I debated writing this… I’m going to get some push back on this for sure (or at least I’m fairly certain. Or perhaps people will read this, shake their heads in disgust and move on).

So there’s this picture of a quote from Stephen Colbert (above) going around “The Facebook” and it goes like this:

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.

Now, before I go any further, understand this; I am in no way opposed to helping the poor and needy. I am in no way suggesting that we despise the poor and oppressed. Indeed, as Christians, it is our duty to help the poor and needy as Stephen Colbert indicates.

What I am going to push against is the implied notion that this help must necessarily be done by means of the government. Again note that I feel this is implied in the statement. But it is not explicitly stated. Since it is not explicitly state, I could be getting the wrong implication.

However, the point I am going to make stands regardless.

This is the argument I hear from folks who want to perpetuate government welfare programs (for instance). That as a Christian Nation, we have a duty to help the poor, so therefore we must have welfare, government healthcare, free education (provided by the government) etc. etc.

If I were to say something like what Colbert said, I would rephrase the first part to this:

“If we are going to be a Christian nation, but the people of this nation are not characterized by their generosity to the poor…”

You can see from my rephrasing where I might be going with this. There are three spheres of authority that are biblically delineated. Those are:

1. Family
2. Church
3. Civil

There is of course some overlap of all three, but the idea that civil government would be involved in charity is misplaced in my judgement. Helping the poor and needy, the widows and the orphans falls into two of the three spheres of authority: Family and Church. For the civil government to care for the needy would necessitate (as we see today) that they derive those resources from those under it’s jurisdiction. For the government is not a producer of resources, but must therefore acquire those resources by taking them from someone. This is known by another name: Socialism. It is nothing more than wealth redistribution.

Government is there for the enforcement of civil law and for defense of the land. That (along with a couple of other very limited things) is the job of the civil government according to a Biblical worldview.

The real problem we have in this nation is that the Church, and her members (families) have abdicated the God given calling to exercise care for the poor, for the widow and orphan. We have allowed our civil government to take over this duty that belongs only to us and it is wrong. But it’s a vicious cycle. That the government does this makes it hard for us to do that which we have been called.

Because it is a circular problem, it is very hard to break, but break it we must in order to get our nation back into a biblical framework.

Did I get what I wanted? I got some of it, there were things I didn’t get that I never expected to get and doubt whether Apple will even ever give me. I’ll go over my list from the previous post.

1. Verizon

Well, I knew there would likely be nothing in the iPhone OS event about opening up to other carriers in the U.S. even if it is going to happen (which I still doubt by the way). This event was about iPhone OS 4, and I think support for other carriers would be announced with a hardware event since the current iPhone hardware only fully works on AT&T’s network. In my book this makes a multi carrier strategy announcement a hardware announcement.

And anyway, much as I would like to see a CDMA/EV-DO iPhone, in my opinion, it will never happen. You see, Apple has stated on many occasions that their business model is to make one iPhone. AT&T’s network operates on the same standard as 80% of the rest of the world. T-Mobile uses weird 3G frequencies, and Verizon and Sprint run CDMA/EV-DO networks (we’re not even going to talk about Sprint’s weird iDEN network left over from their Nextel merger, and their affinity WiMax). So the point here is that AT&T is the only network I see the iPhone running on for now, inept though AT&T may be compared to Verizon. However, as we move to 4G this may change. Verizon is going to have the first commercial LTE network (4G). LTE is the 4G technology of choice throughout most of the world so we may well see a Verizon iPhone when Verizon has deployed LTE across their entire footprint with full voice support (in other words they can’t be relying on CDMA for voice or it still won’t work for Apple).

So that’s a long explanation for my opinion that we won’t see a Verizon iPhone for a few years to come, and it STINKS!

2. Multi-Tasking

Yes, we got it. At least we got it in ways that count and make sense. I was blown away. Summer can’t come fast enough. Apple will be providing 7 OS integrated services to reduce the processor strain and battery life issues of having each app do it’s own thing when in the background, but the result will be the same to the end user. And state saving (freezing) apps will be huge! For those apps that don’t need to run background services, state saving will be the same as multi tasking without the battery drain or CPU cycles.

So yeah, I think I’m happy with the way Apple is implementing this. Still, took them long enough!

3. Better Notifications

Yeah… didn’t get it. We still have single mode pop ups that obliterate previous notifications if there are any, and stop you doing whatever it is you are in the middle of. STUPID! But I can deal… for now.

