Another reason why I love Macs!!! This is truly revolutionary for our time and age, though it doesn't take care of the issue itself, it gives the consumer an opportunity to make wiser decisions and a better option. Read on!
Steve Jobs Takes a Stand – AMEN
Every once in a while you come across a profound statement made by a prominent leader that makes you realize that there are still great people in the world today. Steve Jobs, the CEO of Apple put his entire reputation on the line by taking a very bold stand regarding the issue of pornography and the decision to block all sites from any of his products. In a world filled with people who would criticize this move and label him a narrow-minded, free speech control freak, I would like to go on the record publicly as saying, “You have got my loyalty and respect!” Here are some thoughts taken from Breakpoint’s website:
Jobs has made it clear that he wants to keep pornography off Apple products as much as possible. Obviously Apple can’t control everything its users do, but it can make porn scarcer on its products, and it has done just that.
A British newspaper, The Guardian,reports, “So insistent is Apple [on this policy], many magazine publishers developing ‘apps’ for the new iPad . . . have had to self-censor.”
As you might expect, this has triggered a frenzy among some critics. Ryan Tate, a writer for the Gawker website, sniped at Jobs about suppressing his customers’ “freedom,” prompting Jobs to respond, “Yep, freedom from programs that steal your private data. Freedom from programs that trash your battery. Freedom from porn. Yep, freedom.”
When Tate replied that he didn’t want “freedom from porn,” Jobs answered, “You might care more about porn when you have kids.” In a correspondence with a consumer, Jobs went even further, speaking of his company’s “moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.”
How refreshing it is to see someone who actually gets it—that yes, there are those of us who prefer to be free from the storm of smut that assaults us from every television, computer, and phone screen. The supply of pornographic material is so overwhelming that access to it is certainly not an issue of “freedom” anymore, if it ever was.
Jobs has pointed out that people who want to see porn on their phones, and who want easier access to it on their computers, can easily get all they want if they buy other companies’ products. But as he said in a press conference, “That’s a place we don’t want to go—so we’re not going to go there.”
What Jobs seems to understand, and what his critics seem to be ignoring, is that there’s so much more to pornography than just issues of economics or free speech. It shouldn’t even need to be explained, but apparently for some people it does: Pornography is an ugly, poisonous, degrading business for everyone involved, whether they’re making it, using it, or selling it.
As my colleague Kim Moreland recently mentioned on our blog, The Point, new studies are demonstrating yet again just how dangerous and addictive it can be. It tears at the fabric of marriages and families and of society itself. Its use is connected from everything to higher divorce rates to human trafficking to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Aside from the occasional reference to protecting kids (which is enough), Steve Jobs didn’t go thoroughly into the reasons for his policy. But for whatever reason, he truly is demonstrating corporate responsibility, the kind that we desperately need more businesses to show in this sex-obsessed society.
May he continue to stand by his principles, and may his tribe increase.
I'm posting a research paper, from a brother who I share my views with, this essay is serious business. However, I will first post a video that will surely tug your heart!! Enjoy!
Children are Priority
The Defense of Marriage Act is a good law in that the federal government of the United States legally upheld the sacredness of traditional marriage which is the foundation for family life. Traditional marriage has been historically proven to be the most successful system for proper child development. While same-sex marriage is the primary focus for the legal war that is being waged between gay rights activists and proponents of traditional marriage, an arguably more significant bi-product of this conflict is the implications towards the legality of same-sex adoption. Though the conflict over the future of gay marriage is significant enough as an isolated issue, the struggle is exponentially more significant than just consensual adults seeking legal recognition. The future of same-sex marriage will be the catalyst for the future of same-sex adoption. Where legislation regarding same-sex marriage must carefully consider the rights and social ambitions of the couple, legislation that would also govern adoption should always be tailored towards the best interest of the child and not the interests of prospective parents. There is a higher likelihood that children adopted by same-sex couples will suffer parental death. There is a higher likelihood that children adopted by same-sex couples will face developmental challenges as a result of being fatherless or motherless. Certainly children adopted by same-sex couples are the subject of a hasty cultural experimentation. Because of these reasons, same-sex adoption is not an adequate solution for natural and healthy child development. Without The Defense of Marriage Act, there would be no ability for individual states to restrict same-sex adoption.
