“I’m Personally Opposed, But. . . .”
By Gary DeMarIt seemed as if abortion was taking a back seat to economics and the Iraq war this election. But since the Saddleback Forum, the topic has become a center-stage issue, primarily because of Barack Obama’s “above my pay grade” remark. Adding fuel to the fire of controversy is the choice of Delaware Senator Joe Biden as Obama’s VP pick. Biden is Roman Catholic, and if there is a consistent voice of opinion in the Church it’s that abortion is a grave moral wrong. Biden has taken what he describes as a “middle-of-the-road position“:
Did Rick Warren and Saddleback Church Violate the Constitution?
By Gary DeMar
Since the August 16, 2008 Saddleback Church Forum that included John McCain and Barack Obama and hosted by Rick Warren went so well for McCain, some people are trying to mute the positive effect by pointing out that the Constitution prohibits a religious test. The claim is being made that a religious forum dealing with religion and its relation to politics is at least a violation of the spirit of the Constitution. Indeed, the Constitution does include a religious test prohibition in Article VI, section 3: “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” So how does the constitutional prohibition apply to the Saddleback Church Forum? It doesn’t. Rick Warren is not an agent of the government, and neither are the church and its ecclesiastical officers. No government official is claiming that either candidate must subscribe to any particular religious belief to run for the presidency. The prohibition governs what governmental officials are prohibited from doing not what churches and individual citizens can and cannot do in choosing criteria to make their electoral choice. In addition, attendance at the Forum was voluntary. Neither candidate considered such a gathering or the line of questioning to be constitutional violations.
Who is the World’s Greatest Athlete?
By Gary DeMar
Is Michael Phelps the greatest athlete in the world? That’s the conclusion of many sport pundits. Phelps is the all-time gold medal winner, surpassing Carl Lewis and Mark Spitz. He’s on his way to breaking Spitz’s seven gold medals that he won in the 1972 Munich Olympics. He won two at the 1968 Mexico City Olympic Games. While Phelps’ accomplishments are certainly remarkable and praise worthy, I’m not sure they put him in the category of the greatest athlete. Certainly he’s the greatest swimmer who ever lived. Some sports don’t lend themselves to multiple gold medals like swimming.
Hal Lindsey, Obama, and the Antichrist
By Gary DeMar
It’s a mystery to me why anyone would listen to Hal Lindsey on Bible prophecy. His 1970 Late Great Planet Earth is a lasting testimony to getting almost everything wrong. In 1977, Lindsey stated that if his 1948-1988 prophetic scenario did not come to pass, he would be a “bum.” Sorry to say, that Lindsey has stayed in prophecy business and is still making predictions He said the following in an articole posted on World Net Daily: “Obama is correct in saying that the world is ready for someone like him—a messiah-like figure charismatic and glib….The Bible calls that leader the Antichrist. And it seems apparent that the world is now ready to make his acquaintance.”
The Olivet Discourse: The Test of Truth
By Gary DeMar
Next to the book of Revelation (not Revelations), the most widely quoted section of Scripture dealing with what many believe is a comprehensive prophecy about end-time events is the Olivet Discourse found in Matthew 24–25, Mark 13, and Luke 21. With descriptions of wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, and false prophets, it’s no wonder that these passages have been used for centuries to claim that some type of cataclysmic end was always near. It will help at this point to understand how the Olivet Discourse has been interpreted and then home in on what is the most consistent biblical interpretive approach to the passage.
Land Promise Fulfilled
By The Bible
The Promise: On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates” (Gen. 15:18).
Joshua 21:43–45: “So the Lord gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. And the Lord gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the Lord gave all their enemies into their hand. Not one of the good promises which the Lord had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass.”
Do We Need Social Justice?
Gary DeMar
The concept “social justice” means different things to different people. Justice is often equated with social equality, a mistaken notion if there ever was one. In looking for a helpful way to explain the meaning of justice, baseball comes to mind. Rarely are teams equal in ability. This is especially true with the younger age groups. What if umpires had the jurisdictional authority to level inequities at the request of a manager who believes that the opposing team has better players? Both teams know the rules going into the game. Umpires are present to ensure that the rule book is followed to the letter. As long as the players and coaches follow the rules and umpires enforce the rules, justice prevails even if there are inequities. It is not the job of an umpire to eliminate disparities. Who would ever want to play the game if the rules always change at the discretion of an umpire?
“Understanding End Times Prophecy” by Paul Benware: A Review
By Gary DeMar
Paul N. Benware’s revised and expanded edition of Understanding End Times Prophecy includes a chapter on Preterism. This is a good sign. Preterists teach that certain prophetic passages have already been fulfilled (e.g., Matt. 24), while futurists claim that these same passages are yet to be fulfilled. The debate centers (mostly) on how specific time indicators like “near,” “shortly,” “quickly,” and “this generation” should be interpreted. Benware also claims that preterists regularly mix “the literal and allegorical” which results in “very inconsistent interpretations to a passage.” The following quotation encapsulates Benware’s argument on how he believes preterists interpret certain prophetic texts:
Read the rest of this entry »
The First Principle of Economics
By Gary DeMar
What is the first principle of economics? Some economists will claim that it’s supply and demand, while others insist that it’s scarcity or the division of labor. The first principle of economics is “thou shalt not steal.”The word economics is derived from two Greek words: oikos, meaning “house,” and nomos, meaning “law.” Combined we get “rules or laws of the house.” Economics is ethical before it is practical.
Almost all modern definitions of economics, like contemporary definitions of “government,” assume that the State, civil government, is the starting point in understanding economic theory and practice. To grasp these, so the argument goes, the role the State plays in economic decision making in the allocation of scarce resources must first be considered. For many, this is a reasonable and moral starting point when resources are scarce and people have needs.
Read the rest of this entry »
Eschatology Matters
Two new biographies, Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman and Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life, reminded me again of the importance of eschatology. Van Til (1895–1987), who was professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary for 43 years, had strong disagreements with J. Oliver Buswell (1895–1977) and Allan MacRae (1902–1997) over apologetic methodology. In addition to apologetics, Buswell and MacRae opposed the anti-premillennial view of Westminster Seminary. In terms of cultural application of the gospel, however, there wasn’t much difference between Van Til’s amillennialism and Buswell’s and MacRae’s premillennialism.