4. Release the App store shackles

I knew this would never happen. And it didn’t. I doubt that Apple will ever give up their current app model. I’ll have to evaluate whether I can deal with this at the end of my current AT&T contract.

5. Better Lock Screen

Oh Apple how you disappoint! Such a wasted opportunity!

6. Customization

Oooo, looky, pretty wallpaper behind my icons! Seriously, it seems small, but it is a baby step in the right direction.

7. Widgets

You know, I’m not the only one that wants them. And in the Q&A after the event, one of the media people asked why Apple wasn’t giving any love to widgets, glancable info, or better lock screen info. The answer was a sidestep. That either means it’s coming in future builds of the OS, or they didn’t want to draw any more attention to this glaring omission. In any event, we didn’t get it (yet, he says hopefully).

8. Notes and to-dos

Still no word on to-dos. And I have a feeling that Apple is going to do nothing about my “Die Marker Felt, die” sentiment in Notes. However, though not directly talked about, according to some sleuthing of the iPhone geeks around the interwebz, it does seem as if over the air note sync is a part of iPhone OS 4

9. Unified Inbox View

We got that and more. There are some major updates for Mail on the way. I am a very happy camper in this department! See Apple, I know you can impress, you still have it in you! Go Apple! Now give me my other stuff!

10. Better Home screen icon management

Folders for the home screen have been long in coming! But it is going to be awesome! And it is going to help a LOT!

So, I got some stuff, and I didn’t get some stuff. I’ll have to see if I’m satisfied when this update comes out in the summer.

Here’s one of those gems that is so good I had to post it. You may find the original here on Iron Ink.

“While the Anabaptists argued against infant baptism, that children could not experience faith and repentance, the Reformed replied that although children did not possess the acts of faith, they still could possess the disposition (habitus) of faith. Since absolute certainty about the internal state of the recipient is never certain in the case of either adults or children, the question is whether we have the same certainty in either case…. Just as with adults, the hearts of infants should be judged with charity….

Since as a poorer dispensation of grace circumcision was administered to children, it follows that as a richer dispensation of grace baptism ought to be administered to children as well. Also, the entire idea of the covenant as the historical and organic realization of election points toward the inclusion of infants through their connection with their parents in grace and blessing.”

Herman Bavinck
Reformed Dogmatics Vol. IV – pg. 498

1.) Those who hold to anabaptist ecclesiology while trying to embrace Reformed soteriology at the same time are seriously confused. Anabaptist ecclesiology suggests that membership of the church is characterized by those who themselves choose to be part of the church. The emphasis falls on the individual. This is advocated in keeping with anabaptist “pure church” theology. (A “pure church” is one that has no tares. Classical Baptist theology holds that all that are members of the Church are saved.) This emphasis on the individuals choosing has an Arminian flavor.

2.) As faith is received passively and is a consequence of regeneration before it becomes active in conversion it was fitting for the Reformed to speak of infants having the habitus of faith. The idea is that in having this disposition of faith infants will display that faith actively as they age to the point of being able to display that faith.

3.) The judgment of charity should be extended to infants of believers in Christ since as being the child of at least one believer infants are already members of the covenant. Throughout scripture God promises to be God to His people and their children. God reckons and counts His people covenantally. This differs from Baptists who reckon God’s people individually and who count them one by one in conversion. The difference here is the difference between God counting His people as one with individuals seen as extensions of that one community. On the other hand Baptists count God’s people as individuals who when totaled together count as the whole.

4.) In the old covenant the children were clearly part of the covenant. Baptists would have us believe that in the new and better covenant the children are only part of the covenant upon their “asking Jesus into their hearts.” The new and better covenant leaves children out of the covenant.

5.) In the end Baptist theological notions of covenant should be seen as a ongoing social compact that each generation has to ratify for themselves with their vote for Jesus in order to be part of the compact. On the other hand Reformed notions of the covenant should be seen as a social compact decreed, organized, and populated by God.

Source

As I wait on pins and needles for the baby to arrive (due date day is almost over and still no sign of labor) I thought I would share this article. It is after all, that time of year again when the air can be filled with a lot of “BAH humbug.”

Should Christians celebrate Christmas?

I sympathize with those who want to be rigorously and distinctly Christian, who want to be disentangled from the world and any pagan roots that might lie beneath our celebration of Christmas, but I don’t go that route on this matter because I think there comes a point where the roots are so far gone that the present meaning doesn’t carry the pagan connotation anymore. I’m more concerned about a new paganism that gets layered on top of Christian holidays.