According to a collaborative study put out by the International Journal of Epidemiology, the life expectancy of a homosexual man ranges from 34.0 years to 46.3 years, a full 20 years less than the life expectancy of a heterosexual man. (p. 657-62). One possible cause for such a discrepancy between the life expectancy of homosexual and heterosexual men is the high rate of HIV infection among homosexuals. According to the US Center for Disease Control, “approximately 56,300 people were newly infected with HIV in 2006...; [fifty-three percent] of these new infections occurred in gay and bisexual men (CDC).” In 2008, at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's (NGLTF) national conference, a well-known gay rights activist named Matt Foreman gave a speech in which he stated, “With 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi (sexual), we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease." (par. 30). According to a study conducted by Dr. Paul Cameron, homosexual women, similar to their male counterparts, die young with the median age of death being 44 years old. (par. 10). Because of the drastically high mortality rate of middle-aged homosexuals, children who are adopted by homosexual parents are placed at a much higher risk of losing a parent to death. No child should be given to a couple of whom one will likely die before their child reaches adulthood.
Though many homosexual individuals would make loving care-takers, as a family unit, same-sex couples cannot provide a complete and natural nucleus for children. Children adopted by same-sex couples are by default either fatherless or motherless. Nature has designed families to consist of a child being raised by a biological mother and father. In an article of a Washington Times’ publication, author and professor of social and political ethics, Jean Bethke Elshtain explains the importance of traditional parenting: There are big conceptual and historical issues here. There are also simple, humble truths. The humble truth is that every child needs and deserves the love and provision of caring adults in a relationship that perdures. The committed, two-married-parent family is the best environment we know anything about in which to rear children. (par. 10) As Elshtain explains, a stable, two-parent upbringing fosters healthy children. Same-sex couples cannot offer a child both a father and mother. Adopted families should reflect the most basic natural needs of a child. Countless studies have shown that children who are either without a father or without a mother are strikingly more prone to psychological disorder, criminal activity and many other sociological problems.
Records of human civilization date back thousands of years. These surviving records detail how many past societies have reached progressive levels of social and scientific development. It is known that many ancient societies achieved advanced scientific understanding, impressive mathematical and astronomical precision, sincere piety and religious practice, enlightened philosophy that laid the foundation for modern thinking habits, and intricate social structure. Many aspects of modern culture were built upon these ancient ways of life. Despite all the information that has been gathered about these past societies, there has not been any evidence discovered that would indicate the existence of same-sex marriage, same-sex parenting or any form of same-sex family structure. Historically, no society has ever developed, much less sanctioned the concept same-sex marriage or same-sex adoption and parenting. The summary of The Defense of Marriage Act accurately states, “What has been understood under federal law for over [two-hundred] years: that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.” (par. 4). The United States’ historical understanding of marriage simply reflects how marriage was defined throughout all of world history, both recent and ancient alike. It is only within the past quarter of a century that same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting have become widespread concepts. The idea of same-sex parenting is not only revolutionary to near modern society; it is revolutionary to all known aspects of all known social structures to ever exist. Elshtain says, “All societies have a stake in the creation and sustaining of norms surrounding sexuality, child rearing, and other vital human activities.” (par. 9). Same-sex parenting is a first of this kind of social undertaking that places children, society’s future, as the subjects experimentation. The rights and desires of homosexual couples must take a back seat to the needs and well-being of the children. For it is the well-being of the children that will translate into the well-being of the civilization.
Some who favor same-sex adoption may argue that it is better for an orphaned child to be adopted by gay parents than to never be adopted. Why then are there restrictions in place for who can and who cannot adopt? Why would not that same reason apply to other sub-par homes for the orphaned children? Traditional couples who are older and closer to death are typically not eligible to adopt. Paul Cameron says, “Adoption agencies will seldom permit a couple in their late 40s or 50s to adopt a child because of the risk of parental death.” (par. 10). Just as older, higher risk heterosexual couples are rightly restricted from adopting, so should the high risk of homosexual life restrict same-sex couples from adopting because of the probability of parental death for the adopted child. It is often determinative for adoption agencies to deny adoption to a fatherless or motherless family; it should be equally determinative against fatherless or motherless same-sex homes. Despite the reduced number of eligible families who can adopt, the standard must be determined based on the well-being and development of a child, not based on convenience. Standards for child safety must trump personal desires of the prospective parents, even same -sex couples.
With marriage and family as an anchor for the development of individuals, the society of humankind has grown and thrived for thousand of generations. Throughout history, traditional marriage has remained the root of family success and children the fruit. A system that fosters social stability, procreates offspring, and was given to man by nature should not be anxiously uprooted, redesigned or redefined in the name of cultural acceptance. Though the protection of society and the advocacy for the well-being of children may be misunderstood as bigotry, the American culture must not yield to special interests or personal desires over what is morally and socially best. The Marriage Defense Act served to protect the sanctity of marriage, and esteem marriage as a uniquely defined sacred system on which society is built. This is why the Act is and good. Society must continue to thrive for thousands more generations.
