Frenetic Friday: Profanation Of Marriage Day


I wasn’t going to post today, I owe John Avery a long over due review on his book “The Name Quest“. I have a post for Credo Covenant that I have been working on. So I am past due and have been playing catch-up. However the number one fan has expressed his displeasure and with the recent SCOTUS decision I thought better of not posting. So Wes this is your responsibility.

Here is the text of the fourteenth amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article

Got that? Because this is what the majority opinion is said to based upon.

You can read the entire thing here.

There are four separate dissents Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

All of them are worth looking at but I am going to highlight Alito’s comments.

The question in these cases, however, is not what States should do about same-sex marriage but whether the Constitution answers that question for them. It does not. The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State.

Adherents to different schools of philosophy use different terms to explain why society should formalize mar- riage and attach special benefits and obligations to per- sons who marry. Here, the States defending their adherence to the traditional understanding of marriage have explained their position using the pragmatic vocabulary that characterizes most American political discourse. Their basic argument is that States formalize and promote marriage, unlike other fulfilling human relationships, in order to encourage potentially procreative conduct to take place within a lasting unit that has long been thought to provide the best atmosphere for raising children. They thus argue that there are reasonable secular grounds for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

It is far beyond the outer reaches of this Court’s authority to say that a State may not adhere to the understanding of marriage that has long prevailed, not just in this country and others with similar cultural roots, but also in a great variety of countries and cultures all around the globe.

Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences.

It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.

Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

The system of federalism established by our Constitution provides a way for people with different beliefs to live together in a single nation. If the issue of same-sex marriage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights. The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.

I do not doubt that my colleagues in the majority sincerely see in the Constitution a vision of liberty that happens to coincide with their own. But this sincerity is cause for concern, not comfort. What it evidences is the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation.

Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today’s decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends. (Emphasis mine)

Of course no one is really surprised at this ruling, It was obvious from the beginning that the liberals on the court would go this way.  But take it for granted that it won’t end here this is a pandorian event and ultimately the box will be empty.

Foreseeing this the Southern Baptist Convention on June 17 adopted “On the Call to Public Witness on Marriage” resolution.  The statement reads:

“No matter how the Supreme Court rules, the Southern Baptist Convention reaffirms its unwavering commitment to its doctrinal and public beliefs concerning marriage,”

and

“Southern Baptists love our neighbors and extend respect in Christ’s name to all people, including those who may disagree with us about the definition of marriage and the public good.”

Ronnie Floyd president of the Southern Baptists referred to this as a Bonhoeffer moment saying:

“While some evangelicals … may be bowing down to the deception of the inclusiveness of same-sex marriage or marriage in their churches, we will not bow down, nor will we be silent.”

“I want to remind everyone today, humbly, the Supreme Court of the United States is not the final authority, nor is the culture itself, but the Bible is God’s final authority about marriage and on this book we stand,”

I’m going to end this post with what James White posted on his Facebook page on June 22

How to Glorify God on Marriage Profanation Day

  1. Begin the day with prayer and Bible reading, submitting your mind to the Lordship of Christ.
  2. f you are married, pray for your spouse, expressing thanks to God for your marriage, and imploring the Almighty to protect your marriage so that it may be a witness to the world of what God intended.
  3. Review the teaching of Jesus on the foundation of marriage in Matthew 19:4-6. Note especially that the Creator Himself established gender, the role of the husband, of the wife, of the father, and the mother, and that the only relationship He will ever bless is one that fits in this paradigm: one man, one woman.
  4. Pray for grace to love rebel sinners who will be rejoicing in the profaning of God’s good gifts, for you, too, once hated what is good and loved what is evil. Remember, you have been redeemed from the world, transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light, and that all of grace.
  5. Pray for the younger generation that has been robbed of transcendent meaning and purpose. Pray for God’s people, those young folks still being called out of the darkness into the light, for they will face a far more difficult world than most of us older followers of Jesus in the United States have ever faced.
  6. Do not look backwards and long for the “good ol’ days” when a semblance of moral sanity prevailed by God’s grace in our land. Realize in the midst of judgment we are called to be salt and light.
  7. Go out and tell someone Jesus is Lord. Lord over all of life. Lord over creation, Lord over man’s institutions, Lord over all human authorities. Be salt. Be light. The darkness is deepening daily, and that means our light is all that much more necessary. The denizens of the darkness will try to extinguish that light. They cannot.

