be broken up. There simply is no scriptural warrant for that. His kingdom is within each believer, and that with God the Holy Spirit, indwelling the believer. This relationship between God the Holy Spirit and the believer is what the kingdom is all about in its present form. Later, at Christ's coming, the kingdom will be in power and judgement. In the mean time the Christian, being a subject of that kingdom, is the outward manifestation of God's rule to a lost and rebellious world; a world that has broken God's bonds, and cast away His cords; a world that loves sin, and hates its Maker.

In placing so very much emphasis on a future millenial kingdom the dispy has changed the whole Biblical character of the Christian. Old line dispy's present the Gospel as a ticket to Heaven while the Bible presents a much more comprehensive picture than that. The Gospel results in the indwelling of the Spirit, death to sin, slavery to Christ, conformity to Christ - sanctification - and on to glorification. Ryrie, as does Kendall, who is not a dispy, btw, says that since practical sanctification is not listed in the unbreakable chain in Romans 8:29-30 that it must not be vital to the salvation experience. What a terrible mistake. I guess that is what happens when one's system thrives by fragmenting the Word of God.

Well, enough for now.
Mark