written by Phil Barry
Works Cited Hogg RS, Strathdee SA, Craib KJP, O'Shaughnessy MV, Montaner JSG, Schechter MT. Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay men. International Journal of Epidemiology 1997;26(3):657–61 Hall, Irene H., Ruiguang Song, and Philip Rhodes. "HIV Incidence Estimate." Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA., 2008. Web. 05 Apr. 2010. . Foreman, Matt. "State of the Movement." National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Detriot. 8 Feb. 2008. Web. “The Defense of Marriage Act.” Summary of the Act: Congress of the United States,1996. 371-72. Print. Elshtain, Jean Bethke. "Reflections on the Family at Millennium's Beginning." World & I March 2000: 312-323. SIRS Researcher. Web. 05 April 2010. Cameron, Paul, and Perrin, Ellen C. “Q: Does Adoption by Gay or Lesbian Couples Put American Children…” Insight on the News 22 Apr 2002: 40-43. SIRS Researcher. Web. 05 April 2010.
Lord, I know that when things aren't happening in my own backyard, it's easier to respond and to say how we should be responding and what we ought to do. As I watch the coverage on the Tragedy in Haiti, I beat myself up for not picking up and going, I make all the excuses for not following through, but YOU truly know my heart, and whether or not I am sincere. I wish I can build the courage and support to go, deny self, which would require sacrificing family and more, I wish I could. I worship you in the midst of misery, tragedy and hurt. And I am not even there, I can't imagine those at the forefront, Lord have mercy! Send the workers, with YOUR GOSPEL!
All praise to the name of the savior who reigns. He’s taken our blame, embraced all our shame, He’s raised from the grave so his fame we proclaim. Salvation by grace through faith in his name.
All praise to the name of the savior who reigns. He’s taken our blame, embraced all our shame, He’s raised from the grave so his fame we proclaim. Salvation by grace through faith in his name.
Jesus, the beautiful and blessed Son, Immutable, majestic one Who was resurrected from the grave for the depraved. He paved the path for some Place faith in His passion, son Be saved from the wrath to come.
He’s fabulous, His status is immaculate I’m lacking the vernacular to adequately capture His glory. Incomparable, unconquerable, all powerful, unstoppable Absolutely phenomenal.
No obstacle He can’t navigate. He’s God and so He fascinates. With Him it’s impossible to exaggerate.
Lord of all continents, Source of all consciousness, His compliments are the consequence of His accomplishments Every sphere of life, He’s the Lord of it And every other power is either fraudulent or subordinate.
At first we snubbed Him, Now His vessels of mercy love Him. Your highest thought is infinitely unworthy of Him. Beyond vocabulary His actions vary, His wrath is scary All His adversaries are imaginary.
He has no competitors. Ask Nebuchadnezzar, bro He’ll mess you up, have you eating grass, You can bet He’s amazing.
He takes in blatant, flagrant vagrants, breaks them, remakes them, and shapes them to hate sin.
Jesus! There’s no better name! That’ll never change and He’ll forever reign while we spread His fame.
So all praise to the name of the Savior who reigns He’s taken our blame Embraced all our shame He’s raised from the grave so His fame we proclaim Salvation by grace through faith in His name!
All praise to the name of the Savior who reigns He’s taken our blame Embraced all our shame He’s raised from the grave so His fame we proclaim Salvation by grace through faith in His name!
I say that I hate to put it up now, cause I dont really want to bump ENOCK's Memorial from the top spot, but this VIDEO is so moving, I had to post it up! C-Lite was a former TRUCE member, actually probably still part of TRUCE, I dont even know if they are or not a group any longer. Bt anyways, it features Sheena Lee As an Actress and singer and David Ham as an Actor, very moving video, definitely worth the mention and post!! Peep it enjoy, and definitely CHECK OUT ENOCK'S MEMORIAL TOO!!
Check out C-Lite's SITE right here! He has a mix-tape available for free, peep it, its cool! The download link is in the MEDIA section of his site, under AUDIO!
This past weekend I got to see a bunch Christian Artists in Concert, it started with Reach Records "Dont Waste Your Life Tour" on Friday at Christian Tabernacle, my son and I went, it was a lot of fun, and I gotta say that I saw the Gospel being played out through a series of songs throughout the Concert, it was awesome!! I love the theme of the whole concert, its a concept! If you can catch em near you do so!! Check dates and locations here!!
We also went to Jones Beach on Saturday and Sunday for some FREE Concerts, we got to see Michelle Bonilla, P.O.D. (though I am not a fan of them), KUTLESS, Delirious, Jars of Clay, and The Dont Waste Your Life Team Again!! It was absolutely an awesome weekend, full of entertainment and Ministry!! My wife and daughter came out to the Jones Beach portion of the Concerts, and we had a great time, just like the old days!!
