Regeneration By The Spirit Preceeds The Preaching Of The Word To The Will

John Owen helps us to understand that the Holy Spirit goes before the Word to regenerate:

This work of regeneration is not preached to the will and so it not resisted by the will, but it works effectively on the will, wonderfully renewing it.

The Holy Spirit is the sole efficacious agent in regeneration so that it can never be said that the man according to his own will chooses to be saved, nor can it be said that man by his own will has rejected that which he could have had if he had chosen. Monergistic regeneration (salvation) is not without the Word as Owen also makes clear, voiding the heretical teaching of the likes of Billy Graham. But, it preceeds it and accomplishes what the Word declares, prior to the hearing of the Word.

Russell Moore tried to state what the Gospel is as a leader of a major Seminary. Unfortunately the SBC in launching the Great Commission Resurgence has not first established the true Gospel that goes along with it even among its leaders, as this video makes clear. How sad.

Though recorded in 2007, nothing has changed in the SBC in the past two years. Indeed, not much has changed in the SBC for over a century. Finneyesque revivalism is still preached in most SBC churches. This Methodistic approach, is not the Gospel. Listen as Russell Moore struggles to explain but fails miserably to establish what the Gospel is for his audience:



How different the Gospel is from what Moore represents:



Jesus tells us that it is the Father who draws men to the Word. That regeneration must come before the Word is without doubt as we witness in the ministry of John the Baptist. Even in the incarnation we see that the Spirit generates the new life of the Word and then the thing conceived is birthed. Jesus is arguing with the teachers of the Law who believed that the Word must precede the regeneration of man. But Jesus' complaint against them was that they thought the in the Scripture salvation was found. The answer was that unless the Spirit makes alive and brings forth from the tomb alive he who was once dead he cannot see the Word. This is the lesson of John with Nicodemus, this is the lesson of John with Lazarus and this is the lesson of Jesus who said that no man can come to the Word except that the Father draws him. Paul tells us in Titus that it is the Word that makes manifest what has happened. It does not cause if. Unless regeneration preceeds the Word, no one comes to know the One who the Father says, "This is my Son, listen to him." Regeneration is the drawing which is spoken of in John. Without it, there is no life for the Son to call forth from the grave.

Should Congress Impeach Obama Now?

The Democrat Socialist Party screamed loud for the impeachment of Bush over far less.

This may well rise to the level of interference and violate the whistle-blower law.

Planned Parenthood's First Church Of The Blessed St. Margaret of Genocide Holds Vigil For George Tiller

Wow, the Church of Planned Parenthood, who would have thunk it. Catch what the womanish alien looking creature says about determining for another when their life should end? Is she really as blind as a marinated mushroom or does she just look and talk like one?

Of course there was the lighting of candles. Now that can't be good for the environment. Just think of the carbon dioxide released. I guess you have sacrifice something to the gods in one area if you're going to be blessed by them in another. Just think, if they lighted candles for the babies Tiller killed, they would have had to get a fire permit.

Liberals really do have their own minds, I am told. Real liberals are not just zombioids like the weirdos in this video. I've known a few, personally. They're real creatures, honest, not cardboard cutouts like these mental manikins.

This is the church where the vigil took place:



A very dangerous place for candles.

Because abortions are not commonly performed publicly, and the clinic will close for a week, Planned Parenthood ensured the numbed crowd that the invigorating sacrament of abortion could still be performed by using a substitute:



Though many weren't fooled, after a lot of drugs and alcohol many others were convinced that substitutionary abortion does indeed transubstantially grant the perpetrator longer life just like spilling real blood.

Is Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor's La Raza As Fascistic As Obama's Black Liberation Theology?

The liberal media, the Obamanista administration, and La Raza would like us to believe that Obama's nominee belongs to a benign organization.

Why? Who cares?

