Is Yoga Sinful?

I'm writing this for those who do ONLY the physical aspects of Yoga. 

Matt Walsh's argument is actually better than I anticipated. Yoga, like many other things we do, has pagan origins. You know what else has pagan origins? Anything created by a non-Christian. Certainly Yoga is different than basketball, the pole vault or table tennis so I mean not to lump them all in the same basket, yet we can't fail to recognize that nothing is created, in terms of its attitude toward God, neutral. 

The argument against Yoga is that it opens one's mind up to demons or something like that because of the poses and the blending of the spiritual with the physical. But what opens up people to demonic influence isn't how they stretch their bodies but what they put into their minds. If you don't do Yoga but do watch TBN or Steven Furtick, then you're at a much greater risk to be influenced by Satan than someone who does Yoga poses but fills their mind with biblical truth.

"Tim, Yoga is about communing with false gods!"

Truth bomb: there is only one God. There are no false gods. They don't exist. People create them in their minds and try to make them real but they don't actually exist.

1 Corinthians 8
4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
7 However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. 9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?

Let me put that into the Yoga context:

1 Corinthians 8
4 Therefore concerning the practicing of Yoga, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
7 However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, practice Yoga as if they were communing with false gods; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But exercise will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not do Yoga, nor the better if we do do Yoga. 9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, doing Yoga in the gym, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to try to commune with false gods?

Not the most perfect word for word fill-in application but you get my point. Be careful with your freedom. That's extremely important. Let's discuss another important issue: be careful that your lack of  knowledge (knowledge that's easily accessible thanks to the copy of the Bible you have and your self-evident Internet access) doesn't cause you to burden someone else. I.e. don't make someone feel sinful for doing something that's not sinful. If someone is doing physical poses and has no issues doing them and it's not having any negative impact on their walk with God, then don't burden them with your conscience.

So before you blast your friend over her Yoga class (or her going to a winery or a certain movie or whatever it is) make sure you check the information available for its accuracy and biblical fidelity. Yoga poses are not, in and of themselves, sinful. You can't support the idea that they are sinful with any Scripture. This is a wisdom issue. This is a freedom issue. This is not an issue where your girlfriend is in active rebellion against God because she's trying to get in shape.

Alexander the Coppersmith

Paul the Apostle stands out to us as one of the all-time Christians. He wrote a majority of the New Testament, trained men for ministry, planted churches, traveled the globe, was persecuted, stood up to intimidating figures, etc. His work on this planet is impressive and he's a man to be admired. He is certainly just a man and he's not to be worshiped but we also recognize he's not just some man. 

Timothy, one of the men Paul trained, would have known this. Paul was a prominent man of his time. If I had to summarize just how big Paul was in one passage I think I'd go with this one:

Acts 19:11-15
11 God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out. 13 But also some of the Jewish exorcists, who went from place to place, attempted to name over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, “I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.” 14 Seven sons of one Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said to them, “I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?”

Timothy received two letters from Paul. In both letters Paul is guiding and reminding Timothy of important information. Paul was doing more than just imparting data and instructing; Paul was investing in Timothy. What Paul did went beyond merely conveying tips to someone who might fill in for you. This was Paul, who had been a spiritual father to many, telling Timothy how to raise his children. 

Factor all of that. Paul is this huge figure. Paul is genuinely one of the most righteous men to ever live. Paul is so invested in you personally that he wrote you (if you're Timothy) multiple letters where he pours out the contents of his heart and his mind. 

All that is a means of introduction for a few short lines:

2 Timothy 4:14-1514 Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds. 15 Be on guard against him yourself, for he vigorously opposed our teaching

Now imagine you're Timothy and you're reading this. This is a giant of the faith opening up to you. Talk about emotional!  When you first hear about this Alexander you're enraged! You're ticked! Yet Paul only tells Timothy two things:
1- God will get vengeance upon Alexander 
2- Watch for him yourself, Timothy. 

Interesting. 

