New "On Faith" Posting: Presidential Candidates and Their Religious Beliefs

From Albert Mohler's blog.

The current question at "On Faith," published by Newsweek and The Washington Post, is this:

As the presidential campaign begins to take shape, do you think it is appropriate and or important for the candidates to express their personal religious views and to use religious rhetoric? Why?

In my answer, I argued that citizens have every right to know the deepest beliefs of those would would serve in high office. From my article:

The U.S. Constitution demands that there be no religious test for public office. That means that the government cannot bar anyone's candidacy on that basis. At the same time, voters use their own calculus when choosing candidates.

In my view, candidates should be as forthright and direct about their personal religious views as about any other question. Those who make too much of these beliefs risk appearing as a candidate for national preacher. Those who make too little of their beliefs risk appearing insincere and evasive. Those who seek to exploit their beliefs will do themselves political harm.

I think John F. Kennedy set an unfortunate example when he told a group of Baptist preachers in Houston in 1960 that his Catholicism would have virtually nothing to do with his presidential decision making. How could that be? I want to know how a political candidate makes decisions, weighs priorities, and gains strength in crisis.

We are not electing a national preacher, rabbi, imam, or priest, but we are electing a human being. As much as possible, I want to know what that human being believes at the deepest levels and how those beliefs form character, perspective, and political decisions.
Read the entire article here -- and be sure to read the comments and articles by other panelists

Romney accused of bashing Bay State family advocate

Posted On One News Now

The pro-family group Americans for Truth is asking former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to apologize for disparaging a staunch opponent of the homosexual agenda in his state.Hear This Report
Governor Romney's presidential exploratory committee is attempting to discredit a report compiled by Brian Camenker of Mass Resistance called the "Mitt Romney Deception." The report documents Romney's liberal -- and often "flip-flopping" -- record on issues like abortion and homosexuality. A new posting on Romney's website, under the title "The Real Brian Camenker," cites various media reports that portray the Jewish, pro-family activist as a right-wing extremist.
Americans for Truth president Peter LaBarbera says the Romney camp is attacking "an American hero in the fight against the radical homosexual agenda." Romney, he contends, is using the "liberal media" to "bash" the pro-family activist because he is upset with Camenker.
"

Peter LaBarbera[H]e's upset that Brian has exposed his past pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, and liberal record on other issues," says LaBarbera. "And we think this is very sad that they've resorted to sort of demonizing Brian Camenker."

According to the Americans for Truth leader, Romney used a liberal program, The Daily Show, to "belittle" Camenker. LaBarbera characterizes the program as one that "loves to set up Christians and then make fun of them."

"I think [that] says more about Mitt Romney than it does about Brian Camenker," LaBarbera observes. "Brian Camenker is one of the bravest pro-family activists that's ever lived in the United States. He's fought the normalization of homosexuality to young people; he's exposed gay activism [and] the radical gay agenda in Massachusetts."
LaBarbera says although Romney appears to have "gotten stronger" on the issue of homosexual "marriage," in an interview with Human Events the GOP presidential hopeful seemed to show support for "sexual orientation" non-discrimination laws

Danny Akin podcast to focus on biblical exposition

From Baptist Press

WAKE FOREST, N.C. (BP)--Daniel Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological

Seminary, has launched a podcast of sermons and teaching material rooted in biblical exposition.The podcast can be accessed through Akin’s website, danielakin.com; Southeastern’s website, sebts.edu; or by searching for his name at the iTunes Music Store podcast directory.

Users can subscribe to the podcast so that it can be updated automatically each time a new sermon is added online.“My prayer is that God will use this podcast as a way to reach people all over the world with His Word, as well as teach the value and importance of expository preaching,” said Akin, president since 2003 of Southeastern, located in Wake Forest, N.C.Akin is the author of commentaries on the Epistles of John and the Song of Solomon and of several books, including “Discovering the Biblical Jesus: Evidence From An Empty Tomb” and “God on Sex.”David Nelson, Southeastern’s senior vice president of academic administration, noted that amid thousands of podcasts available and scores of new ones appearing daily, “Dr. Akin is rare in that he is a scholar-teacher whose preaching speaks to the heart and the mind, both instructing and inspiring.”