Like Ruth "Baby Mulcher" Ginsberg, who is a member of the anti-USA ACLU, and another Democrat appointee, Sotomayor's radical connections don't surprise anyone in this day and age. The fact that an anti-constitutionalist like Ginsberg who belongs to an organization founded by an affirmed fascist for the express purpose of destroying the USA, would even remotely be considered for the Supreme Court should inform us how rotten the core principles of republicanism had become over a decade ago in the USA and explain why it is nealy passe' to consider it odd that an enemy of the USA would find herself being vetted as acceptable in the public service arena. To see the most radically leftist President ever elected offer a blood for the Supreme Court, is only keeping his Chicagoan gangland mob-politics character intact. After all, fasci have a mob-like ideology. That is why it has simply become, "Wutevah", that a goose-stepper would present another goose-stepper for high office.

I mean, when Obama who was trained by fascist racists is outed and it only gets him elected to the White House and not publicly shamed out of existence, should we expect anything less? When the Coneist history of Obama's pastor is known and Obama brags about having been mentored by him, when his association with known terrorists in unveiled or those associations with Muslim radicals who bought and paid for his ascent to the pinnacle of power, when his endorsement by good friend and neighbor, the wacko radical NOI cult leader Farrakhan is demonstrated as no mistake, when his father's fascist national socialist Islamic legacy is exposed and the book Obama authored, exalting his father's hatred of whites and of the United States, is widely acclaimed, when Obama's history is such a sausage job produced by his handlers, when we cannot get the facts about his birth, when no documents of his past life seem to exist anymore except his phony ghost authored books, when no papers he ever had to write himself as part of his law degree can be found, or really any other substantives that demonstrates the veracity of his claims of innocence, or intelligence, it is only another ding a long line of ringing obfuscations of which his regime is guilty, to hide with the complicity of the liberal media, his nominatee's past.

La Raza recently released a statement about the coiner of their beloved name. But again, history tends to haunt the leftists who want to pretend to be kinder-gentler radicals, terrorists and exterminators.

José Vasconcelos , 1882-1959, Mexican educator and writer. He headed (1920-24) the National Univ. of Mexico and, as minister of education under Álvaro Obregón , worked vigorously and with considerable success to establish schools, to persuade the Mexican people of the importance of education, and to raise the literacy rate. For this task he enlisted the aid of prominent figures, notably the poet Gabriela Mistral . In 1929 he was defeated in the presidential race and was forced into exile by Plutarco Elías Calles. As teacher, propagandist, and writer, he attracted a large youthful following, and his fierce localism and belief in Latin American culture as the response of a unique mixture of peoples to a unique physical environment had an effect abroad as well as in Mexico. In later years he became an ardent Roman Catholic and a zealous apologist for the Spanish tradition. He denounced democracy and tended to glorify force and racism. Among his well-known works are La raza cósmica (1925) and Indología (1927). The first volume of his four-volume autobiography (1935-39) is Ulises criollo— also the general title for the whole work, which includes La tormenta, El desastre, and El proconsulado.

Bibliography: See biographies by G. de Beer (1966) and J. H. Haddox (1967).

"José Vasconcelos." The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2008. Encyclopedia.com. 31 May. 2009.

Yeah that is right. La Raza's name was conceived by a radical father. The time frame is telling. He was a child of revolution, a people's liberator and fits nicely the mold of the fasci rise to power as a world political force. Many fasci arose in the latter 19th and early 20th centuries turning nearly the entire world into one large killing field. Mexico's near allegiance to Nazi Germany should not go unconnected to this travesty called the Obama administration, nor its pick for the Supreme Court.

Brownish fascism is slightly different that the Nationalist Socialist African Fascism of Obama. Brownish fascism is ethnic based, requiring that only some brown blood be mingled with indigo (native) blood. (Unfortunately for Obama, should they ever come to power, African Nationalism is purist.) What it interesting, just as it is interesting among many black fascists, is the fact that there is so much white blood to deal with seeing that to be Latina, or Chicano, a member of La Raza, is that nagging little detail that being Hispanic means being white-European. It is mainland European -mostly- with plenty enough Celtic to be considered anglo. Yeppers. That is right. The Latina woman, this fascista, who would out think whites, is indeed the descendant of the white men she certainly seems to hate. What is it about bigots like Obama and Sotomayor who hate the very heritage from which they are derived?

