Ligon Duncan on the Non-Negotiables of the Gospel

Christian Skepticism endorses:

monergism.com

This site contains some of the most valuable God-centered resources a Christian Skeptic could ever want. Whether you peruse the copious free items or purchase something from their excellent online store, your worldview will never be the same!

Start Here to become a Christian Skeptic

We wanted to highlight this compilation by Paul Manata - The Philosophy of the
Christian Religion
- an excellent online resource for the development of the
well-considered Christian worldview.

Skeptical Insights

Good Blogroll (from Pyromaniacs)

  • Colin Adams
  • Charlie Albright
  • Aletheuo
  • Scott Aniol
  • Tom Ascol
  • Derek Ashton (TheoParadox)
  • Zachary Bartels
  • Tim and David Bayly
  • Rick Beckman
  • Tyler Bennicke
  • Bible Geek
  • Big Orange Truck
  • Andy Bird
  • John Bird
  • Bob Bixby
  • Timmy Brister
  • Fred Butler
  • Calvin and Calvinism (Classic and moderate Calvinism)
  • Cal.vini.st
  • Bret Capranica
  • Nathan Casebolt
  • Lane Chaplin
  • Tim ("The World's Most Famous Christian Blogger"®) Challies
  • The Conservative Intelligencer
  • The Contemporary Calvinist
  • The Conventicle
  • Craig's Blog
  • Deliver Detroit
  • Daniel (Doulogos)
  • William Dicks
  • The Doulos' Den
  • Martin Downes
  • Connie Dugas
  • Doug Eaton
  • Nicholas Edinger
  • Brother Eugene
  • Eusebeia
  • Stefan Ewing
  • Eddie Exposito
  • Expository Thoughts
  • Faces Like Flint
  • Reid Ferguson
  • Peter Farrell
  • Bill Fickett
  • Fide-o
  • Foolish Things
  • Chris Freeland
  • Travis Gilbert
  • Ron Gleason
  • Go Share Your Faith!
  • God is My Constant
  • Phil Gons
  • Joel Griffith (Solameanie)
  • Matt Gumm
  • Gregg Hanke
  • Jacob Hantla
  • Chris Harwood
  • J. D. Hatfield
  • Michael Haykin
  • Tony Hayling (Agonizomai)
  • Steve Hays and the amazing "Triablogue" team
  • Scott Head
  • Patrick Heaviside (Paths of Old)
  • Marc Heinrich's Purgatorio
  • Sean Higgins
  • Illumination (Rich Barcellos and Sam Waldron)
  • Inverted Planet
  • Tim Jack
  • Jackhammer
  • Craig Johnson
  • Alex Jordan
  • The Journeymen
  • Justified
  • Lane Keister (Green Baggins)
  • John Killian
  • David Kjos
  • Ted Kluck
  • Patrick Lacson
  • A Little Leaven (Museum of Idolatry)
  • Janet Lee
  • Let My Lifesong Sing
  • Libbie, the English Muffin
  • Light and Heat
  • Greg Linscott
  • Bryan Maes
  • Brian McDaris
  • Doug McMasters
  • Allen Mickle
  • The incomparable Al Mohler
  • Jonathan Moorhead
  • Ryan Moran
  • Stephen Newell
  • Dean Olive
  • Dan Paden
  • Paleoevangelical
  • A Peculiar Pilgrim
  • Jim Pemberton
  • The Persecution Times
  • Bill Pershing
  • Kevin Pierpont
  • Matt Plett
  • Wes Porter
  • Postmortemism
  • The Red and Black Redneck
  • Reformata
  • Reformation 21
  • Reformation Theology (sponsored by Monergism.Com)
  • Reformed Evangelist
  • Remonstrans
  • Carla Rolfe
  • Tony Rose
  • Andrew Roycroft
  • Eric Rung
  • Said at Southern Seminary
  • Seeing Clearly
  • Sharper Iron
  • Kim Shay
  • Neil Shay
  • Brian Shealy
  • Ken Silva
  • Tom Slawson's "Tom in the Box"
  • Tom Slawson's other blog
  • Doug Smith
  • Richard Snoddy
  • Social Hazard
  • SolaFire
  • Rebecca Stark
  • Kevin Stilley
  • Cindy Swanson
  • Talking Out Of Turn
  • Justin Taylor's "Between Two Worlds"
  • Robert Tewart (StreetFishing)
  • TheoJunkie's Thoughts on Theology
  • Theology Bites
  • Through the Veil
  • Three Times a Mom
  • Voice of the Shepherd
  • Jared Wall
  • Adrian Warnock
  • David Wayne
  • Jeremy Weaver
  • Steve Weaver
  • Über-apologist James White's legendary "Pros Apologian" blog
  • Brad Williams
  • Doug Wilson
  • Writing and Living
  • Ryan Wood
  • Todd Young
  • Thursday, November 06, 2008