In addition to Akin’s podcast, Southeastern regularly podcasts its thrice-weekly chapel services during the fall and spring semesters, featuring some of the world’s most renowned preachers and scholars. The chapel podcast can be accessed through the Southeastern website, sebts.edu, or by searching for Southeastern Seminary at the iTunes Music Store podcast directory.

Grudem and Piper on Profanity

Personally, I cannot think of anything more to say than what is stated here:

From Challies.dot

The issue of profanity in the church is one that continually surprises me. To myself and to many other Reformed types, what is most shocking about the profanity discussion is that we need to have it at all! That we should avoid foul speech seems obvious and beyond dispute. And yet here we are. There is little consensus in the church about this particular issue.

One thing that I find is often missing in discussions on profanity is the connection between the heart and the tongue. We need to realize that the tongue is not an isolated instrument in the body. The tongue or the mouth speaks for the heart. Said otherwise, what proceeds from the mouth is a sure indication of what is in the heart. If a mouth pours forth filth, it is a sure indication that there is also a filthy heart. If a tongue spews forth rebellion, there is rebellion in the heart. If the tongue pours out praise, there is godly joy in the heart. We see this most clearly in the books of Proverbs and James. "The tongue of the righteous is choice silver; the heart of the wicked is of little worth" (Proverbs 10:20). Note the parallel between the tongue and the heart. "So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire!" (James 3:5). So while the issue of profanity so often centers around words, the issue strikes deeper--as deep as the heart.

As you may know, John Piper recently made public an apology for his use of an inappropriate word at the recent Passion07 Conference. Speaking in a breakout session Piper said that sometimes "God kicks our ass." Needless to say, some people were surprised by this and questioned his decision to use that particular term. I had not heard anything about this situation until Piper addressed it, so I assume that his use of this word was not widely known. I hope that those who questioned him did so in a way that was humble and respectful. I am grateful that (to my knowledge) it was not widely discussed and debated in the blogosphere and beyond.

Piper began his reply by stating "I regret saying it. I am sitting here trying to figure out why I say things like that every now and then. I think it is a mixture of (sinful) audience titillation and (holy) scorn against my own flesh and against the devil, along with the desire to make the battle with Satan and my flesh feel gutsy and real and not middle-class pious. There is a significant difference between saying that God disciplines his children and saying that he 'kicks our ass' (the phrase used at Passion)--the effect of the first can produce a yawn and leave students with no sense of how real I mean it. I think 'He kicks our backside' would have sufficed. And even better might have been some concrete illustrations of the Lord's firm spanks." But while he regrets using the word, he is not entirely sure that it is always necessarily sinful to do so. "If I wanted to take the time, and I felt more defensive than I do, I could probably go to the Bible and find language as offensive as that in the mouth of prophets, and even God when dealing with the grossness of evil. But I doubt that the moment in the breakout session called for something that extreme. Sometimes maybe. I hope the Lord turns it for good." He shows this again in his closing paragraph where he writes "I think if I had it to do over, I would not say it. On the one hand, I don't like fanning the flames of those who think it is hip and cool to swear for Jesus.

That, it seems to me, is immature. On the other hand, I want those hip people to listen to all I say and write, and I hope that the Lord may get a hold of them and draw them out of immaturity and into the fullness of holiness. But it backfires if one becomes unholy to make people holy. I suspect there was too much of the unholy in my heart at that moment."

Please read the complete article here

An Interview with Tom Schreiner on Baptism

From: Between Two Worlds: Justin Taylor's Blog


Here's an interview I conducted with Tom Schreiner about the new book on baptism that he has co-edited.

Tom, first of all, can you tell us a bit about yourself--your family, where you teach, etc.?

I grew up as a Roman Catholic and was saved at the age of 17, mainly through the witness of a girl named Diane who is now my wife! We have 4 children (3 boys and one girl from the ages of 24-15). I have been teaching since 1983 and since 1997 have taught New Testament at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. I am also the preaching pastor at Clifton Baptist Church.