Remember, Obama is white too, but we never heard that during the campaign, did we? So it is an interesting thing, but not surprising, that what is neglected in this whole mix, or perhaps it is an intended slight, is the fact that Sotomayor, if she is indeed of mixed blood, which is the ideal of La Raza, it being La Nueva Raza (familiar Hitlerian concept, eh?) in Vasconcelos world view, is indigo. Why isn't the fact that she is indigo not the race card being played? One has to wonder why Obama and the media haven't capitalized on the native American connection rather than the Hispanic Nationalist one. Perhaps AIM just doesn't have the clout that La Nueva Raza has. Perhaps Obama doesn't like native peoples unless he can use them.

Can we conclude she is just another stupid liberal willing to be pimped by the Democrat machine? Yeah, I think we could. I think it is also possible that she is self-aggrandizing, working the streets, purposely selling herself for political gain, for that is what fascistas do. In either case, she is what we have come to expect from the Democrat Party central committee's Klingon mentality.

Beside the fact that it is demonstratively true that Sotomayor is a confessed racist, World Net Daily follows up on some other interesting things swirling around this formerly Bush appointed lefty.

As an aside: Obama implemented his final solution in nationalizing the auto industry. Der Wolksbamavagon, though hard to say, has been suggested the new name of the first of its kind marriage of state and industry, in the United States. This fundamental change in the structure of what constitutes government and industry may seem a throwback to Nazi Germany, but hey, we can trust that it will be a new, sweeter and non-toxic, halocaust avoiding, Nationalist Socialist State.

Identity Politics Returns

Fascists Take Over United States Military

How far you have fallen O bright Star of the Morning.

James White reports that the military seized and destroyed Bibles just like the Nazis did at one time. The British journalist heard on the video has no clue about the purpose and necessity of free speech living as he does in a country which has none. Our constitution, however, was founded upon the reality that it is Truth that sets free. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

Our forefathers recognized that no matter the religion, political outlook, ideological bias, everyone should have the right to speak about what they believe to whoever they desire with impunity; that only where the free-exchange of ideas is defended, will there be peace. It is only the oppressor who fears knowledge.

You can go read about it and listen. Think about Obama's intentions to limit free-speech, and his past, understand the dictatorial point of view of the Brit's statement that the soldiers had masters, rather than officers, understand sharia law and the forbidding of any faith but Islam, and then go puke and chant Alla Akbar.

And go pray, that the Lord have mercy and come soon before the building of the death camps, again. And pray for his peace in whatever happens, because the Lord alone is where our security rests.

Dirty Henry Decision Making In The SBC

This is excellent advice from John MacArthur.

And here is a discussion of really wallowing in charimatic chaos when following the advice of Henry and Richard Blackaby.

Beside the book that Dan Phillips suggests for comparison, I found this one clear, concise and honestly biblical.

Elders and Wannabes At The Salad Bar Of Blameless

Centuri0n at Pyromaniacs writes:

I don't think the criterion of "blameless" is either hard to grasp, nor is it all the controversial.

I don't either, now, shouldn't we contrast what it means with what it means to obey the commandment to be perfect? What is the visible proof that someone is blameless in that?

a priest named Zechariah...a wife... Elizabeth...And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.

A question, were these two born-again? That is, this new life which produces "blamelessness" was it a present possession of theirs? (I realize the uniqueness of the case, but consider Job who even though he was declared blameless by God, did not know God according to Job 42:5).

I think this opening to Luke's Gospel, amazing. What makes the difference in these people such that they are verily blameless witnesses to the fulfilling of prophecy? Or, we might ask, are all witnesses to the prophets blameless? Are all prophets? And that begs another question, just who is sent to bear witness? To what extent, at what level, with what power and accountability? Surely not everyone bears John, nor is everyone blessed more than any other woman as was Mary to bear Christ. What makes others such: "that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world?" Does it simply derive from the teaching? Or does the Spirit work all things in all giving severally to each as he chooses so that not all are gifted alike, nor are they enabled alike?

Paul said:

But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I know nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord.