    Ligon Duncan on Praying for President-Elect Obama

    from here

    We ought to commit ourselves to pray for our new President, for his wife and family, for his administration, and for the nation. We will do this, not only because of the biblical command to pray for our rulers, but because of the second greatest commandment "Love your neighbor" and what better way to love your neighbor, than to pray for his well-being. Those with the greatest moral and political differences with the President-Elect ought to ask God to engender in them, by His Spirit, genuine neighbor-love for Mr. Obama.

    22 comments:

    jazzycat said...

    Hmmmm! Pray for "his administration" Perhaps you could explain to me exactly how German Christians of the late 1930's and early 40's exactly how they should have been praying for Hitler. How would the words have gone in that prayer?

    Obama's human rights stance on aborting the unborn is much like Hitlers on the Jews.

    jazzycat said...

    Wouldn't it be better to pray that his polices that go against life and liberty be defeated? IOW pray that God would give us the courage to lawfully oppose and speak out against the agenda that will remove any restrictions from abortion and severely hinder the freedom and liberty that we secured through the Declaration on Independence and Revolutionary War. Should we silently pray for an adminstration to undo what our Christian forefathers secured when they established this country?

    I can pray for God to change him, give him wisdom, defend the country, for his salvation, etc., but don't ask me to not begin immediately trying to thwart his ungodly and unrighteous agenda.

    skeptimal said...

    "Perhaps you could explain to me exactly how German Christians of the late 1930's and early 40's exactly how they should have been praying for Hitler."

    Jazzycat,

    OK, I'll bite. In exactly what way is Obama like Hitler? Hitler came to power by creating fear in the German people. He refused to listen to or tolerate people who disagreed with him. He was a socialist economically and an arch-conservative socially. Except for the socialism, that reads like the political strategy of Evangelicalism, not Obama.

    Skeptimal

    jazzycat said...

    Skeptimal,
    There have been around 40 million or so abortions in the US. This is certainly comparable to the holocaust. With Obama’s record of promising Planned Parenthood that he would push for a federal law that would remove any restrictions on abortion and his record of opposition to the infants born alive protection act, I would say that we have a moral equivalency with Hitler’s human rights record.

    While those who favor unlimited abortion do not impose it on people, the bottom line for the murder victims is the same.

    swordbearer said...

    Jazzy,

    In reference to the original post and your response, there's nothing wrong with doing both: praying for them, AND praying for life and liberty.

    Regardless of the person or administration in power, they are in need of God's grace ... to see things in light of the truth and not be deceived, to not be taken aside by sin and evil, etc. Certainly there reasons to pray for our leaders. At the same time God commands us to pray for those things in keeping with his will/word.

    skeptimal said...

    Jazzy,

    Thanks for answering the gentle way you did. I could probably list a hundred ways that the two situations are different, but our main disagreement is that you think abortion is always murder. If I believed that, I might agree with your comparison.

    jazzycat said...

    skeptimal,
    Thanks. Please check out the following video and it may help you understand my view:

    The unborn

    jazzycat said...