What's the title of your new book, and who are the contributors?

The title is: Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ. Shawn Wright and I edited the book and both wrote a chapter. We are thrilled with the other scholars who contributed, including Andreas Köstenberger, Bob Stein, Steve Wellum, Steve McKinion, Jonathan Rainbow, Duane Garrett, Ardel Caneday, and Mark Dever.

How would you define "baptism" biblically?

I think the New Hampshire Confession of 1833 defines baptism beautifully. “We believe that Christian Baptism is the immersion in water of a believer, into the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost; to show forth, in a solemn and beautiful emblem, our faith in the crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, with its effect in our death to sin and resurrection to a new life.”

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

The mere mechanical act of baptism doesn’t save. Cornelius and his friends received the Spirit before baptism (Acts 10:44-48), showing that they were saved before baptism. Paul makes it clear in 1 Cor. 1:14-17 that baptism must be understood in light of the gospel of grace, not vice-versa. On the other hand, Bob Stein argues convincingly in his chapter that baptism is part of the complex of saving events. {JT note: cf. this SBJT article by Stein.} So, if someone understands that God commands baptism and then refuses to do it, one has to wonder if such a person is saved.

If you don't need to be baptized as a believer in order to be saved, why is it so important? If this is a non-essential doctrine, is it really worth debating and dividing over?

I would refer readers here to my answer above. Baptism is important because it is associated in the NT with the saving events of Christ’s death and resurrection. It is “the” initiation rite into the Christian church, and hence it is not “optional” or “insignificant.” I don’t believe that baptism in and of itself saves, and someone may be a Christian and not undergo baptism because he or she misunderstands what Christ requires. In any case, believer’s baptism is important because it relates to our understanding of the nature of the church. The church is composed of regenerate church members (or at least it should be). Those who baptize infants compromise the purity of the church because they allow into the church those who are unregenerate, for baptism in the NT always follows faith.

Assuming that paedobaptism didn't exist in the NT, when did it first arise historically onto the scene? What caused it?

Scholars differ as to when infant baptism began. Most agree that it probably started sporadically in the 2nd century, and Steve McKinion argues that it was not common until the 4th or 5th centuries. The “why” is hard to answer. It certainly seems to have been at least partly because of pastoral and parental concern about babies dying in infancy. Baptizing them was a means of assuring their salvation in case of their deaths. According to Augustine it was crucial for removing original sin and entrance into heaven. I also encourage everyone to read Jonathan Rainbow’s chapter, for he shows that Zwingli introduced an innovation in the doctrine of baptism. No one before Zwingli claimed that one could be baptized without being a believer. Zwingli diverged from all preceding him by separating baptism from faith and regeneration. More.

Senate bill attacks free speech

WASHINGTON (BP)--Senate Democrats and a few Republicans have slipped into a lobbying reform bill a section that would drastically impact the mission and function of churches and nonprofit organizations -- such as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council -- that seek to inform voters on moral issues.

One of the provisions of S. 1 now being considered by the Senate would require churches and other nonprofits, classified as “grassroots lobbying firms,” to report to the House and Senate any time they spend money to communicate to their constituents on public-policy issues that are before Congress. Failure to comply could result in thousands of dollars in fines and even criminal penalties.

“This is one of the most significant violations of free exercise of religion and the freedom of political speech in our nation’s history,” Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, wrote in a column posted on the ACLJ website. “Some have said that this plan is the most comprehensive regulation of political speech that has ever been put forward by Congress.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council wrote in an e-mail to supporters, “This should be called the 'Silence the Citizens Act of 2007.' ... Even pastors who would encourage the members of their congregation to call their senators, their congressmen, about marriage, about life issues, could theoretically fall under the provisions of this measure.”

While pro-family groups say much of the bill is good, they are encouraging constituents to contact their senators and ask them to strike Section 220 -- the section that could impact churches and church-related groups -- from S. 1. Focus on the Family has created a petition on the matter available at focuspetitions.com.

“Protect your right to know,” Focus on the Family's James Dobson said on his radio broadcast Jan. 10. “Protect our right to tell you what we know.”