Moving Along... I love the comparison my Bruh is doing here, he is on to something, I know a lot of people not gonna like what he got to say, however, The truth hurts, right?? Check it!!
This is Passion for Christ Ministries doing a great segment on the subject of Homosexuality!! Check it!!
Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, came down from heaven to become a human being. His mission - to take care of the greatest need men have - to save them from the wrath of God. He did this by His perfect life, death and resurrection from the grave. He offers this salvation freely to every man - by commanding them to repent of their sins and believe into/upon Him as their only hope for salvation from that wrath.
Could Rob Bell have said that? I don't think so! Could he have been more ambiguous?? Of Course this whole Emergent Movement survives off Ambiguity!!
The following is a Blog posting from Voddie Baucham (who by the way is an awesome preacher) on the same isuue, read on...
Homosexual Marriage Agenda Infects Miss USA Pageant
Miss California, Carrie Prejean, walked into a trap set by homosexual marriage advocate Perez Hilton during the Miss USA Pageant. According to a report by the Daily Mail, Hilton, enraged by Prejean’s intolerance, called Prejean a “dumb b@*#h”. He went on to “describe [her] as having 'half a brain.' and said he would have stormed on the stage and ripped off her tiara if she had won.” Of course his actions would have fallen within the confines of the tolerance regime of the homosexual marriage movement because those who reject homosexual marriage are disqualified, and thus fair game for any acts of intolerance, discrimination, or even violence.
Let me say that I am no fan of the Miss USA Pageant (or beauty pageants in general). However, I think it is very important to see where all of this is going. According to people “in-the-know” Prejean, who was one of the favorites in the competition, ruined any chance of winning the crown when she failed to give the politically correct answer to Hilton’s question. Of course, the more fundamental question is why was HIlton there in the first place? What does a homosexual blogger have to do with a beauty pageant? He doesn’t even like girls. Supposedly, he is not attracted to women at all. What was he judging? Miss USA (unlike the Miss America pageant) has no “talent” portion of the competition. This pageant is pure soft porn sexploitation. So why was he there? Simple. He was there as a nod to the homosexual movement. He was there because when the homosexual community sneezes the entertainment industry catches a cold.
Prejean’s answer was cumbersome at best, but the gist of it was clear (you try giving a defense of marriage on the spot in front of lights, cameras, and thousands of people staring at your cleavage and legs through your provocative ball gown and trying their best to recall the mental image of your all-but-naked body gliding across the stage in the swimsuit segment of the competition):
'Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.'
She continued: 'And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.
'No offence to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.'
Nevertheless, she got her point across, and Hilton was none too pleased. Unfortunately, anyone who works in corporate America (or the school system, or the government, etc., etc., etc.) knows this story all too well. Give the wrong answer on the homosexual marriage issue and there’s hell to pay. And of course, “hell hath no fury like a [LGBTQ] scorned.”
VB
Disclaimer by Voddie: For those of you who have been wondering why I’ve written so many posts on the homosexual marriage issue, allow me to explain. 1) This is a pivotal issue in the forefront of our current cultural debate, 2) the homosexual agenda has piggybacked on the Civil Rights movement and is using the black community as cover, thus requiring a response from black writers, thinkers and preachers who have not bought the lie, and 3) I am working on a book on the subject and have been overwhelmed by the avalanche of headline material. This issue truly is ubiquitous.
--End of Voddie's Post--
Ima repeat what I said before Perez you are an IDIOT!!! I truly hope God will have mercy on you and therefore grant you the gift of repentance!!
With that said, its interesting the direction this world is going into, with Patterson on the verge of getting what he wants for same sex marriage here in NY, to a President with the same agenda, even though he said otherwise through the campaigning, interesting time ahead particularly for us Believers of Jesus Christ!!
And for the record, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman, and nothing else! If I offend you by my statement, dont ask me if I care cause I dont!
Here's the end of the prior article I posted concerning Charles "The Heretic" Finney!
But if you want to read the first part of this series CLICK HERE!!
CON'T Part 2 We will return to Finney's doctrine of justification, but it must be noted that it rests upon a denial of the doctrine of original sin. Held by both Roman Catholics and Protestants, this biblical teaching insists that we are all born into this world inheriting Adam's guilt and corruption. We are, therefore, in bondage to a sinful nature. As someone has said, 'We sin because we're sinners': the condition of sin determines the acts of sin, rather than vice versa. But Finney followed Pelagius, the 5th-century heretic, who was condemned by more church councils than any other person in church history, in denying this doctrine.
