Christians who dare speak of such things are seen as a plague on society. Thinking about the wrath of God may cause people to feel guilty, and that is not only unpleasant in itself, but bad for self esteem and mental health. The politics of tolerance condemns as uncivil anyone who proclaims the message of sin and judgment with Biblical authority…

“God…now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked… [Acts 17:30-32]

Those who dismiss the message of judgment are doing a service to mainstream culture by allowing it to avoid thoughts of accountability. They are also doing a service to themselves, by assuring the culture that they, the thoughtful and sensitive Christians, are tolerant and civil, not like those other mean-spirited Christians.

The real Jesus is of no interest to mainstream culture because He speaks of judgment and makes hard demands…

Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple" [Luke 14:25-27].

In fact the gospel is two-sided, containing attractions, promises, and benefits on the one hand and offenses, warnings, and serious obligations on the other. We cannot just choose the part we like and neglect the other without danger of compromising the Christian faith. Muting the message of judgment and wrath in an effort to match the cultural norms of tolerance and civility is foreign to the New Testament.

Biblical Christianity is deeply offensive to our lawless and idolatrous culture, and cannot be make palatable and remain effective. It is written of those who will preach the apostolic gospel…

"You will be hated by all for my name's sake" [Luke 21:17].

The purpose of the message is not to appease the sinner by avoiding all that is offensive, but to be used of the Spirit to convict of sin and righteousness and effectually call the elect. In this respect Arminianism has produced a weak and flabby Christianity, thinking that the unbeliever is in need of convincing rather than resurrection.

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/SandyRios/2009/07/07/palin_why_she_left_is_no_mystery

Depravity likes to take what God has given to His image bearers as good and use it for sin. Depravity judges the self-revealed God and finds fault with Him and His revelation. The Scriptures asks, ‘Is there unrighteousness with God?’ Depravity says yes!

Depravity says that God justified the institution of slavery, the killing of the first born, and the stoning of sinners.

Did God deliver Israel from Egyptian slavery? Isn’t bond servitude far more humane than a state sponsored welfare system that enslaves families for generations? Depravity doesn’t care; it equates the slave trade with slavery condoned in the Bible.

What about the killing of innocents? The Creator has power over the creature as the plotter does over the clay; that which is made does not question its maker. But depravity sees no problem with slaughtering innocents, even in the womb, because it likes to assume authority and exalt itself in the place of God.

Man is in depravity because of his fall into sin, but he has infinite value because he is an image bearer of the Personal Infinite I AM.

Men share equality in value before God and His law, but even God does not promise equality of circumstances. Depravity defines fairness as equality of outcome. Men lose their value, and life is cheapened.

Because man is an image bearer with unalienable rights, he has responsibilities and is accountable to his Creator. Depravity loves to make up new rights, but denies responsibility.

It is affirmed and repeated by the upholders of Evangelicals and Catholics Together that the justification of sinners ‘is not earned by any good works or merits of our own’. But this is a specious use of words. The Roman Church has always claimed that ‘the good works’ necessary for justification are performed in cooperation with Christ

Thus Cannon XXXII of Trent teaches that good works performed through the grace of God and the merit of Christ ‘truly merit eternal life’. No matter what is credited to Christ, works remain a necessary part of justification, and because no one can know if his works are of sufficient quality Rome denies the possibility of assurance, and teaches the necessity of sacraments and of purgatory for most Christians.

‘The doctrine invented by the papists is that we can do nothing without Christ, but that aided by Him, we have something of ourselves in addition to His grace’ [Calvin]. Contrary to Rome, the Reformers held that justification is not a process but an act of God, accounting the work of Christ to the sinner who receives Him. It is a once-for-all event, of which good works are not a part but a consequence.

In the present fragmented state of Christianity and threatened by rampant secularism and materialism, why should evangelicals remain apart from the ‘greater unity’ which Rome professes to offer? If evangelicals have discovered that the differences do not concern the essentials of the gospel, and there is now agreement ‘on the basics’, why should there not be reunion?

It is by Scripture that the decision must be reached whether a Reformer such as John Hooper was mistaken in being ‘willing to give up his life rather than consent to the wicked papistical religion of the Bishop of Rome’. When urged to recant with the words, ‘Consider that life is sweet, and death is bitter’, the one-time Bishop of Gloucester replied: ‘The life to come is more sweet, and the death to come is more bitter.’

The Reformers were men mighty in the Scriptures. Their eyes were opened to the Church of Rome; what they once thought to be the bride of Christ, became to them the great harlot, and they came out of her. Unless there is a renewal of what made Protestantism, the uncertainties promoted by books like 'Is the Reformation Over?' can only continue to influence larger numbers.