Dobson said the objective of the legislation’s supporters is clearly to silence the grassroots groups that led millions of Americans to contact their elected officials and affect the outcome of votes on Supreme Court justices, the partial birth abortion ban, broadcast decency fines and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Full Article

Dobson says 'no way' to McCain candidacy

By Bob Unruh© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family

A prominent Christian leader whose radio and magazine outreaches are solidly in support of biblically-based marriages – and keeps in touch with millions of constituents daily – says he cannot consider Arizona Sen. John McCain a viable candidate for president.

"Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances," said James Dobson, founder of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family as well as the Focus Action cultural action organization set up specifically to provide a platform for informing and rallying constituents.

Dobson, who always is careful to note that he's not speaking for the non-profit ministry, which cannot advocate for or against candidates legally, also doesn't hesitate to state his personal opinions on social or political issues and agendas.

Several times he's talked to Republicans, the traditionally conservative political party, about the need to maintain the values of that large part of the U.S. population, or lose the support of those people.

His most recent comments came during an interview on the Jerry Johnson Live program on KCBI 90.9 FM.

The show host noted that pro-family conservatives already are thinking about the next cycle of leadership in the United States, which will be determined in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections. He also noted that McCain and New York mayor Rudy Guiliani appear to be the leaders.

Then he asked Dobson to listen to a statement from McCain and respond.
"I think, uh … I think that gay marriage should be allowed if there's a ceremony kind of thing, if you wanna call it that … I don't have any problem with that," McCain says.

"Dr. Dobson, would you be comfortable with someone like John McCain as the … conservative or Republican candidate for president?" Johnson asked.

"Well, let me say that I am not in the office. I'm in the little condo so I can speak for myself and not for Focus on the Family," Dobson said in rejecting McCain's leadership.

He noted that legislation he'd just been discussing on the program, regarding an attempt by Democrat leaders in Congress to create obstacles for ministries such as Focus to reach constituents with action messages about pending legislation, is being supported by McCain, too.

"That came from McCain, and the McCain Feingold Bill kept us from telling the truth right before elections … and there are a lot of other things. He's not in favor of traditional marriage, and I pray that we won't get stuck with him," Dobson said.

The provisions of the new congressional proposal, hidden deep inside a plan to reform lobbying rules to eliminate the many recent scandals involving members of Congress, would require pro-family groups to provide documentation of their actions to the government any time they try to spark any "grass-roots" action.

Phone calls, personal visits, e-mails, magazines, broadcasts, phone banks, appearances, travel, fundraising and other items all would be subject to government tabulation, verification and audits, Dobson said during a recent program. "On and on it goes."

"Clearly, the objective here is to hide what goes on from the public and punish and silence those of us who would talk about what our representatives are doing," Dobson said of the plan by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. American Family Association Chairman Donald Wildmon, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and American Values President Gary Bauer joined Dobson in urging listeners to flood Capitol Hill with phone calls demanding those speech limits be removed. >Read the complete article here

Stand Up for Your Faith, Convert From Islam Urges Christians

Stand Up for Your Faith, Convert From Islam Urges ChristiansKevin MooneyStaff Writer

(CNSNews.com) - Muslims respect certitude and disdain weakness in exchanges with Christians and are more responsive to principled individuals who are unapologetic in defending their world view, according to a Catholic convert from Islam.Addressing a seminar in Alexandria, Va., Iraqi-born Daniel Ali, who converted in 1998, discussed some of the key components of his former religion, such as jihad and Islamic views on God.At a time when Islam is gaining strength worldwide, Ali told fellow Catholics in attendance that the "first line of defense is to know to your faith."Catholics must be willing to speak up when their faith is under assault, Ali said.