Instead, Finney believed that human beings were capable of choosing whether they would be corrupt by nature or redeemed, referring to original sin as an 'anti-scriptural and nonsensical dogma' (p. 179). In clear terms, Finney denied the notion that human beings possess a sinful nature (ibid.). Therefore, if Adam leads us into sin, not by our inheriting his guilt and corruption, but by following his poor example, this leads logically to the view of Christ, the Second Adam, as saving by example. This is precisely where Finney takes it, in his explanation of the atonement.
The first thing we must note about the atonement, Finney says, is that Christ could not have died for anyone else's sins than his own. His obedience to the law and his perfect righteousness were sufficient to save him, but could not legally be accepted on behalf of others. That Finney's whole theology is driven by a passion for moral improvement is seen on this very point: 'If he [Christ] had obeyed the Law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non of our salvation?' (p. 206). In other words, why would God insist that we save ourselves by our own obedience if Christ's work was sufficient? The reader should recall the words of St. Paul in this regard, 'I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.' It would seem that Finney's reply is one of agreement. The difference is, he has no difficulty believing both of those premises.
That is not entirely fair, of course, because Finney did believe that Christ died for something--not for someone--but for something. In other words, he died for a purpose, but not for people. The purpose of that death was to reassert God's moral government and to lead us to eternal life by example, as Adam's example excited us to sin. Why did Christ die? God knew that 'The atonement would present to creatures the highest possible motives to virtue. Example is the highest moral influence that can be exerted...If the benevolence manifested in the atonement does not subdue the selfishness of sinners, their case is hopeless' (p. 209). Therefore, we are not helpless sinners who need to be redeemed, but wayward sinners who need a demonstration of selflessness so moving that we will be excited to leave off selfishness. Not only did Finney believe that the 'moral influence' theory of the atonement was the chief way of understanding the cross; he explicitly denied the substitutionary atonement, which '...assumes that the atonement was a literal payment of a debt, which we have seen does not consist with the nature of the atonement...It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of anyone' (p. 217).
Then there is the matter of applying redemption. Throwing off the Calvinistic orthodoxy of the older Presbyterians and Congregationalists, Finney argued strenuously against the belief that the new birth is a divine gift, insisting that 'regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness to love or benevolence,' as moved by the moral influence of Christ's moving example (p. 224). 'Original or constitutional sinfulness, physical regeneration, and all their kindred and resulting dogmas, are alike subversive of the gospel, and repulsive to the human intelligence' (p. 236).
Having nothing to do with original sin, a substitutionary atonement, and the supernatural character of the new birth, Finney proceeds to attack 'the article by which the church stands or falls'--justification by grace alone through faith alone.
The Protestant Reformers insisted, on the basis of clear biblical texts, that justification (in the Greek,'to declare righteous,' rather than 'to make righteous') was a forensic (i.e., 'legal') verdict. In other words, whereas Rome maintained that justification was a process of making a bad person better, the Reformers argued that it was a declaration or pronouncement that had someone else's righteousness (i.e., Christ's) as its basis. Therefore, it was a perfect, once-and-for-all verdict of right-standing at the beginning of the Christian life, not in the middle or at the end.
The key words in the evangelical doctrine are 'forensic' (meaning 'legal') and 'imputation' (crediting one's account, as opposed to the idea of 'infusion' of a righteousness within a person's soul). Knowing all of this, Finney declares,
But for sinners to be forensically pronounced just, is impossible and absurd...As we shall see, there are many conditions, while there is but one ground, of the justification of sinners...As has already been said, there can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law. This is of course denied by those who hold that gospel justification, or the justification of penitent sinners, is of the nature of a forensic or judicial justification. They hold to the legal maxim that what a man does by another he does by himself, and therefore the law regards Christ's obedience as ours, on the ground that he obeyed for us.
To this, Finney replies:
The doctrine of an imputed righteousness, or that Christ's obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption.' After all, Christ's righteousness 'could do no more than justify himself. It can never be imputed to us...It was naturally impossible, then, for him to obey in our behalf.' This 'representing of the atonement as the ground of the sinner's justification has been a sad occasion of stumbling to many' (pp. 320-322).