Funny how Paul already considered that he was judged before the judgement seat of Christ and found blameless. And if we would judge ourselves we wouldn't expect judgement in the last Day, either. Lets hope that none of the brethren are looking forward to the final judgement to have their sins expose there, for that will be their eternal condemnation if God counts their sins against them, Psalm 32. Paul is speaking in the same portion of Scripture concerning the judgement of each man. But then again, this portion of Corinthians is dealing with teachers and not the laity, anyway. Still, Psalms 32 gives us quite a contrast:

Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man against whom the Lord counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit.

But note that the man has iniquity, is not blameless but is not deceitful, and is blessed, not cursed. This goes along with Psalm 139 and is captured again in Psalm 32 in:

Therefore let everyone who is godly offer prayer to You at a time when You may be found; surely in the rush of great waters, they shall not reach him. You are a hiding place for me; you preserve me from trouble; you surround me with shouts of deliverance.

This speaks of the time of judgement, rush of great waters. It speaks of the hiding place which Paul tells us is being clothed with the righteousness of Christ. We are delivered and will not, accordingly, be judge for our sins if we now offer prayer to You at a time when You may be found. And what if we don't or can't? Scripture assures us that we have a great High Priest who is ever interceding on our behalf, who will not abandon us and leave us orphans and gives us the Spirit who prays through us in ways we cannot comprehend.

And to that add:

But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift.

This is vitally important, because we're not all gifted equally. Not all are called to the standard of Elders to qualify as children. It is not the children who save up for the parents. Isn't it the lambs who suckle the ewes? And do the rams protect the flock and lay down their lives for the bride and the children? Do all prophesy, are all apostles? Do all die like the prophets? Do all go to the cross like Christ? Or is there truth to the fact that some are judged more critically because they have been given much. And, is it not the fact that there is the weaker who have been given less, and the more uncomely who we are to honor more? Curious statements, no? And such as cannot be made without clearer discernment about what makes blameless, blameless.

Now the real question has to be something other than the standard by which the world judges things. For if they say "yours is a religion of purity," who is pure? By that standard all fall to the accusation of the enemy and the world's condemnation of Christianity, and if their assessment is correct, the condemnation would be justly deserved in all. The definition of blameless, Scripturally, then must be mitigated by more than mere worldly standards. Differing weights are applied to differing subjects of the matter though not the substance of it. For the man who steals bread to fill his starving belly is not judged by the same standard as the man who has plenty, is filled, and does not steal. But the man who sees his brothers' needs and has the worlds goods and does not do what is right, is guilty of hating his brother because he loves his things more and violates the second great commandment. So though he may not be a thief he is just as covetous for that which will sate his life. And though neither one is guiltless, yet the one who is driven by hunger is blameless.

Blameless is not a hard concept to grasp, but Paul was not without his sin and his reputation with outsiders, and insiders, was not a recommendation that any would want to appear on an Elder resume'. Paul himself considered other testimony which vindicated his character and stature.

So what is the key?

As the very good conversation directed by Centuri0n proceeds on the issue in Timothy and Titus concerning "my true son in the faith," I believe what needs to be brought to bear are the other qualifications of an Elder to help explain blameless. For if it is isolated, if it becomes a bare standard, without rightly defining it in view of all of Scripture (so also the others), it will be a disqualifier for all who desire the office.

Take for instance, the husband of one wife. Does a minister necessarily have to marry? If he ever was polygamous, would that disqualify him? If his wife divorces him (7-8 out of ten divorces are sought by women, more than ninety percent for irreconcilable differences, not for fault in the husband), is he to be blamed? Even if he was not at fault in any way? Or, He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?). Hard to do if the elder has never been married. Harder to do if he has. And what control does a man have over the rebellious? Again, if by no fault of his own, his wife and/or children are out of control, is he still blameless? Can a younger married man with tiny-tots and a suckling be considered eligible?

Most marriages might start out like a summer trip in the SUV with the kids securely fastened in the back seat, chirpers whose needs are easily met. And mom still enjoys knitting and whistling along with the radio. But most marriages, opposed to a problem free holiday, in the middle of the trip, find some obstruction like a bridge being out. Unlike the vacation, with this trip the only way home is ahead. The daunting task of forging the stream with the SUV strapped on the back with the kids screaming with growing needs along with mom begging for assistance, is the typical experience. If in the middle of the stream one is called to ministry, what then? Might we say that the normal stressors of married life are disqualifications? Or, do we wait to see if he successfully fords the stream and gets back on the road before finding him blameless and qualified? And what if he still entertains future marriage with the rosey idealistic romanticism that all youths possess?