Why is ecumenicalism defined in terms of Protestants coming home to Rome? Instead, why should it not be defined as all Christians being united around the doctrines of Jesus Christ? That is, local and independent churches governed by elders under the authority of Christ through His word given to us in the Holy Scriptures and opened to us by the Holy Spirit; a pure doctrine of justification by faith alone and a complete and sufficient atonement that atones once for all time; an unambiguous salvation that is in Christ alone by grace alone.

ScienceDaily (Mar. 2, 2007) — Scientists to investigate a startling discovery in the depths of the Atlantic.

Scientists have discovered a large area thousands of square kilometres in extent in the middle of the Atlantic where the Earth’s crust appears to be missing. Instead, the mantle - the deep interior of the Earth, normally covered by crust many kilometres thick - is exposed on the seafloor, 3000m below the surface.

Marine geologist Dr Chris MacLeod, School of Earth, Ocean and Planetary Sciences said: "This discovery is like an open wound on the surface of the Earth. Was the crust never there? Was it once there but then torn away on huge geological faults? If so, then how and why?"

To answer some of these questions Dr MacLeod with a team of scientists, led by marine geophysicist Professor Roger Searle, Durham University, will travel to the area which lies mid-way between the Cape Verde Islands and the Caribbean.

The expedition will be the inaugural research cruise of a new UK research ship RRS James Cook. The team intends to use sonars to image the seafloor and then take rock cores using a robotic seabed drill. The samples will provide a rare opportunity to gain insights into the workings of the mantle deep below the surface of the Earth.

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/PatBuchanan/2009/06/30/making_a_monkey_out_of_darwin

If Darwinism is a religion filled with fraud, deception and intimidation, then how are we to explain its appeal and its power to capture the scientific community and the halls of academia? How could they all be wrong?

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/2009/06/29/is_this_the_end_for_mark_sanford

Who are the biggest hypocrites and the most self-righteous: those who deny sin and man’s accountability before the Law of God or those who believe in the Law as the standard of righteousness and yet transgress the Law?

The lost man doesn’t know that he is lost; he is completely blinded by his sin, thinking he is free while a slave to unrighteousness. He does what is right in his own eyes, judging others by his own standard of judgment; he is righteous in his own eyes.

But he does not understand that in his condemnation of another man’s transgression he has agreed that the Law is good. He condemns himself as a law breaker and is without excuse. Since sin is of the heart, how shall any escape its condemnation? How can a man change his heart?

The Christian does not claim sinlessness because he knows his own heart. He has a renewed heart, but it is not without sin. There is a struggle now against sin, where before he was a willing captive to its power. He knows that all his righteousness is as filthy rags and claims no righteousness of his own, except that imputed to him through faith in Christ.

We see again the deceitfulness of sin in the believer and in those who accuse him. All men know that God exists by the living things He has made and through the world He has made to sustain their life. The biggest hypocrites are the ones who suppress this knowledge and deny that they will give account to God for their own sin.

Not only does moral guilt exist for transgressions of the Law that carries with it a death penalty described in Revelation 20 as the second death, but a real redemption that removes guilt is accomplished in Christ and its application continues to bring life over which the second death has no power…

Certainly, where there are basic gospel truths, Christians may be found. That such basic truth survives within the formularies of the Roman Church is not denied, nor has such a denial ever been part of the Protestant case against Rome. The issue is whether the system of teaching and practice with which Rome indoctrinates her people is consistent with those basic truths. The Reformers judged that system against Scripture and showed the fundamental contradictions:

‘Calvin's birthday comes six days after the Independence Day that owes much to his teaching’ – Marvin Olasky

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2009/06/23/on_his_500th_birthday,_three_cheers_for_john_calvin

There would be no free America without the influence of Calvinism in northern Europe and then in colonial America. Calvin leaves a rich testimony as a faithful expositor of the Scriptures, and therefore his influence is testimony to the veracity of the Bible.

Trying to set the record straight is a futile effort because the secularists and religionists alike have determined to disparage this man and to impugn his character along with those associated with him.

Calvin is hated for the same reasons that men hate Jesus Christ. Prideful men despise the doctrines of Christ; that God is sovereign over men as the potter is master over the clay and that men are dead in sin and wholly dependent on the grace of God for salvation. The apostate Jewish church hated Christ and plotted against Him. And so the apostate Christian church hated Calvin and Luther and plotted against them.