I can only say maranatha even so come Lord Jesus!

Thank you and come back next week God willing–Keachfan

Earworm Wednesday: Immortals (Fallout Boy) ~ Metal cover by Solence


So I was watching Big Hero Six again and this song came into my head.  So since I had no other song floating around in my head I decided to search out a cover for today’s Earworm.

Solence is Markus Videsäter-Vocals, David Strääf~Guitar, Jonas Nolér~Guitar; Johan Swärd~Keys, and David Vikingsson`Drums.  Formed in 2012 this group of Swedish music students is out to rack the world.  Well that is my paraphrase of their About the Band page go there to learn more about the group and you can check out their music.  So enjoy.

 

Movie Review: Jurassic World



Producers: Steven Spielberg, Thomas Tull, Frank Marshall, Jon Jashni, Patrick Crowley
Director: Colin Trevorrow
Writers: Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver, and others based on Michael Chrichton’s Jurassic Park
Cast: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Ty Simpkins, Nick Robinson, Vincent D’Onofrio, Omar Say

Monster is a relative term. To a canary, a cat is a monster. We’re just used to being the cat.

Plot: Twenty two years after the last park closed Jurassic World has opened as fully functional theme park that has such things as triceratop rides for the kiddies and protective motorized hamster ball that lets you travel among the dinosaurs in safety.

But attendance is down so a new bigger, badder, toothier, dinosaur is being created like nothing that had been seen on earth before.

First this is a fun film and by that I don’t mean to imply that carnosaurs gulping down fleeing humans is fun.  Rather the ensemble together works well and makes this a very enjoyable film.  Chris Pratt replays the same character that he did in Guardians of the Galaxy, slightly toned down. He is  brash, funny, brave, and slightly goofy.  Vincent D’Onofrio is great as the villain of the piece he is the mad man who thinks he can use dinosaurs in a military operations.  Byrice Dallas Howard as the corporate business woman who suddenly discovers there is something more besides attendance in the park to think about.  And I have to say she is the only person I’ve seen lately that did it all in high heels.

But in all seriousness if you have seen the first movie you know the plot.  Man is messing around with science that shouldn’t be messed with, but as the B.D. Wong character says “If we didn’t do it someone else would.” And that is the fatal flaw behind Jurassic Park/World the scientists think science is amoral there is no right or wrong but in reality when they engage in this lives are lost.

I give this movie four point five stars see it on the big screen.

 

Catechism


Q. 29 Why is the Son of God called “Jesus”, meaning ” savior “?
A. Because he saves us from our sins. Salvation cannot be from anyone else; it is futile to look for any salvation elsewhere.

Matt. 1:21; Heb. 7:25
Isa. 43:11; John 15:5; Acts 4:11-12; 1Tim. 2:5

Q. 30 Do those who look for their salvation and security in saints, in themselves, or elsewhere really believe in the only savior Jesus?
A. No. Although they boast of being his, by their deeds they deny the only savior and deliver, Jesus. Either Jesus is not a perfect savior, or those who in true faith accept this savior have in him all they need for their salvation.

1Cor. 1:12-13; Gal. 5:4
Col. 1:19-20; 2:10; 1John 1:7

Frenetic Friday


Better men than I have written on the tragedy in Charleston and the young man that did the killing however one of the things that appeared yesterday was this post by gospel singer Marcus Stanley a man that had been shot eight times while touring.  This is the post he left on Dylann Roof’s Facebook page before that page was taken down,

The Gospel is the solution to hate.  <source>

With all the various labels being thrown around, transracial, transgender, etc.. Here ar Keachfan we are going to lump this under Trans-issues.

So speaking of that Rachel Dolezal now that she has stepped down as the head of the NAACP in Spokane Washington she has been asked to leave the ombudsman post she also headed.  But she wasn’t in Spokane when this occurred no she had jetted over to the Today Show to be interviewed where she again asserted that she identified as “Black”.