I don't think I can read this chapter without tears in my eyes. I put myself in Timothy's shoes and I'm overwhelmed at how vulnerable Paul is. I'm irate at this Alexander character. What a punk! But I'm blown away at Paul's patience. The emotional trauma doesn't end there, though. It's heartbreaking to read Paul say, only a few verses later: 

16 At my first defense no one supported me, but all deserted me; may it not be counted against them.

Not only is it difficult to read from Timothy's perspective (i.e. your mentor and father is clearly in pain and you're one of the only bright spots left in his life) I think it's also excruciating to read from Paul's perspective. He's warning Timothy of the trials that are headed his way. It's one thing to experience your own pain and sorrow but seeing one of your children go through a trial is often worse. Paul's obedience to Christ brought onto him worldly trouble and he knows that when Timothy obeys the instructions Paul just gave him in the previous few chapters that trouble will fall on him, too. It's like taking your kid to get a shot or a surgery. You wish you could do it on their behalf, you know it's going to hurt them for a while, but in the end you know it'll strengthen them. 

Thankfully Paul doesn't end his letter there. He goes on to say, in the next verses, some of the most encouraging words found in Scripture: 

17 But the Lord stood with me and strengthened me, so that through me the proclamation might be fully accomplished, and that all the Gentiles might hear; and I was rescued out of the lion’s mouth. 18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

The Lord will bring me safely into His kingdom! Nothing offers more hope. 

Do Babies Turn Into Angels?

Anyone who has ever attempted to cope with the loss of a child understands the impossible task they are challenged with. If you've found yourself checking into what I have to say, then it's safe to assume either you or someone you love has gone through this. One of the questions lingering is in regards to what happens to the child after they've passed away. 

The common answer is that the baby turns into an angel and that is the answer I want to filter through a biblical grid. 

1 Corinthians 6:2-4
2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? 4 So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church?

When Paul is writing to the Corinthians here I realize he's not laying out what happens to human beings when they die or answering the question I am trying to answer. The context is different but one of the truths he sets forth can help us. 

Paul clearly says we (and by we he means Believers) will judge angels. Not while on earth in our mortal bodies but in Heaven in our glorified bodies.  Why is this relevant? If babies turn into angels when they pass away, then they are still subject to judgment. That is not altogether encouraging news. Angels and humans are different. Angels and glorified believers are also different. 

But that's wholly irrelevant if people don't turn into angels in the first place. The question we really need to ask is, "do babies turn into angels when they die?" There is no biblical basis on which anyone could answer that in the affirmative.  From the evidence we have in Scripture about angels we only see that they were created spiritual beings who existed prior to humans and that they do not die nor do they reproduce (Luke 20:35-37). 

I think it's relevant that they never reproduce because that strongly implies that all the angels God ever wanted were made the moment He made them. That means that from the moment they were created until the fallen angels are cast into the Lake of Fire that number will not change. If there were 90,000 (random number that's easy to work with) angels to start with and 30,000 rebelled, then there will be 90,000 until the 30,000 are thrown into the Lake of Fire. 

Perhaps the primary purpose of angels as seen from Genesis-Revelation is to decisively end battles. Go to biblegateway.com and type in angel(s) and see if that doesn't change your mind about angels. I think if we factor in a comprehensive understanding of angels it may make the notion of young humans becoming angels a little less romantic. And imagine if you were to believe your child became an angel and then you read all about what the angels did throughout the Old Testament and what they will do during the end times.  

What does all this mean, then? How can we apply our knowledge about angels? 
When someone close to you loses a child should you then correct their understanding? 
If someone says, "God needed another tiny angel so He brought up my child," should you explain to them that their child has not morphed into an angel? 

As always we need to be tender and sensitive and weep with those who weep. Those are the precise instances where you're going to need to pray to God and ask for help to be clear, confident and courageous in the words you use. I don't think lying by affirming a fictional metamorphosis is the Christian thing to do but I also understand engaging them in a doctrinal debate is maybe not appropriate either. Affirm what is true. Speak what is true. 