So what is blameless and by what other things is it qualified? Or quantified? Does it mean without faults and errors, does it mean accomplished? It cannot be so simplistically defined. Does it mean unqualified success in the eyes of outsiders? If so the church is utterly defeated.

I absolutely agree with Centuri0n. The criterion of blameless is indeed not hard to grasp. It is the meaning of blameless so that it might be grasped and applied criterion that is the difficult thing. Everyone might understand what a wall is, that is not hard to grasp. Where that wall is built, by what right, how, and out of what materials, is altogether another story.

Hillary Clinton: Sure, I Would Kill Black Babies, After All Obama Implied He Would've Killed His Own Daughters If He Had Thought They Were Punishment

Proud of her fascist socialist ideology, Clinton described the “great privilege” of receiving the Margaret Sanger Award. Mrs. Bill Clinton said: “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision…. I am really in awe of her.” Dogmatically asserting her intention to force her religious views on the entire world the President Pretense opined: “reproductive rights and the umbrella issue of women’s rights and empowerment will be a key to the foreign policy of this administration.”

Margaret Sanger was an ardent supporter of Adolf Hitler. Her racism is well known and it has been remarked that Hitler's eugenics ideas came from her. As Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) said, “With all due respect, Madam Secretary, Sanger’s legacy was indeed transformational, but not for the better, if one happens to be poor, disenfranchised, weak, disabled, a person of color, an unborn child or among the many so-called ‘undesirables’ Sanger would exclude and exterminate from the human race.” To that we might add if one were a Jew. She was a racist white, bent on the extermination of all inferiors so as to advance the evolutionist cause, including the annihilation of the black race. Indeed, all races of color were her targets.

Clinton tried, but cannot distance herself from the fact that the fascist, tax-payer funded organization, Planned Parenthood, that Sanger founded for the specific purpose of eugenics policy implementation, has as part of its founding agenda, the death of the president and his kind.

Obama himself is faced with a more complicated cognitive dilemma. Having been trained by Jeremiah Wright to hate whites and to work toward the annihilation of the white race, he also supports Planned Parenthood's anti-coloreds racist agenda. Truly, this has to be a man torn. If the whitey's Planned Parenthood succeeds, he's a dead man. If Black Liberation Theology, or any one of the array of genocidal organizations or world dictators Obama is familial with succeed, he's a dead man. What's the first white/black president to do? It is difficult to understand how Obama supports either, but both?

And what about his children? Having cast them as simply a utility like so much lawn furniture, as "mistakes" that fortunately passed the nest test for Michelle so that they weren't considered undue punishment, if the ideology that drives either side of this schizoid triumphs, what will be his disposition toward them, for they are also white and black? How about toward himself? So destructive so far in office, it is fair to question: is his self-loathing so deep that he plans to take everyone out with him? Which side of him hates the other the most? It is so easy to sign the death warrant for those you never see, those to whom you have no connection. Surely, he sees and knows himself?

What is most evident in Obama is the love-hate tensions: I love the U.S., I hate it, I love to have lots of your money, I hate you who have it, I love foreign and domestic terrorists, I hate patriots, I love fascist socialism, I hate constitutional republican capitalism.

Eugenicists and elective abortionists are so alike. They're unseen at work. They do their business in "reproductive health clinics," so like the extermination camp operators, both they and the camps' functions are ignored. After all we call them doctors and clinics, right? They can sit to chit-chat with one neighbor, but never can they speak the truth about what they do to their other neighbors. What goes on in those places no one wants to acknowledge, anyway. Such thoughts are too horrendously nightmarish. One must remember, seeing that we have just celebrated Holocaust Remembrance Day, that those who promoted the pogroms, carried them out under the guise of public health, economic good, and liberation. They share the common utilitarian bond with the thought that as long as the stimulus is helping us who cares about what it does to them. But isn't that the whole argument for abortion?