The view that faith is the sole condition of justification is 'the antinomian view,' Finney asserts. 'We shall see that perseverance in obedience to the end of life is also a condition of justification.' Furthermore, 'present sanctification, in the sense of present full consecration to God, is another condition...of justification. Some theologians have made justification a condition of sanctification, instead of making sanctification a condition of justification. But this we shall see is an erroneous view of the subject' (pp. 326-327). Each act of sin requires 'a fresh justification' (p. 331). Referring to 'the framers of the Westminster Confession of faith,' and their view of an imputed righteousness, Finney wonders, 'If this is not antinomianism, I know not what is' (p. 332). This legal business is unreasonable to Finney, so he concludes, 'I regard these dogmas as fabulous, and better befitting a romance than a system of theology' (p. 333). He concludes in this section against the Westminster Assembly:
The relations of the old school view of justification to their view of depravity is obvious. They hold, as we have seen, that the constitution in every faculty and part is sinful. Of course, a return to personal, present holiness, in the sense of entire conformity to the law, cannot with them be a condition of justification. They must have a justification while yet at least in some degree of sin. This must be brought about by imputed righteousness. The intellect revolts at a justification in sin. So a scheme is devised to divert the eye of the law and of the lawgiver from the sinner to his substitute, who has perfectly obeyed the law (p. 339).
This he calls 'another gospel.' Insisting that Paul's rather realistic account of the Christian life in Romans 7 actually refers to the apostle's life before he had experienced 'entire sanctification,' Finney surpasses Wesley in arguing for the possibility of complete holiness in this life. John Wesley maintained that it is possible for a believer to attain full sanctification, but when he recognized that even the holiest Christians sin, he accommodated his theology to this simple empirical fact. He did this by saying that this experience of 'Christian perfection' was a matter of the heart, not of actions. In other words, a Christian may be perfected in love, so that love is now the sole motivation for one's actions, while occasionally making mistakes. Finney rejects this view and insists that justification is conditioned on complete and total perfection--that is, 'conformity to the law of God entire,' and not only is the believer capable of this; when he or she transgresses at any point, a fresh justification is required.
As the Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield pointed out so eloquently, there are two religions throughout history: Heathenism--of which Pelagianism is a religious expression--and supernatural redemption. And with Warfield and those who so seriously warned their brothers and sisters of these errors among Finney and his successors, we too must come to terms with the wildly heterodox strain in American Protestantism. With roots in Finney's revivalism, perhaps evangelical and liberal Protestantism are not that far apart after all. His 'New Measures,' like today's church growth movement, made human choices and emotions the center of the church's ministry, ridiculed theology, and replaced the preaching of Christ with the preaching of conversion.
It is upon Finney's naturalistic moralism that the Christian political and social crusades build their faith in humanity and its resources in self-salvation. Sounding not a little like a deist, Finney declared, 'There is nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature. It consists entirely in the right exercise of the powers of nature. It is just that, and nothing else. When mankind becomes truly religious, they are not enabled to put forth exertions which they were unable before to put forth. They only exert powers which they had before, in a different way, and use them for the glory of God' (emphasis in original). Thus, as the new birth is a natural phenomenon, so too a revival: 'A revival is not a miracle, nor dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means--as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means.' The belief that the new birth and revival depend necessarily on divine activity is pernicious. 'No doctrine,' he says, 'is more dangerous than this to the prosperity of the Church, and nothing more absurd' (Revivals of Religion [Revell], pp. 4-5). When the leaders of the church growth movement claim that theology gets in the way of growth and insist that it does not matter what a particular church believes: growth is a matter of following the proper principles, they are displaying their debt to Finney. When leaders of the Vineyard movement praise this sub-Christian enterprise and the barking, roaring, screaming, laughing, and other strange phenomena on the basis that 'it works' and one must judge its truth by its fruit, they are following Finney, as well as the father of American pragmatism, William James, who declared that truth must be judged on the basis of 'its cash-value in experiential terms.'
Thus, in Finney's theology, God is not sovereign; man is not a sinner by nature; the atonement is not a true payment for sin; justification by imputation is insulting to reason and morality; the new birth is simply the effect of successful techniques, and revival is a natural result of clever campaigns. In his fresh introduction to the bicentennial edition of Finney's Systematic Theology, Harry Conn commends Finney's pragmatism: 'Many servants of our Lord should be diligently searching for a gospel that 'works,' and I am happy to state they can find it in this volume.' As Whitney R. Cross has carefully documented in The Burned-Over District: The Social and Intellectual History of Enthusiastic Religion in Western New York, 1800-1850 (Cornell University Press, 1950), the stretch of territory in which Finney's revivals were most frequent was also the cradle of the perfectionistic cults that plagued that century. A gospel that 'works' for zealous perfectionists one moment merely creates tomorrow's disillusioned and spent super-saints.
Needless to say, Finney's message is radically different from the evangelical faith, as is the basic orientation of the movements we see around us today the bear his imprint: revivalism (or its modern label, 'the church growth movement'), Pentecostal perfectionism and emotionalism, political triumphalism based on the ideal of 'Christian America,' and the anti-intellectual, anti-doctrinal tendencies of American evangelicalism and fundamentalism. It was through the 'Higher Life Movement' of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that Finney's perfectionism came to dominate the fledgling Dispensationalist movement through the auspices of Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Seminary and author of He That Is Spiritual. Finney, of course, is not solely responsible; he is more a product than a producer. Nevertheless, the influence he exercised and continues to exercise to this day is pervasive.