    Sword,
    My frustration with Ligon’s statement is not so much with his pro-active view of praying as it is with it’s failure to assert that we should immediately not only pray for the defeat of ungodly and unrighteous polices, but actively work to oppose and defeat these policies. Ligon said the following in the article:

    Thus, where our new president opposes or undermines biblical moral standards in our society, fails to uphold justice for the unborn, undermines religious liberties or condones an ethos that is hostile to the Gospel, we will pray for God's purposes to triumph over our President's plans and policies.

    First of all Obama and his party have already done this. What do we need to wait on? Second, we need to do more than pray and we need our religious leaders to do more than pray. We need to gird it up, oppose, and actively shine the light on what is going on just as Eph. 5:11 calls for us to do. We need a religious leader in our domination to take over for D. James Kennedy. Someone who will be salt and light. Someone who will confront the world. It has been done many times in church history...........

    swordbearer said...

    First of all Obama and his party have already done this. What do we need to wait on?

    Response: I think you take the context of Ligon's statement into account. Only a day or two after the election, there's the need to deal with those who (1) think all is hopeless and lost and our nation is doomed; (2) will oppose the president elect on all points and fail to pray; as well as the need to communicate and show that as believers whether leaders are godly or not we still honor God's Word, believe in the necessity of prayer for those in authority over us, and look to God for grace (even that of directing leaders decisions, etc.)

    Jazzy: "Second, we need to do more than pray...

    Response: I do not doubt Ligon would agree with you on this.

    Jazzy: "... and we need our religious leaders to do more than pray. We need to gird it up, oppose, and actively shine the light on what is going on just as Eph. 5:11 calls for us to do. We need a religious leader in our domination to take over for D. James Kennedy. Someone who will be salt and light. Someone who will confront the world. It has been done many times in church history...........

    Response: As you know, the responsibility of righteousness is upon everyone, not just religious leaders. While Dr. Kennedy was a godly man and while one must take into account the role of pastors (prayer and the ministry of the word) as well as the distinctions between the church and the civil government and our nation's interests and needs, we must be careful not to politicize the pulpit or to allow political groups to either highjack religion or pressure the church to become what it was not intended for. This is not to say that pastors should not speak to issues of ethics and morality, justice, economic principles, stewardship, etc.; yet care must be taken by pastors both the issues they address as well as the context/mediums in which they address them.

    jazzycat said...

    Sword,
    Point well taken. I certainly realize the limitations that pastors have for taking direct action. In all of my statements on this subject, I have used the word lawfully to describe the actions we need. This would certainly include pastors doing everything lawfully and addressing issues in a non-partisan way.

    Church members have far less restrictions to engage politically with the culture. When such members (myself not included) hear only a message of pray for these ungodly officials without encouragement to also get involved and be active in lawful opposition to ungodly moral values, then I believe the result will be apathy and inaction on the part of the body of Christ. The view that God will take care of it providentially without our involvement, other than prayer, would be same view with the culture war as the hyper-Calvinists take with evangelism. Pray for souls, but don’t get involved as God will save whom he pleases.

    One final thought that could have been added in Ligon’s statement. He could have encouraged prayer for the decreased number of political leaders we have that do oppose such moral wrongs as abortion. Don’t they need our prayers as well as our enemies? Lord, I pray that you would encourage and bless the political leaders that are opposing the ungodly and unrighteous practice of abortion. They are under attack from some of the elites of their own party. They need support now!

    I personally believe the window of time is closing on our freedom to even talk about moral issues that are not politically correct in our post-modern culture. We should use it before we lose it in my opinion. Pastors only need to lawfully address the moral issues and the need for action. We in the flock are fully aware of who are our political friends and enemies.

    swordbearer said...

    Jazzy,

    Well spoken. Nothing to add, except that it is noteworthy to recognize that the ban on homosexual marriage passed in three states including California.

    jazzycat said...

    That was certainly surprising in California. The momentum of the homosexual issue has been toward acceptance of homosexual marriage and the propaganda that is driving the ever increasing percentage of Americans that favor it is growing and will eventually win the day unless those who oppose it become as passionate about defending Biblical marriage. Many are doing that, but this is another issue where prayer should be backed up with lawful action. I think just in the area of education we have a tremendous opportunity to stop the momentum.