When Christians engage Muslims, they must avoid the temptation to equivocate in their beliefs in order to appease or keep the peace."You cannot flush out Jesus for the sake of getting along with Muslims," Ali said. "They do not like wishy-washy people. They are much more respectful of those who stand by their convictions."Ali advised Catholics to carefully weigh arguments about points of convergence between Christianity and Islam -- for instance, the fact the Koran affirms the virgin birth of Jesus and expresses a high regard for Mary."Every sentence that comes from Muslims includes a 'but,'" Ali said. "The beliefs are not the same." >Complete Article

John Piper's Remarkable Sermon on Sexual Failure vs. Faith

From Crosswalk

At the Passion 07 conference in Atlanta last week, John Piper preached a remarkable message with a remarkable title: How to Deal With the Guilt of Sexual Failure for the Glory of Christ and His Global Cause. The title brings together several themes that at first glance seem unrelated -- guilt, sexual sin, the glory of Christ and the global cause of world missions. If someone wants to know how preaching in the 21st century can be both biblical and yet realistic and ultimately hope-giving, then read this sermon.

Piper starts with the assumption that many young people struggle with the guilt of sexual sin (a fact we all recognize), but he goes further and says that that guilt often leads them to give up on serving the Lord and to settle for a life of middle class materialism. The tragedy here is that Satan then wins a double victory -- once when the original sin occurred, and later (and sometimes for a lifetime) when that residual guilt keeps them from doing anything for the Kingdom. Here is a taste of what Piper said:

The great tragedy is not mainly masturbation or fornication or acting like a peeping Tom (or curious Cathy) on the Internet. The tragedy is that Satan uses the guilt of these failures to strip you of every radical dream you ever had, or might have, and in its place give you a happy, safe, secure, American life of superficial pleasures until you die in your lakeside rocking chair, wrinkled and useless, leaving a big fat inheritance to your middle-aged children to confirm them in their worldliness.

He summarizes a vast area of truth in two rather shocking statements: Theology can conquer biology. Justification can conquer fornication. I've never seen it put that way before, but it certainly strikes me as a biblical formulation. Note that he doesn't say "theology will conquer biology," as if victory over sin is automatic. Theology provides the foundation and justification puts in you a position to receive God's life-changing power, but then you must fight and fight hard and keep on fighting, knowing that sometimes you will fail. What then? Either you give in (which is what the advocates of homosexuality support) or you stand and fight in Jesus' name, fighting in the power of the Lord but fighting nonetheless. Piper again:

The distinguishing mark of saving faith is not perfection. The mark of faith is not that I never sin sexually. The mark of faith is that I fight. I fight anything that dims my sight of Jesus as my glorious Savior. I fight anything that diminishes the fullness of the lordship of Jesus in my life. I fight anything that threatens to replace Jesus as the supreme Treasure of my life. Anything that stands between me and receiving Jesus. Faith fights -- not with fists or knives or guns or bombs, but with the truth of Christ. >More

How House members voted on the embryonic stem cell bill

WASHINGTON (BP)--The House of Representatives Jan. 10 passed a bill by a margin of 253-174 that would drastically expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. President Bush has said he would veto it, and the roll call fell far short of the 290-vote veto-proof majority. Following is a list of how representatives voted:

VOTING FOR THE BILL WERE:

Abercrombie, Ackerman, Allen, Altmire, Andrews, Arcuri, Baca, Baird, Baldwin, Barrow, Barton (TX), Bean, Becerra, Berkley, Berman, Berry, Biggert, Bilbray, Bishop (NY), Blumenauer, Bono, Boren, Boswell, Boucher, Boyd (FL), Boyda (KS) , Brady (PA), Braley (IA), Brown (Corrine), Brown-Waite (Ginny), Butterfield, Calvert, Capito, Capps, Capuano, Cardoza, Carnahan, Carney, Carson, Castle, Castor, Chandler, Clarke, Clay, Cleaver, Clyburn, Coble, Cohen, Conyers, Cooper, Costa, Courtney, Cramer, Crowley, Cuellar, Cummings, Davis (AL), Davis (CA), Davis (IL), Davis (Tom), DeFazio, DeGette, Delahunt, DeLauro, Dent, Dicks, Dingell, Doggett, Doyle, Dreier, Edwards, Ellison, Emanuel, Emerson, Engel, Eshoo, Etheridge, Farr, Fattah, Filner, Fossella, Frank (MA), Frelinghuysen, Gerlach, Giffords, Gillibrand, Gonzalez, Gordon, Granger. Green (Al), Green (Gene), Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hall (NY), Hare, Harman, Hastings (FL), Heller, Herseth, Higgins, Hill, Hinchey, Hinojosa, Hirono, Hodes, Holden, Holt, Honda, Hooley, Hoyer,