Not only did the revivalist abandon the material principle of the Reformation (justification), making him a renegade against evangelical Christianity; he repudiated doctrines, such as original sin and the substitutionary atonement, that have been embraced by Roman Catholics and Protestants alike. Therefore, Finney is not merely an Arminian, but a Pelagian. He is not only an enemy of evangelical Protestantism, but of historic Christianity of the broadest sort.
I do not point these things out with relish, as if to cheerfully denounce the heroes of American evangelicals. Nevertheless, it is always best, when one has lost something valuable, to retrace one's steps in order to determine when and where one last had it in his or her possession. That is the purpose of this exercise, to face with some honesty the serious departure from biblical Christianity that occurred through American revivalism. For until we address this shift, we will perpetuate a distorted and dangerous course. Of one thing Finney was absolutely correct: The Gospel held by the Westminster divines whom he attacked directly, and indeed held by the whole company of evangelicals, is 'another gospel' in distinction from the one proclaimed by Charles Finney. The question of our moment is, With which gospel will we side?
Unless otherwise specified, all quotes are from Charles G. Finney, Finney's Systematic Theology (Bethany, 1976).
Here's another Video concerning Alter Calls and Finney!
This Video is tight, and like always Reach Records ripping it always, all Glory to God!
Sola Dei Gloria
Oh I almost forgot to add this other video, this one right here is one ingenuity, I love the production on this one, and the rhyme scheme , just peep it!
Young Josh "It's Cold feat. Witness from the Frontlynaz
Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.Romans 10:1-4 NKJV
Perhaps no other doctrine caused as much turmoil during the Reformation as Sola Fide. It was the very doctrine that prompted Martin Luther in his 95 theses to challenge the Catholic position of indulgences. He had heard a sermon preached by a Catholic clergy which appalled him by its crude theology and materialism. Upon returning home, he drafted the theses and posted them October 31, 1517 on the church door at Wittenberg. Subsequently, the Catholic church condemned Luther’s writing and wrote an order to have his worked burned. In response, some followers of Luther burned the order. Luther became a prolific writer and composed a number of works that refuted not only indulgences but established the reformational position of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.
Later in 1520, a more forceful edict (called a bull) was ordered that would have opened Luther to the possibility of bodily harm and no civil protection. Before imposing the bull, in 1521 Charles V gave Luther the opportunity to repent of his theology and of course he did not. The bull was then enforced and fearing his harm, Luther’s followers arranged for his kidnapping and he was hidden in the castle at Wartburg where Luther took the opportunity to begin translating the New Testament into simple German.
The Catholic position in opposition to Luther’s Sola Fide was that the grace of God, by His good pleasure was poured into us. As this pouring or infusing occurred, it made us righteous and thus able to perform good works. Our free will cooperating with the grace then performed the works and together made us fit for salvation. It was taught that only by our will cooperating with grace and producing good works was the sinner able to merit salvation. Therefore, grace was infused and we cooperate with it to produce good works that belong to us. Those good works improve with time until they are such that we have pleased God enough to grant us salvation. Justification to the Catholic mind was then a process, not an event by declaration. Perhaps nowhere can the Roman Church’s rebellion against this doctrine be found any stronger than in the 1563 Council of Trent canons.
We have already seen the authority of scripture, the lone Priestly role of Christ as Mediator and Redeemer. We have also seen that the way of salvation exists only because of the inestimable grace of God. Salvation would not exist had God in His mercy not provided a means for atonement and propitiation of His wrath. In evaluating Sola Fide, we shall see that the righteousness that the justified sinner stands in is not the works which by performing he has merited grace. Rather we will see that the only efficacious righteousness that will save us is being clothed with the righteousness of another—the righteousness of Christ imputed to us.
God’s Provision of Righteousness
Even from the first pages of the Scriptures we see hints of the covenant of redemption that God was revealing. In Genesis 3:21 we see an incredible provision of our Lord for the fallen Adam and Eve. Having come to see their shame, they sewed together fig leaves to attempt to hide their shame. God however, provided a durable covering of skin through the sacrifice of an animal. This early picture of the Gospel reveals God’s intent of providing a righteousness that is external or alien to the person in which they will be clothed.
In Isaiah 61:10-11 we again see that this righteousness is not caused by grace in me. Rather it is likened as clothing or a robe which the Lord puts around us and with which He covers us.
In Jeremiah 33:14-16 we see that our righteousness does not belong to us, nor is it of us in any way as we see that our righteousness belongs to and comes from the Lord of Righteousness Himself.