In the end there is no difference between those who support abortion on demand and those who call for the annihilation of entire races of people. In both cases the unfortunates and undesirables are not considered humans, but things to be used or discarded as matters of utility. Thus my title. Hillary shares this seething perverted thinking with Obama. His equivocation is her and hers his. Only time will tell which one will survive the other.

My God, My God, Why Have You Abandoned Me?

R. C. Sproul is one of my favorite preacher/teachers. His work has had a broad influence on me and others and his lucid explanations generally bring clarity where other men do not. The video above is an exposition of perhaps one of the most difficult passages in all of Scripture. And on this point I take exception to R. C.. We have to take into account not merely the emotional impact of this scene but exactly what is happening here. Jonathan Edwards said:

Then was Christ in the greatest degree of his humiliation, and yet by that, above all other things, his divine glory appears. Christ's humiliation was great, in being born in such a low condition, of a poor virgin, and in a stable: his humiliation was great, in being subject to Joseph the carpenter, and Mary his mother, and afterwards living in poverty, so as not to have where to lay his head, and in suffering such manifold and bitter reproaches as he suffered, while he went about preaching and working miracles: but his humiliation was never so great, as it was in his last sufferings, beginning with his agony in the Garden, till he expired on the cross. Never was he subject to such ignominy as then; never did he suffer so much pain in his body, or so much sorrow in his soul; never was he in so great an exercise of his condescension, humility, meekness, and patience, as he was in these last sufferings; never was his divine glory and majesty covered with so thick and dark a veil; never did he so empty himself, and make himself of no reputation, as at this time: and yet never was his divine glory so manifested, by any act of his, as in that act, of yielding himself up to these sufferings. When the fruit of it came to appear, and the mystery and ends of it to be unfolded, in the issue of it, then did the glory of it appear; then did it appear, as the most glorious act of Christ that ever he exercised towards the creature.

How so, how is it that his divine majesty and glory shine forth so cleary if the abandonment were what R. C. says?
Let's return to the texts:

For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him.

Why this if this:

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest.

There is a song by Michael Card with the line: That one forsaken moment when Your Father turned His face away. The Psalm said that did not happen. The Psalm says that the Lord rather than having abandoned him never left him. That is the amazing comfort of this Psalm and the one that follows.
A large majority of the Psalms follow this pattern, a prophetic pattern, one that is reflected in the accusations of the enemies of Israel who derided her and cast aspersion upon her God, that is, that God had abandoned her. Even she accuses him and he answers,

"Where is your mother's bill of divorce...I gave my back to those who strike, and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard; I hid not my face from disgrace and spitting. But the Lord God helps me; therefore I have not been disgraced; therefore I have set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be put to shame. He who vindicates me is near...

The typical plea in the Psalms is from that perspective of appearance of abandonment. God indeed abandonded his servant to this death though he never abandons him the Psalm says as Isaiah confirms. So, why is it that the typical teaching on the Cross pictures Christ abandoned in the sense of separation from God, when the testimony of Scripture is that he wasn't?

He who vindicates me is near...,

not far.
Other Scriptural testimony to the fact that the Father didn't abandon Christ, at least in the traditional sense it is taught, is found in these:

For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption...I have been young, and now am old, yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken...The wicked watches for the righteous and seeks to put him to death. The Lord will not abandon him to his power or let him be condemned when he is brought to trial... Blessed is the man whom you discipline, O Lord, and whom you teach out of your law, to give him rest from days of trouble, until a pit is dug for the wicked. For the Lord will not forsake his people; he will not abandon his heritage; for justice will return to the righteous, and all the upright in heart will follow it. Who rises up for me against the wicked? Who stands up for me against evildoers? If the Lord had not been my help, my soul would soon have lived in the land of silence...