However, some have taken issue with the idea that race is like gender is all in the mind.  Tamara Winfrey Harris writing in the opinion page of the June 16 New York times says that

Some people have pointed to this strange case as an illustration that race is malleable. I submit that Ms. Dolezal is a reminder that it is not. Racial identity cannot be fluid as long as the definition of whiteness is fixed. And historically, the path to whiteness has been extremely narrow.

And then later writes:

Being able to shift one’s race is a privilege. Ms. Dolezal’s masquerade illustrates that however much she may empathize with African-Americans, she is not one, because black people in America cannot shed their race. We cannot proclaim the black race a nebulous concept, while strictly policing whiteness and the privileges of that identity. I will accept Ms. Dolezal as black like me only when society can accept me as white like her.

<source>

 

So two celebrities were in the news today, who you ask?  Why Bill Nye the science guy and Pope Francis.

Seems Bill, the science guy not the tropical storm, blames the floods in Texas and the warm weather is cause by man made global warming.  Well meteorologists weren’t having any and took Nye to task.

Bill Nye the bloviating, low information “climate guy” … not taken seriously by any meteorologist. https://t.co/aOHSCW3Ga2 — Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) June 16, 2015

@BillNye you stand for everything that is wrong in the world of climate/atmospheric science — Ryan Breton (@RyanBretonWX) June 16, 2015

Then there is Pope Francis, he just finished up an encyclical that lays out what the good Roman Catholics should do regarding climate change.  But as Al Mohler points out:

Pope Francis has also tied the credibility of his papacy to scientific arguments that may well change over time, perhaps radically. <source>

 So if climate change is proven wrong, And the pope has egg on his face metaphorically speaking what does that do to his credibility?  And as a protestant should I care?  My standard is the unchanging Scriptures.
Good Night!

Theology Thursday: Who Is Israel?


He is NOT A JEW who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is OUTWARD in the FLESH. Be he is a Jew who is one INWARDLY; and circumcision is that which is of the HEART, BY THE SPIRIT; not by the letter, and his praise is not from men, but from God (Romans 2:28-29, NASB).

For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be HEIR OF THE WORLD was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith… it is by FAITH, in order that it may be in accordance with GRACE, so that the promise will be … to those who are of the FAITH of Abraham… (Rom 4:13, 16 NASB).

…it is NOT THE CHILDREN OF THE FLESH who are children of God, but the children of the PROMISE who are regarded as descendants (Rom 9:8).

Romans 9:25 quoting Hosea 2:23

I will call those who were NOT MY PEOPLE, ‘My people,’ and she was not beloved, ‘Beloved.’

For THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN JEW AND GREEK; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for WHOEVER will call on the name of the LORD shall be saved (Rom 10:12-13).

So then, THOSE WHO ARE OF FAITH are blessed with Abraham, the believer (Galatians 3:9).

There IS NEITHER JEW NOR GREEK … for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to CHRIST, then YOU ARE ABRAHAM’S DESCENDANTS, heirs according to promise (Gal 3:28-29).

…the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise IN CHRIST JESUS through the gospel (Eph 3:6).

So who is Israel, theologically speaking? Israel is the people descended from Abraham’s faith, rather than just his genealogy. Israel is hugely multiplied by the adoption of believing Gentiles into the family of God.

Is this so-called “replacement theology?” Not at all! This is simply the bible’s definition of the community, or “nation” if you will, now comprised of “those from every tribe and tongue and people and nation (Revelation 5:9)” who have been purchased for God by Christ’s redemptive sacrifice. The political (earthly) theocracy that was ancient Israel no longer exists, though the physical descendants of Abraham certainly do, and as the Apostle Paul observed, “that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in (Romans 11:25);” but “they are beloved for the sake of the father; for the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable (verses 28-29).”

Dispensationalists wrongly divide the people of God by maintaining a distinction which Christ has wiped away.

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups (Jew and Gentile) into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall (Eph 2:14).

Replacement? No! Augmentation, multiplication, adoption, and ultimate redemption? Absolutely yes.

SPECIAL NOTE TO KEACHFAN READERS: Theology Thursday posts are likely to be sporadic for the next couple of months, as I am traveling and may not be able to post regularly and faithfully every Thursday while I’m away from home.