God Imputes (Not Infuses) that Righteousness and Not Our Sins
Paul declares in Romans 4:1-12 that our righteousness comes through God in His mercy, not imputing our sins to us but rather imputing His righteousness. This means that we were by the nature inherited from Adam objects of wrath. But so that the purposes of God in election might stand, some received mercy not of their own righteousness but out of His great love
We Receive the Imputation By Faith
Continuing in Romans 4:13-24 Paul shows how this righteousness is given through faith to all who are of the faith of our father Abraham.
In Philippians 3:1-11 Paul repudiates his works as being the basis of his salvation. Although his works may have been righteous, they were rubbish when considered as the basis for salvation. Paul does not crave his own righteousness for he knows that our own cannot save but he craves "the righteousness which is from God by faith" apart from works or any other thing at all which is to say, sola fide.
James does not teach a faith which is the opposite of Paul (James 2:14-26) but rather the same faith with a different emphasis. James teaches that this faith produces good works. This is not the same as the Catholic teaching which declares that faith comes by works. The distinction here can best be summarized by the notion that the Scripture declares that we are saved by grace through a faith that works rather than faith and works. Or another way to think of Sola Fide is that we are saved by grace through faith alone but not through a faith that is alone. It is faith alone that is the basis for our salvation, but our salvation is made clearly evident by our works. Compare also 2 Peter 1:1-11.
This Faith is a Gift
Ephesians 2:1-10 declares that the basis of our salvation is the grace of God in the perfect fulfillment of the law in His Son. This perfect righteousness, which is the righteousness from God, is imputed to us through faith. Knowing that the heart is deceitfully wicked, God knew that some might be tempted to boast even in this faith. Therefore, God, protecting grace, provided the faith necessary for salvation as a gift so that even the faith could not be the object of boasting. Our boasting is then in the Lord alone.
See ya soon! Happy Day of Reformation! October 31, Remember your KING this day, don't cater mainstream society with the celebration of the dead, ghouls, demons, and witches! This world is indeed ruled by the its god the devil!
Tomorrow I will be wrapping up (Lord Willing) Unconditional Election! Today's article is very informative. Make sure to check out the video at the end of this posting, also backtrack and watch yesterday's music video, thats classic! Jesus is a friend of mine, I have a friend in Jesus...
Yesterday, we looked at the denials and arguments towards Unconditional Election. Today we are looking at:
Its Importance For The Church?
The importance of the doctrine of Unconditional Election is to be found first of all in its theological significance. It is the central truth of all the Scriptures. While it is literally taught in hundreds of places in God's Word, it is also the underlying truth upon which the whole of Scripture as the revelation of God in Christ is based. It is present in every passage, presupposed in every part, an integral truth of the whole of God's revelation. And this is because Scripture is the revelation of God Who saves. God is sovereign. All glory belongs to Him alone. It is this truth which raises our hearts to a contemplation of the adorable God of heaven and earth and prostrates us in adoration before Him.
Holding this truth, therefore, the whole Scripture is a beautiful unity. There is no need for abstruse distinctions. There is no need to follow a double-track theology. It is all a beautiful whole. God is sovereign in the choice of His people. And as the sovereign, He redeems in the cross those whom He has chosen. As the sovereign He places His love upon His people and He hates the wicked all the day. As the sovereign He shows favor through the cross to those who belong to Him; but pours out His wrath upon all the workers of iniquity. His grace also, therefore, is never common. It is always particular - bestowed through the cross upon the objects of His choice. And it is irresistible in its particularity because those whom He chooses shall surely be brought to final salvation and blessedness.
The choice therefore is either - or. We may deny this truth, but then we must also make God a helpless god, fashioned after our thoughts, dependent upon the fickle will of man, working only after man makes his choices and decisions, altering His plan according to man's whims, dependent upon man's final work. Or we make our choice for the truth of Scripture and maintain the truth of a great and sovereign God of heaven and earth to Whom alone belongs all praise and glory forever.
Thus this doctrine of election, in the second place, affords the people of God unspeakable consolation. We are only sinners who add daily to the burden of our guilt. If salvation were left to us, we would be tossed about on the stormy seas of doubt. We can merit nothing with God. But election, sovereign election, is an immovable rock upon which we stand; and, standing, are safe from all harm. The elect can never perish. "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." II Tim. 2:19. God will preserve the work of grace in the hearts of His own until the end.
We can do no better than to close this discussion with the words Paul uses to close his discussion of this truth. They are found in Romans 11:33-36:
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen.
Wrap up and summary tomorrow!
Now watch this video on the upcoming ESV Study BIBLE, if you don't know about it, start saving cause you have to get it!!
Posts