    FOR EXAMPLE: The visual images, signs, and activities of a Gay Pride parade should be made know by Christian groups. The liberal main stream media certainly does not cover or show this debauchery. They will swarm Alaska like bee’s on honey looking for dirt on Sarah Palin, but will conceal anything that makes their PC agenda look bad. We must fill the void. Many are doing it such as Michelle Malkin and others.

    skeptimal said...

    "it is noteworthy to recognize that the ban on homosexual marriage passed in three states including California."


    See, this is what I was talking about when I said the election was not a referendum on the culture war. Religious hatred will continue to flourish well into the future. You guys are going to be all right.

    jazzycat said...

    Skeptimal,
    If our opposition to homosexual marriage is considered hate, would it also be hate to oppose marriage as being hetrosexual only?

    Why must it be hate to oppose homosexual marriage? For example must one hate nudists to oppose public nudity?

    Does partial birth abortion demonstrate any concern and love for the victim? Did you watch the video I linked to in an earlier comment?

    skeptimal said...

    "If our opposition to homosexual marriage is considered hate,"

    How does it affect your marriage one way or the other if gays are allowed to marry? It doesn't. At all. So you're going out of your way to limit the rights of others when it harms no one. That's pretty much a red flag that hatred is the motivation.

    If you're going to say that marriage is a sacrament, then shouldn't it be denied to all non-Christians? Muslims worship the wrong version of Jehovah. Jews haven't recognized Jesus, so they can't be sacred. Let alone buddhists, hindus, wiccans, atheists or skeptics.

    "would it also be hate to oppose marriage as being hetrosexual only?"

    Can you flesh out that question for me? I'm not sure what you're asking.

    "Does partial birth abortion demonstrate any concern and love for the victim?"

    These are, of course, two separate issues. The only connection is that both of them offend you.

    "Did you watch the video I linked to in an earlier comment?"

    Yes, I did, because you asked. I do understand why you oppose abortion. I understood that before I watched the video.

    jazzycat said...

    Skeptimal,
    You said....How does it affect your marriage one way or the other if gays are allowed to marry? It doesn't. At all. So you're going out of your way to limit the rights of others when it harms no one.

    You must first ask the correct question which is how does it affect society rather than my marriage? You also erroneously seem to think the only objection to homosexual marriage is due to religious reasons. Then you give an incorrect answer when you assert that it harms no one! If the normalization of abnormal and unnatural sexual behavior harms no one by your logic, then other abnormal behaviors such as polygamy, incest, nudity, etc. should be legalized as well!

    No, the fact is that the family is a basic fundamental and necessary unit of a successful society and anything that is done to re-define this basic family unit is harmful to this truth. It is unnatural to the nature of human beings. One thing that advocates of evolution and creationists can agree on is that the human body was not designed for homosexual sexual activity. We have seen the spread of horrible diseases due to the broken blood vessels that accompany the practice of this unnatural act which makes the transmission of germs so easy.

    Yet, you accuse me of hate because I don’t want unnatural and abnormal behavior normalized in the society I live in. That is a leap of logic you are not going to get away with in discussing it with me!

    skeptimal said...

    "You must first ask the correct question which is how does it affect society rather than my marriage?"

    No, the correct question is how it affects *your* marriage. Otherwise, how far do you take your claims to exclusive authority on what is best for society?

    This is not an idle question. Not too long ago, interracial marriage was overruled for the same reason as gay marriage. Alabama has decided vibrators are a threat to society. If marriage is illegal, should gays be allowed to have relationships at all? What about unmarried Straight couples? Does extramarital sex affect society? Sodomy within marriage? Oral sex? Masturbation? Since the purpose of sex is procreation, should we even allow the sale of contraceptives?

    Laying aside unapproved sex, maybe the practice of other religions affects society negatively. After all, wiccans are demonic, right? Atheists are anti-christ? Your cousins the Muslims follow a false prophet, right?

    jazzycat said...