I am of the firm conviction that God is sovereign over every single thing that happens. Nothing can happen without God either enacting it or allowing it. Not one thing. If something could happen outside of that, then He would not be God. The God of the Bible (the only God there is, by the way) is omnipotent and omniscient. He's all-powerful and all-knowing. Those traits by themselves aren't that great until we add that God is good. Though God is all-powerful there is some things He cannot do. God cannot lie and He cannot do anything contrary to His nature. After you finish this do a word study on promises so you get a glimpse of the concrete hope Believers have and why God's inability to lie is so vital to that hope. But before that let's consider God's nature and His inability to contradict that nature and why that is comforting when we evaluate the question of whether or not children turn into angels...

The question, of course, is not really about children turning into angels. The question is about why God allows children to die, right? Thinking they turn into angels is comforting but it's nothing more than sticking gum on the side of the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. 

I don't know why God does that. I have no idea why God allows children to die. I don't know why children don't make it out of the womb. I don't know why they die suddenly in the middle of the night, or why they have an allergic reaction, or why they have bad hearts. I don't know why God does much of what He does - whether they are things I like or dislike. 

What I do know:
-Sin entered the world and screwed it up significantly more than any of us would ever acknowledge. Every single thing is in a fallen state. Our minds. Our bodies. Our planet. Our relationships. It's all corrupted by sin. 
-I also know that God is just and that God is love and God is gracious and God is merciful and God is uniquely that way toward children (those whom He has called innocents). 

Price Gouging is Good

I recall expressing outrage when, as a teenager, I noticed gas prices going up after 9/11. Price gouging, as it is often called, is when sellers raise prices in times of crisis. Water goes up. Gasoline goes up. General goods go up. Supplies go down.

We’re seeing this now with the hurricane in Houston and the one likely to hit Florida in a few days. On the surface, it appears to be a money grab by sellers as they seek to capitalize on the misfortunes of others, but is there a bigger picture we’re missing?
I readily acknowledge that the downside of allowing sellers to increase the price of in-demand products during a time of crisis (crisis: is there a universal standard for such an event? If yes, who decides what it is? And what measure are they using?) will make items people want more expensive. That’s the downside.

There are positive aspects to gouging and, in my estimation, they amount to a net good. In other words, gouging is good for those in need.
“Tim, you’re a capitalist pig! I hate you! You’re so greedy!”
Alright, alright. Hear me out.

Let’s use someone selling water as our example.
It’s not his responsibility to provide water for everyone in town. Nor is it his responsibility to sell water at a price that makes everyone feel good. His only real responsibility is to pay money to people he owes money to and to provide for his own family. He is at liberty to sell water for whatever amount he wants and I have no right to infringe. Those responsibilities and his freedoms don’t hinge on how people feel about the prices he charges. It is never my right and it’s never the right of the government to place a limit on how much he can charge for water. If he wants to charge 2x as much as the guy next door for the same product, then what business is it of mine? The most effective way to get him to lower his prices isn’t for me to shake my fist but for someone else to come in and offer it for less than he does.

“But Tim, that’s during normal time. We’re talking about CRISIS times, YOU BIGOT!”

Let’s consider crisis times.
If Mr Water Seller normally sells his water for $3 per gallon with a virtually unlimited supply at his disposal in hopes he will make $300 a week selling 150 gallons then what happens if he has way, way less water at his disposal for the week? If he, to pay his bills and feed his family, must make $300 per week but only has 30 gallons of water to sell for the week, how much should he charge for a gallon of water? Keep in mind we already agreed that it’s not his responsibility to provide water for everyone in town or to make people feel good. Why should he suffer a financial loss? Why do you hate Mr Water Seller so much that you’re willing to cause him to suffer? If people are willing and eager to pay, one time, $15 per gallon for water, then what is the problem? He’s not going to be making record profits for the week or month. He’s going to end up where he would have been elsewise (+$300).