Inslee, Israel, Issa, Jackson (IL), Jackson-Lee (TX), Jefferson, Johnson (GA), Johnson, E. B., Jones (OH), Kagen, Kanjorski, Kennedy, Kildee, Kilpatrick, Kind, Kirk, Klein (FL), Kucinich, Lampson, Langevin, Lantos, Larsen (WA), Larson (CT), LaTourette, Lee, Levin, Lewis (CA), Lewis (GA), Loebsack, Lofgren ( Zoe), Lowey, Lynch, Mack, Mahoney (FL), Maloney (NY), Markey, Matheson, Matsui, McCarthy (NY), McCollum (MN), McDermott, McGovern, McKeon, McNerney, McNulty, Meehan, Meek (FL), Meeks (NY), Melancon, Michaud, Millender-McDonald, Miller (NC), Miller, George, Mitchell, Moore (KS), Moore (WI), Moran (VA), Murphy (CT), Murphy (Patrick), Murtha, Nadler, Napolitano, Neal (MA), Obey, Olver, Ortiz,

Full Article

When Is Enough - Enough

Parents Group Raises Alarms Over Increasing TV Violence; FCC Calls for Action


WASHINGTON, DC (AgapePress) - A new report from the Parents Television Council (PTC) says the television season that began in the fall of 2005 was one of the most violent ever. The pro-family media watchdog group's report examines violence on prime-time broadcast TV over the last eight years.

The study's findings were announced yesterday in a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Tim Winter, president of the PTC, says it found that between 1998 and 2006, violence increased in every television viewing time slot and on virtually every network, "the only exceptions being that UPN and FOX actually aired less violence during the family hour in 2005-2006, compared to 1998."

According to the PTC's study, Winter notes, broadcast TV violence during prime time has increased 75 percent since 1998. And during this last television season, he says, "nearly half of all episodes aired during the study period contained at least one instance of violence."

Also during that 2005-2006 season, the pro-family spokesman points out, the WB network had the highest frequency of violence during the family hour, with an average of nearly four incidents of violence per hour. And ABC's short-lived series Night Stalker proved to be the single most violent program on television during the same season, he notes.

The PTC report also notes that during the 2005-2006 season, every episode of every program airing on NBC during the 10 p.m. time slot contained at least one instance of violence. And CBS also earned a dubious distinction for broadcast violence, Winter observes. >Full Article

Former Presidents Carter & Clinton

Former Presidents Carter & Clinton call for 'A New Baptist Covenant’Jan 10, 2007By Erin RoachBaptist Press

ATLANTA (BP)--Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have proposed the establishment of a broadly inclusive alternative Baptist movement to counter what they called a negative image of Baptists and to address poverty, the environment and global conflicts.Carter and Clinton kicked off their plans with a news conference Jan. 9 at the Carter Center in Atlanta, flanked by leaders of moderate Baptist groups including the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a breakaway group of an unverified number of churches that objected to the election of conservative leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention. Carter and Clinton announced a “Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant,” tentatively set for Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 2008, at the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta, which they hope will attract 20,000 Baptists.“This is a historic event for the Baptists in this country and perhaps for Christianity,” Carter said at the news conference.About 80 leaders of 40 moderate Baptist organizations claiming to represent 20 million Baptists in the United States, Canada and Mexico met at the Carter Center for the announcement. Leaders from the Southern Baptist Convention were not invited to attend.“This is an attempt to bring people together and say, ‘What would our Christian witness require of us in the 21st century?’” Clinton said, adding that his goal is to be a “cheerleader” for the group.Bill Underwood, president of Mercer University in Georgia, said at the news conference that the 2008 meeting is meant to draw attention away from “the Baptists who have the microphone,” meaning conservative leaders who frequently appear in the media voicing conservative views.“North America desperately needs a true Baptist witness,” Underwood said. >Full Story