Truly Jesus suffered the terrors of death and died on our behalf, bearing the full burden of sin for us. By all appearances God had abandoned him, but his final statement and the first day of the week proves the opposite. The beauty of this Psalm as it is played out in the disciples as they view the Christ abandoned and flee, all hope gone, is that they will be corrected by God when they behold Him resurrected. That is the reality of this Psalm, its greatness and its comfort. Christ's last desperate plea is to a crucifying crowd was that they look to the Prophets and see the marvelous work of God who does not abandon his holy one to corruption, who does not abandon those who cry out for mercy, who does not separate from himself from his own. He ends his life preaching the Gospel with his last breath. With his last breath he preaches the hope of the resurrection. With his last breath he refers his enemies, in whose midst God has prepared for him a meal (Psalm 23), to:

The helpless are crushed, sink down, and fall by his might. He says in his heart, “God has forgotten, he has hidden his face, he will never see it. Arise, O Lord; O God, lift up your hand; forget not the afflicted. Why does the wicked renounce God and say in his heart, “You will not call to account”? But you do see, for you note mischief and vexation, that you may take it into your hands; to you the helpless commits himself; you have been the helper of the fatherless. Break the arm of the wicked and evildoer; call his wickedness to account till you find none. The Lord is king forever and ever; the nations perish from his land. O Lord, you hear the desire of the afflicted; you will strengthen their heart; you will incline your ear to do justice to the fatherless and the oppressed, so that man who is of the earth may strike terror no more... In you, O Lord, do I take refuge; let me never be put to shame; in your righteousness deliver me! Incline your ear to me; rescue me speedily! Be a rock of refuge for me, a strong fortress to save me! For you are my rock and my fortress; and for your name's sake you lead me and guide me; you take me out of the net they have hidden for me, for you are my refuge. Into your hand I commit my spirit; you have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God.

Christ did die, Christ did take upon himself our curse. However, our confidence in God's faithfulness is not founded in anything less than that which accompanied Christ there:

For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him... Into your hand I commit my spirit; you have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God

Obama, Our First Homosexual President: "Same Sex? What's The Difference?"

Preference: selection of somebody or something: the view that one person, object, or course of action is more desirable than another, or a choice based on such a view.

Why? What makes the homosexual preference a preference? Why would it be more desireable? Or, to ask this is in the reverse, why is homosexuality less desireable?

Our first homosexual president has some explaining to do to Michelle about why he prefers her over Michael. If there is no difference, why does he prefer her over him? If we were to ask his children, what would be their answer? Do you think that O is instructing his girls to be open to embrace diversity in their preference? How about his wife? Do you think he is encouraging her to be open to the possibilities? And just who is on the short list?

The fact is that the reason that a person is oriented toward one and not the other is because they find the alternative less desireable, distasteful, if not disgusting. They view it as wrong, at least for them. Or else, they're neutral toward it. In that case, most likely, they simply cannot understand why or why not, because they haven't given it any thought. Or for peace of mind, they ignore their disturbed psyche about the conflicted idea of tolerance versus their own intolerance. If it is wrong for them, why? If it is not wrong, then why not engage in it? Mere preference doesn't answer the morass of questions. If there were no available alternatives, would the lesser desire then be acceptable? This is the cognitive dissonance with which a homosexual like Obama must deal. He must ask himself, "Why not?" He must determine what is appealing about one behavior, and what is appalling about the other. Then again, we don't expect liberal apologists to honestly answer questions, anyway? Nor, do they want to.

I call him a homosexual because he agrees that the preference is legitimate, a proper moral view, one which anyone can choose. And as he defines himself, so is he. He, in other words, has no reason to not embrace it other than preference (whatever that is). So, shouldn't he be able to explain why he chooses one over the other? Why would he not bed down Barney Frank? Why is one more desireable and the other less so? Can he look Michelle in the eyes and tell her that sex with a man is no different than sex with a woman? Can he explain to her that male features and accoutrements are just as appealing, or does he discriminate? Perhaps he is bi-sexual. In that case he would have no preference. Wonder is, if he is, has he explained to Michelle that he wouldn't mind if she were a man?

Denny Burk has posted on hitting the bottom of the slippery slope. We haven't hit it yet, but time is slipping away. One wonders where the liberals will draw the line. And when they do, upon what measure of moral absolutism? Arbitrary utilitarianism?

My next post: Homosexual Polygamists For Civil Rights Sue Vermont For Equality In Marriage