When he’s not allowed to raise his prices in accordance with supply and demand then other sellers lose incentive to bring the in-demand product to the area where the need is the greatest. Other water sellers won’t have any incentive to bring more product to the area than they normally would, especially given the increased costs of transporting a product to and through an area recently ravaged by a natural disaster. If they see Mr Water Seller selling his water for $15 per gallon then maybe they’ll bring their business to that area and sell their bigger inventory for $11 per gallon. And then another water seller brings their water and their even bigger inventory to town and sells it for $7 per gallon. Now all of a sudden we see that Mr Water Seller’s gouging actually brought in MORE of the in-demand product than there ever would have been had he kept his prices what they were prior to the crisis.

 But then there are onlookers who say, “$7 per gallon is too much! Let’s do what we can, at a cost to ourselves, to send water down to that area for people to drink.”
Had the price of water reflected the price it normally sells for then neither competitors nor the generous would have known of the demand. The temporary increase in price actually helps the need get met at a considerably faster rate. And meeting the need is, as I’m sure we’d all agree, the primary goal for all the parties involved. The goal isn’t to keep some guy across the country from getting upset about high prices. The goal is to get people what they need.

"I can only ride like 3 roller coasters cuz the lines are so long."
"You might not get to ride any if admission were free."

Another positive effect is that it serves as a form of rationing. Higher prices help more people see the product. Someone is less likely to buy all the inventory of a product if it’s 3x more than they were expecting to spend. Mr Water Seller could limit the number of gallons one could purchase but that wouldn’t draw in competition or raise a red flag to the charitable the way gouging would. That’s also too easy to bypass. E.g. I buy one gallon, my wife buys one gallon, my son buys one gallon and then we move on to the next location.

Everyone understands that Alaska and Hawaii aren’t being gouged when they’re “forced” to pay more than other US citizens for milk and bread. Alaska and Hawaii are paying market prices. People are happy to sell them as much milk as they want but they have to sell it for a higher price because it’s much more difficult to get them the product. If sellers were forced to sell milk to Hawaii for the same price they sell to Wisconsin, then people would simply stop selling to Hawaii and Hawaii would have no milk.

As these areas scramble to get help there are those who want to help but, due to financial limitations, cannot help. People in Ohio can't just pack up and leave to go down to Texas or Florida. Obviously, some can and they do so at a cost to themselves and their family. It costs money to travel, they take time off work and spend time away from family. Such people should...must be applauded for their selfless acts. (Side note: even if their act is done for selfish motives I doubt those affected really care. Do you care if someone meets a need you have just so they look good? Probably not. If I'm starving to death I don't care why the chef is feeding me. But that's a 1 Corinthians 13 spiritual issue rather than a practical issue. God is going to deal with that.)

It's difficult to assemble enough volunteers to have an impact. Mindless tasks? Sure. But what about medical treatment? Then what? We need skilled and trained people in administering aid, not an accountant who doesn't mind physical labor. How can we get more RN's and MD's? We pay them. Pay them their normal rate? No. We pay them a lot more. Are RN's and MD's gouging those in need? No. They're doing a cost/benefit analysis of their own. For an RN with kids to go 1,000 miles away for a week is no small thing. The incentive to go has to be more than just the reward of knowing you helped. In a perfect world would we all just help one another for free? Yes. But our world is desperately fallen and people rarely do things unless their own interests are being addressed. So we can either mope around and lecture people or we can pay people what it takes to get the job done.

Maybe Mr Water Seller should keep his prices the same in hopes that people will remember his good deed and make him their primary water distributor in the future.

Maybe Mr Water Seller should close his store entirely so as not to upset anyone.

Are you going to tell him what he must do with his business? If yes, should he be allowed to dictate what you must do with yours?

The Spiritual Aspect of the Cross

The cross we are familiar with did not come into existence with Jesus. Hundreds of people were killed on crosses before Jesus. Hundreds were killed on crosses after Jesus. The cross, in Christianity, is symbolic; it represents something far deeper and greater. 

"Tim, I can't believe you're downplaying the cross! We just celebrated EASTER!!!"

Indeed we did. What I hope to accomplish in this short writing is to explain how we can diminish the cross if we merely focus on the nails and the tree. A crucifixion is a horrible thing. It's exorbitantly violent, bloody and agonizing. Jesus endured all the shame and horror of a real human crucifixion. That should not be dismissed. 