Biblical truth remains the only effective force against apostasy as demonstrated in the Reformation. Luther was raised up to rediscover the truths of Augustinianism buried beneath 1000 years of superstition under the traditions of men. Calvin was raised up to apply the forgotten truths to the state. Jesus Christ is Lord over all things. His kingdom extends to every sphere of life because His Law and Gospel are universal and absolute.

http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=lloydjones

Mr. Schaeffer did say that ‘God is there’; he also said that ‘God has spoken’. He reveals Himself in Creation and in the Holy Scriptures. The modern Protestant Church has compromised both leading to weakness and irrelevancy.

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/JaniceShawCrouse/2009/06/19/picking_a_fight_with_fellow_evangelicals

Many are saying that the Reformation is over and some call the evangelical movement “the richest, most powerful religious movement in history”. But herein is the problem. Our people do not recognize that the Reformation was the act of the triune God reforming His Church. What we have now is a religious movement that has exchanged truth for the wisdom of men.

Who will call for a return to Reformation doctrine? That is, a belief in the absolute sovereignty of God over all things including salvation;

a belief in a victorious and powerful Christ who has all authority in heaven and earth so that nothing is able to prevent Him from accomplishing His will;

a belief in the sufficiency of Scripture for the rule of faith and practice for the Christian and the churches;

a belief in the New Covenant promise that all believers are priests and kings to their God through the merits of Christ alone with the great privilege to read and study the Scriptures for themselves.

Herein are the foundations of liberty that are the first things that led to what we now refer to as conservatism.

If our doctrine is no different than Rome, then why not return to Rome for the sake of a hollow unity? We who call ourselves evangelical would do well to consider 1 Kings 18…

Far from being an obsolete Reformation issue, the 1998 Papal Bull, Incarnationis Mysterium, states in detail how by obtaining an indulgence the pains of purgatory may be reduced for oneself or for the dead.

Yet the spokesmen of Rome tell us that the Holy Spirit has inspired the tradition of the Church as He has inspired Scripture. We may therefore trust Rome as much as we may trust Scripture. Indeed we may trust Rome more, because we cannot depend on our own understanding of Scripture: ‘The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and of the bishops in communion with him.’ These words are not from the sixteenth century, but from the official Vatican teaching of 1994. The convert to Rome today is required to believe what the Church believes.

The charge made by John Owen long ago remains true: ‘The church of Rome lays claim to the very same authority over and conduct of the consciences of men in religion as were committed unto Jesus Christ and His apostles.’ [Works, vol 14, p. 499]

The issue of authority is the real key to the Roman/Protestant division. Far from being an isolated belief it underpins everything that stands against evangelical Christianity. Let Rome’s claim to share in the rule of faith with Scripture be taken away, and her claim to mediate salvation through priest and sacrament must fall. It is irresponsible for Noll and Nystrom to write as though the nature of the church is an issue separable from the way of salvation, especially as they know that Rome claims their Church to be ‘an integral part of the Gospel’. [Evangelicals and Catholics Together] On this point the Roman Catechism is explicit…

‘They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.’ [Catechism of the Catholic Church, pp. 196-197]

Noll and Nystrom tell us that the anathemas pronounced by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century on those who left Rome to uphold evangelical belief are now removed. But they are only removed for those ready to blur the evangelical beliefs recovered at the Reformation. How can a person be an evangelical and acquiesce to such official statements of Roman belief as, ‘Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith…It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism’. [Catechism, pp. 433-434]

On the primary issue nothing has changed. The old claim stands that the Roman church of the apostolic age is the same Church of Rome today; the true Church as compared with the communities that only began with Martin Luther and are not to be called churches. So Pope Benedict, in his decree of July 10, 2007, answered the question why the Second Vatican Council did not use the word ‘church’ when speaking of the congregations of the Reformation:

-Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching on ‘The Wiles of the Devil’, January 29, 1961

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/SandyRios/2009/06/12/the_confusion_of_the_pagans

We thank Sandy Rios for writing with clarity on this issue in the midst of confusion.

The pagans usually reference Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac to accuse God. Causing the death of the first born of Egypt is sure to make their point that God is unrighteous and hypocritical. But these are only pictures of the things to come. If they want to mock God, then why don’t they reference the final judgment when not just the Egyptians, but all men will stand before the righteous Judge?

Modern people may no longer make idols in the form of physical images, but their very idea of “scientific law” is an idolatrous twisting of their knowledge of God. They conceal from themselves the fact that this “law” is personal and that they are responsible to Him. Or they substitute the word “Nature,” personifying her as they talk glowingly of the works of “Mother Nature.” But they evade what they know of the transcendence of God over nature.

http://townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2009/06/11/glory_observed

Luther and the other Reformers rediscovered the good news of ‘a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God’ through Jesus Christ. This is the gospel that through the abundant grace in Christ, sinners can become a kingdom of priests and offer up their sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, being joint heirs with Him to every spiritual blessing…