Here’s the example I use: All language has roots somewhere. Most of our days of the week—if not all—grew out of pagan names too. So should we stop using the word “Sunday” because it may have related to the worship of the sun once upon a time? In modern English “Sunday” doesn’t carry that connotation, and that’s the very nature of language. In a sense, holidays are like chronological language.

Christmas now means that we mark, in Christian ways, the birth of Jesus Christ. I think the birth, death and resurrection of Christ are the most important events in human history. Not to mark them in some way, by way of special celebration, would be folly it seems to me.

I remember I lived next door to somebody back in seminary who didn’t celebrate birthdays for their kid. The idea was, partly, that all days were special for their kid. But if all days are special then it probably means that there are no special days. Yet some things are so good and precious—like anniversaries, birthdays, and even deaths—that they are worthy of being marked. How much more the birth and death of Jesus Christ!

It’s really worth the risk, even if the date of December 25 was chosen because of its proximity to some kind of pagan festival. Let’s just take it, sanctify it, and make the most of it, because Christ is worthy of being celebrated in his birth.

There is no point in choosing any other date. It won’t work.

By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org

So, I ran across this article in my Google Reader Shared items. It’s just way too good not to post here as well. I don’t know a lot about the blog it comes from since I’m not a regular reader… but this is a great post none the less.

Source

I read a great quote from Pastor McAtee on how the Credo-Baptist position essentially views children as salvifically-unviable-fetuses:

Credo-baptists believe that soteric worth is tied up with moral agency. Such moral agency is dependent upon consciousness. For Credo-baptists, soteric rights presuppose interests, and creatures without a fairly advanced state of consciousness do not and can not have soteric interests. Hence, until such a time that a child is considered salvifically “viable” as witnessed by a advanced state of consciousness, the child is, salvifically speaking, not a person, but rather is a soteric fetus awaiting enough consciousness to be considered a candidate for soteriological personhood.

And ironically, the first commenter on Pastor McAtee’s post takes most Paedo-baptists to task with the same logic:

Insert Paedo into this article where it reads Credo and some would think that you had certainly made a mistake and truly meant Credo. However, many who would think you made that mistake apply this very reasoning to God’s Covenant children by rejecting them from Christ’s table “until such a time that a child is considered salvifically “viable” as witnessed by a advanced state of consciousness”.

And if you’d like to be entertained by hearing some Lutherans (Missouri Synod) discuss it, check this thread out. Pastor Weedon brings out a quote from Luther on 1 Corinthians which explains that the “examine himself” command doesn’t apply to children at all. Its quite telling that Pastor McCain jumps in immediately and begins repeating slogans and ad-hominems as if his life depended upon it. He knows exactly the threat that the quote presents to the anti-paedocommunion establishment, even if others don’t yet see it.

I found another good read today via a good friend of mine. It was such a good read that I have to post it here:

Why You Shouldn’t Allow Your Children To Eat Thanksgiving Dinner

(Man I’m really on a roll with this theme aren’t I?)

Marion Lovett, Elder at Heritage posted two very good articles recently on how Christians view their children. Check them out!

    • It’s Really About How We View Our Children

    • The Context for Discerning the Body

So I’ve been reading some articles and blog posts in regard to the celebration of Christmas, as I am sometimes wont to do this time of year.

Many of you reading this may know that my immediate family has condemned Christmas as pagan and therefore does not celebrate. No festivities, no decorations, no christmas trees, nothing. In many ways I am glad for this as it gave me the opportunity to examine why we did not. I thoroughly evaluated the celebration of Church holidays, in particular Christmas. I came at it from many angles such as, should the Church be celebrating holidays other than the Lord’s Day, should we celebrate Christmas or is it a pagan holiday? I came to the conclusion that Christmas indeed should be celebrated. We should be joyful! If on no other grounds than this… we, God’s chosen people, of all people have cause to celebrate. We are the elect of God, we are his people, why should we do nothing while the pagans celebrate? The pagans bring out their “seasons greetings” and happy holidays” but we should celebrate CHRISTMAS! We celebrate the coming of our Saviour to the world, we celebrate his life and death for us. We should celebrate because the victory belongs to Christ, this world belongs to our Lord and we should celebrate that victory, not with silly tales of Santa Clause and reindeer, which is a diversion from the truth of the victory of Christ our Lord! It doesn’t matter what the roots of the day are, we can find something pagan that happened on every day of the year, so instead of letting the pagans have the day, we claim it in the name of the Lord as we do every day.