The questions I want you to ask yourself and help you answer are these: Was the cross the worst part of that day? Could Jesus pay our debt by being externally tortured by men? 

Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Let's consider the word ransom here. It's essentially a price to be paid to release someone from bondage. 
Who needs released?
We do. All sinners need released from bondage. For all have sinned...
What/who are we enslaved to?

Romans 6:5-7
5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

We are freed from sin. Christ paid the ransom to free us from our sin.  We weren't enslaved to Satan. The ransom wasn't paid to Satan. In chapter 4 of RC Sproul's book "The Truth of the Cross" he states that the ransom couldn't have been paid to Satan because if the captor gets the payment he requests, then he is the one who wins. Satan obviously did not win. We see that even in Genesis 3 where God tells the serpent that the serpent's head will be crushed while the Servant's heel is bruised. And it's made clearer when Jesus makes triumphant declarations immediately after the cross. The ransom, therefore, is paid to God. God wins. Jesus wins. And our eternal salvation is a byproduct of their collaborative victory. 

What is the just penalty for our sins? Where did people who die in their sins go? 
Hell. 
How long are they there?
Forever. 

So if Jesus actually atoned for our sins and paid the full debt we owed to God, what did He do?
He suffered the wrath of God owed to us. If what I owed God was an eternity in Hell, and Jesus took my place, then Jesus suffered the eternal wrath of God on the cross. 

How that works out logistically is for another post. We don't need to know how Jesus effectively paid for the just punishment of the sins of every man and woman who enter Heaven in one day, we just need to know He actually did. 

He didn't get tortured by some Roman soldiers and voila my sins are no more. He took the just penalty for my sinful life and put it upon His shoulders. He didn't satisfy the wrath of men, He satisfied the wrath of God. 

2 Corinthians 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

God can't look upon sin. He can't stand it. For Jesus to become sin was for Jesus to be forsaken by God. Is this something we can remotely comprehend? No, but let's try our best. 

Imagine loving your spouse with every fiber of your being and your spouse loving you like that in return. You live together in perfect harmony for decades. It's love. True love. Then your spouse suddenly despises you, rejects you, and turns his/her back on you. Can you imagine how anguished you would be? Wouldn't you rather face physical torment? That's not even a fair comparison. There is no comparison. There's a separation that occurred that we cannot possibly fathom. There was perfect relationship between God the Father and God the Son and then Jesus took sin upon Himself for us. He became the very thing God hates on our behalf! 

Was Jesus Christ more anguished by the nails, the whips and the thorns hurting His flesh and bones or by bearing our sins inside His body (1 Peter 2:24)? 

There's an incredible spiritual aspect to the cross we must consider. It's something so deep and dark we have no real words to describe it. The depths of that anguish are left entirely to speculation. Take special consideration of what happened that day. I challenge you to think of the cross as more than a bunch of bad Jews and Gentiles killing an innocent man. Think of it as it actually was: 

Isaiah 53:10-11
10 But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
11 As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.

Why Did Christ Have to Live as a Man?

Have you ever wondered why Jesus Christ didn't descend out of Heaven Friday afternoon and get crucified Friday night? God certainly could have worked that out providentially or even miraculously if He so chose, so why did Christ live as a man for 33+ years? Why not just spare Himself the agony of humanity? What benefit to Him was there to condescend and take on flesh?

The Christmas season gives us a great opportunity to deeply reflect upon Christ's humanity. Our tendency, if we ever surpass the shallowness of Christmas, is to stop at the incarnation of God's Son. We leave Jesus in the manger asleep on the hay and then maybe think about salvation and the Cross. We maybe recognize the counter-intuitiveness of the King of Kings being born in such a humble way. Perhaps we also think about the hypostatic union and that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. But why did Jesus begin His earthly existence at birth instead of closer to the time of His crucifixion and effective atonement?