    You said….No, the correct question is how it affects *your* marriage. Otherwise, how far do you take your claims to exclusive authority on what is best for society?

    The ones who are wanting to claim exclusive authority are those who want change what has been place for thousands of years. These are the people who are asserting their claims for what is best for society to prevail.

    Since you did not address are refute my objections I will repeat them: “No, the fact is that the family is a basic fundamental and necessary unit of a successful society and anything that is done to re-define this basic family unit is harmful to this truth. It [homosexuality] is unnatural to the nature of human beings. One thing that advocates of evolution and creationists can agree on is that the human body was not designed for homosexual sexual activity. We have seen the spread of horrible diseases due to the broken blood vessels that accompany the practice of this unnatural act which makes the transmission of germs so easy.”

    You said, Not too long ago, interracial marriage was overruled for the same reason as gay marriage.

    This is absurd to claim these two as equivalent. Past racial wrongs and civil rights issues have absolutely nothing to do with this. Many black civil rights leaders are offended when gay rights is equated with civil rights.

    You said, If marriage is illegal, should gays be allowed to have relationships at all?

    Certainly! I should not even have answered an emotional charge based on hysteria!

    You said… Does extramarital sex affect society?

    Absolutely! Many things are bad for society. Allow contraceptives? What in world are you trying to assert?

    You said… Laying aside unapproved sex, maybe the practice of other religions affects society negatively. After all, wiccans are demonic, right? Atheists are anti-christ? Your cousins the Muslims follow a false prophet, right?

    Christians are the reasons that America has the freedoms we do and are very strongly for freedom of religion! That certainly includes freedom for the most demonized religion in America and that my friend is Christianity in case you haven’t been paying attention.

    I don’t know what you mean about your reference to my cousins the Muslims. However, they not only follow a false prophet, they follow a false God. Sadly, many Christians also follow a God of their imagination, which is also a false god. See the Oprah post.

    skeptimal said...

    "The ones who are wanting to claim exclusive authority are those who want change what has been place for thousands of years."

    Of course, no one is redefining your marriage, which would continue unchanged. That being the case, it's hysterical behavior to say that anyone is forcing anything on anyone by extending rights to gays.

    "...the family is a basic fundamental and necessary unit of a successful society and anything that is done to re-define this basic family unit is harmful to this truth..."

    Families have been present in every society. I don't think they'll benefit from your "protection."

    "One thing that advocates of evolution and creationists can agree on is that the human body was not designed for homosexual sexual activity."

    As you no doubt know, that's an oversimplification. There is no evolutionary benefit to oral sex, heterosexual sodomy, or recreational sex either, but I don't see you trying to legislate those out of existence. (Although to be fair, if you get your way with gays, you'll probably go after unmarried straight people too.)

    "This is absurd to claim these two (mixed-racial marriage and gay marriage)as equivalent...many black civil rights leaders are offended when gay rights is equated with civil rights."

    Well, that settles it. I mean, black people can't have prejudices, can they?

    "Christians are the reasons that America has the freedoms we do and are very strongly for freedom of religion!"

    I won't oversimplify my response to this, because I believe you *are* supportive of freedom of religion to a good degree. Since you're in the majority, it would be difficult for you to understand that when you oppose separation of church and state, you are opposing freedom of religion. Were Scientology or Islam the majority religion, I think your view might be different.

    As for Christianity being demonized, I don't know where you get that. Certain groups are criticized from time to time (as are unbelievers and groups of other faiths), but there's no widespread discrimination against Christians. If there is, I haven't seen it; maybe you can point it out to me.

    jazzycat said...

    Skeptimal,
    You said….. Of course, no one is redefining your marriage, which would continue unchanged. That being the case, it's hysterical behavior to say that anyone is forcing anything on anyone by extending rights to gays.