But there is something more thought provoking here that I came across and it made me think. I’ve been in a few different circles of thought in my lifetime. But at this point in my life I am proud to be a part of the reformed worldview. Now, everything has advantages and disadvantages. Everyone has weaknesses and strongpoints. And I think weaknesses and strongpoints come pre-wrapped in schools of thought as well, and the reformed school of thought is no exception.

And I believe in the reformed world that we sometimes have this little problem of wanting to be radical and different for the sake of being radical and different. And I can’t say that I have always escaped this tendency either. We absolutely revel in our radicalness. And, there is a place to be radical and different, we do after all desire reform, and that means being different sometimes. But our differentness should have a purpose and reason behind it, and not just any old reason either. When we as Christians are different or radical, it should be because we have the word of God behind us.

We are called to be a Holy (set apart) people, and this is why we are often seen as radical. And I applaud and endorse many of the “radical” notions within the reformed community such as Covenant Renewal Worship, Patriarchal Leadership of the home, Family Worship etc. All of these things are often seen as radical and often we are accused of being in a cult. No problem.

But, there is a tendency to be different for the sake of being different, and then we try to throw biblical justification in as an afterthought, and it just ruins the whole show! I believe holidays fall in this category for many reformed folk. But wait, the Bible actually does talk about Holidays doesn’t it? And it didn’t tell us to

Make certain though celebratest no holiday not defined in the New Testament. Make sure thou feastest not, except to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Be certain that ye celebrate nothing for I the Lord thy God am a Grinch, desiring that my people be dour and sour and that above all they celebrate not the victory of Christ in the world where he rules and reigns with a rod of iron.

No no no, we are commanded to REJOICE! (Psalm 32:11, Psalm 33:1 Psalm 35:9 Philippians 4:4… and the list could go on forever).

And then also we are told not to condemn either way the celebrating of some days above others, or not celebrating. (Romans 14:5-6)

And throwing all other arguments aside, why should we not have special focus this time of year on the coming of our Lord to this world? Why should we not celebrate that which is right and good! And isn’t it interesting that all the non-Christians are worried about this holiday? This is one of the main holidays that are attacked.

So to that I say to all you Christians, go forth and have a MERRY CHRISTMAS!

—————————————-

Here are a couple of articles I was reading:

http://jeffreyjmeyers.blogspot.com/2007/11/christmas-time-is-here-again.html

http://jeffreyjmeyers.blogspot.com/2007/11/is-christmas-christian-part-ii.html

http://www.hornes.org/theologia/mark-horne/celebrating-a-calvinist-christmas-with-a-clear-conscience

FOR WHO DID CHRIST DIE?

by: John Owen

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men, or
3. Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, “Because of unbelief.” I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!

There’s a funny thing I run across sometimes, and it’s quite a paradox. It seems that some people have no problem believing in God’s sovereignty when it comes to praying for someone’s salvation, but they can’t stand the thought that they didn’t have a choice in their own salvation. I actually find this position less consistent than the full Armenian position that says, “You can pray that God will influence someone, but ultimately the decision is theirs to make.” At least that’s consistent.

But it seems inconsistent to me to pray to God that he save someone when they really believe he is incapable of doing so without their permission, and they ultimately believe that God must have the person’s permission because they want to say they had a choice in the matter of their own salvation. In fact in a conversation about running the race as referenced by the Apostle Paul, someone said that God enables them to run the race, but that they still could choose not to run the race. Now I respect this position, and respect and like the person I was talking to who said it, but I have to disagree with it. You are either elect or you are not. If you are not elect, then God is not enabling you to do anything. I believe that you can fall away from the faith and make shipwreck as the Apostle Paul said, but what does that mean exactly?

It is helpful at this point to look at the Old Covenant.In the Old Covenant, one could be one of the Children of Israel, part of the covenant, and yet not be saved. But they were among the chosen people of God. Yet being of the chosen people did not make them individually elect. Still, those who fell away were described as cut off! How can you be cut off from something you don’t have? Because they were a part of the elect people of God! But that individual was not elect.

The number of elect/saved individuals is a constant. But there can be those in the church, part of God’s elect/chosen people, yet as an individual, they may not be chosen.

God is all powerful, God is sovereign. And God certainly doesn’t change His mind, “You were saved but now your not, I was enabling you to run the race but now I’m not,” etc. I believe that to be a misrepresentation of God’s sovereignty.