First, let's acknowledge that He had to live the whole time that He did. How do I know this? Because that's what He did. It's quite simple. If Jesus did not have to live a full life as a human being, then He wouldn't have. If He could have just come to Earth on Friday and died and accomplished His mission to "seek and save the lost," then He would have done it that way. So clearly and irrefutably He must have needed to live a life as a man.

Let's examine some Bible passages that indicate Christ's mission to see why He needed to live as long as He did. 

Luke 19:10 - For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”  

Matthew 20:28 - ...just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

How much of that could He have accomplished on that Friday? Only the parts pertaining to the crucifixion and the atonement of sins, right? Jesus would have still been perfect and without sin. So, theoretically, He would have still cleansed us from our sins. 

The problem we're having, though, is the issue of righteousness. Where does our righteousness come from? On what basis does God look at anyone who is redeemed and call them righteous without God Himself being a liar? Jesus. He looks at the believer and sees Jesus. He looks at the human believer and credits the human believer with the righteousness of the only human who ever was truly good and righteous. 

God imputes the righteous LIFE lived by Jesus - from the time He was born til the time of his death- to the believer. If Christ merely came on Friday and died, then the righteousness we would be credited with would be a divine righteousness, not a human righteousness. Or perhaps better stated we would not be credited with a lifetime of obedience and perfect righteousness but a moments worth. 

Philippians 2:5-8 - 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Were there things Jesus needed to do to obtain salvation for us? 

Matthew 3:14-16 - 14 But John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?” 15 But Jesus answering said to him, “Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he *permitted Him. 16 After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,

He didn't just exist as a righteous man but He fulfilled all righteousness. He identified with man in a profound way and in many ways. He was tempted. He suffered. He didn't do these things just for fun but to fulfill all righteousness and the scriptures. He lived a perfect life under the law so that that perfect life would be credited to our account, so that He would be the spotless lamb, so that He could show us how to live and break us free from the weight of the law (1 John 2:7-8) and so that the prophecies beginning in Genesis of a savior would be fulfilled! 

Succinctly stated:

2 Corinthians 5:21 -He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Every aspect of Christ on this planet was extremely important. Without His death there is no forgiveness of sins. Without His life there is no basis on which we could be considered righteous. If His death only atoned for our sins, then we'd be left in the same state Adam and Eve were in Eden. If Jesus only lived and never died an atoning death then God would be unjust as all of our sins would have gone unpunished and yet we'd be in Heaven and at peace with God!

This completely eliminates any possibility of us boasting about our own works. For if Christ is imputed with our sin and then we, by our own merits, earn our way to Heaven, then do we not have much to boast about? If it's our own righteous life that God looks at, then Christ did only need to come on that Friday and die. But that's not what happened and for that we should all sing:

Joy to the world

The Lord is come

Trump or Hillary and the Role of Conscience

Who should we vote for? More specifically, who should Christians vote for?
Trump or Hillary
Hillary or Trump

As a Christian I can't even half-heartedly entertain the notion of voting for Hillary for ANY reason (unlike a certain member of The Gospel Coalition who says we should vote for her). There is no circumstance in which I would ever vote for Hillary to be the most powerful person on the planet. And no serious Christian thinker is really considering Hillary as an option. There is serious concern as to the genuineness of your salvation if you want to vote for Hillary and legitimate concern if you are willing to vote for her. 

The real question at hand is whether or not a Christian -a genuinely regenerate man or woman striving for personal holiness in the image of Christ who has a worldview grounded in the Bible- can vote for Donald Trump. That's the question we're asking, right? 

Let's first examine what the role of government is according to the Bible and then we'll examine the type of leader God blesses and see how Donald Trump measures up to these standards. Finally, I'll explain where I currently stand and why. 

Romans 13:1-4
13 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

1 Peter 2:13-14
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

We see here that the preeminent purpose of any and every government is the punishment of evildoers and the praising of excellent citizens.  A ruler must punish evil behavior and reward good behavior. Simple, right? Quite simple indeed. Do you think Donald Trump knows the difference between good and evil? How has he displayed this? What evidence do you have that he can be relied upon to faithfully (not perfectly) punish evil and reward good?