    Wrong, when marriage is redefined, it is redefining the concept and institution of marriage which would definitely change the meaning of my marriage. Would not the terms Mr. and Mrs. and husband and wife take on new meaning? Would not this redefinition of marriage affect the adoption of children? If you are in favor of extending marital rights to gays, how could you possibly be opposed to extending marital rights to several “loving partners” who wish to be in a polygamist marital union? If we extended marital rights to polygamists, then it would affect my marriage because I would then be able to expand my family with additional wives. Once marriage is redefined in the name of extending rights, then gay marriage is not the only possibility. How could we not extend rights to a brother and sister who wanted to be married? How could we not extend marital rights to all who are sexually mature regardless of age? Why should the state have the right to set an age on a marital union? Should the state have the right to make prostitution illegal? Also in a society that affirms man is just more evolved that apes with no distinct difference, why should not a person be extended the right to marry an ape? If it is all about extending rights to whatever human beings desire, then shouldn’t we look at satisfying the desires of pedophiles in some kind of secular responsible way? If sexual desires of homosexuals cannot be labeled abnormal and against nature, how can any sexual desires be considered abnormal? Shouldn’t we also extend rights to nudists? Non-nudists would be unchanged would they not? Wouldn’t it be hysterical behavior to oppose extending rights to any and all sexual desires and behaviors?

    Therefore, if we go down this road wouldn’t the consequences affect society in general and my marriage in particular? YOU BET IT WOULD!

    I will address your other objections after I return in a few hours!

    jazzycat said...

    Skeptimal
    You said…….. As you no doubt know, that's an oversimplification. There is no evolutionary benefit to oral sex, heterosexual sodomy, or recreational sex either, but I don't see you trying to legislate those out of existence. (Although to be fair, if you get your way with gays, you'll probably go after unmarried straight people too.)

    Get a grip! You are arguing against a straw man. This discussion and my concerns have nothing to do with what people do in private! While I may have opinions on issues of morality, I have no desire to ban the private sexual practices you mentioned. I might add that everyone including those that are anti-Christian also have opinions on morality.

    You said….. Since you're in the majority, it would be difficult for you to understand that when you oppose separation of church and state, you are opposing freedom of religion.

    None of my arguments against homosexual marriage had anything to do with religion and yet you assume that I am not for separation of church and state. I agree with the framers of the constitution that the state should not be involved in endorsing any religion or Christian denomination. Their intent was to protect religion (Christianity) from the state. It was not to protect the state from religion or belief in God. This is a long discussion that I do not have time for right now.

    You said…. As for Christianity being demonized, I don't know where you get that.

    Obviously you do not watch much entertainment television, Hollywood movies, or interviews with liberals if you have never seen Christianity mocked and demonized! These are the kind of statements that harm your creditability and/or discernment.

    skeptimal said...

    "Obviously you do not watch much entertainment television, Hollywood movies, or interviews with liberals if you have never seen Christianity mocked and demonized! These are the kind of statements that harm your creditability and/or discernment."

    I guess I'm just not that threatened by what comes out of the entertainment industry. I find some of it disagreeable (like Ben Stein's recent movie, the Scientology fad, or Madonna's embrace of Kaballah), but that's par for the course.

    You may not realize this, but it's much more fashionable to be Christian in Hollywood than to be a skeptic. Generally speaking, free thinkers only appear in movies or on TV as two kinds of plot device. First, we might be the arrogant skeptic that is about to become the next victim of the ghost, monster, demon, space alien or other bogeyman. Otherwise, we are actually believers only claiming not to believe because we're "angry at god." Usually, in that group, the skeptic experiences a tearful epiphany that returns him or her to the faith.

    You can believe in any kind of magic in Hollywood: Christian, Scientologist, New Ager or otherwise, but if you don't claim a religion...well, then you're just heartless and probably evil.

    And as for liberal interviews: give me a break. Which is worse, Bill Maher saying something crude or Jerry Falwell blaming 9/11 on liberals? And don't tell me that was an aberration, because I've watched CBN, TBN, and the others, and I've listened to Christian radio.

    If this country is so biased against Christians, why did Liddy Dole think she could get herself elected by calling Hagan's Christianity into question?

    I think of these things whenever one of you complains about how you're presented in a movie here and there.