I could vote for Mitt Romney with a clear conscience because by all indications he was a very moral man. He's trapped in a religious cult and without the divine grace of God he will die and go to hell because he, as a devout Mormon, insults the person of Christ (rejects the divinity of Jesus) and insults the work of Christ (by trying to earn his way to heaven, Romney spits upon Christ's accomplished work). But he remains a moral man in spite of his aberrant beliefs. I didn't vote for him to be my pastor; I just voted for him to uphold a standard or morality that facilitates civility and to sustain the principles established in the Constitution.

So can Donald Trump consistently and faithfully distinguish between good and evil?

In 1 Kings 3 we read that Solomon was granted whatever he wished from God. Solomon, as we all know, asked God for wisdom. 

9 So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. For who is able to govern this great people of yours?

Indeed! Who can govern without being able to discern right from wrong? Solomon's request pleased God. 

10 The Lord was pleased that Solomon had asked for this. 11 So God said to him, “Since you have asked for this and not for long life or wealth for yourself, nor have asked for the death of your enemies but for discernment in administering justice, 12 I will do what you have asked. I will give you a wise and discerning heart, so that there will never have been anyone like you, nor will there ever be.

The basic component of a any truly great leader (in the eyes of God) is someone who can distinguish between good and evil; right and wrong. This case is firmly established. 

So what about Trump? I'm not going to tell you to vote for him or to not vote for him. That's between you and God. If you feel it's a sin to vote for him, then do not vote for him. Your sanctification and sensitivity to sin is more important than voting for the lesser of 2 evils. I would hope we all agree with that. I find it to be selfish and unChristian to guilt a person to violate their conscience just to prolong the desecration of a once great nation. Maybe that's just me. 

For those of us, like me, living in swings states like Ohio the idea of voting for the best candidate or abstaining from voting for a president is significantly more difficult. Because I live in Ohio my vote is more valuable than if I lived in California or Oregon or New York. I would probably always vote 3rd party if I lived there.  So if you're on the outside looking in and you wonder why some aren't as #NeverTrump as you are, that may have something to do with it. 

There's also the Romans 1 theology in play. If you are convinced that God has turned over America to its sin, then not voting for Trump is a lot easier for you. I'm of the mindset that we probably have been turned over but if there's like a 2% chance we can have some sort of national revival I could see myself voting Trump *gag* in hopes that he slows down our spiral enough for us to see the error of our ways. But until we make it illegal to kill babies, dismember them and sell their body parts I'm not holding out much hope. 

Maybe because of God's sovereignty you won't vote Trump. You see voting for Trump as a bad thing and no one who trusts in God's sovereignty over all things wants to consciously do something bad as that displays a lack of faith and trust in God's perfect plan or redemption. 
Or maybe, because of God's sovereignty, you will vote for Trump. You see voting for Trump as a small thing. You understand that God reigns and saves and will reign over Trump and save him if He wishes. Ultimately, your vote is one of countless "lesser of 2 evils" choices you make in a given day. Solomon wasn't perfect. He made many bad decisions but he still was a good king. The founding fathers were very imperfect. They weren't all moral men but they still governed well*. Trump isn't nearly as bad as Hillary and a 3rd party vote is a waste so I might as well do what I can to prevent the worst possible person from obtaining more power. 

Final Thoughts

Personal Racism and Systemic Racism

I know that racism is a sin, that it's immoral and that it's wrong because I interpret the Bible, specifically Genesis 1-3, literally. I don't believe theistic evolution is compatible with Scripture. I don't believe Genesis is an allegory or that it's poetry. It's Moses describing the creation of the world and everything in it. And in this description he clearly states that it began with one man and one woman. And because Moses said that and because I interpret the Bible literally I have an extremely firm foundation on which to say: "No! There is no race but the human race. There is ethnicity and culture but there is, technically speaking, no distinction of race."

The secular humanist cannot argue from such an authoritative position. Even the intellectual Christian types who turn their nose to the idea of a young Earth will struggle mightily to oppose racism without leaving major holes in their logic. 

Yet racism still exists. There are still racists in America and racists in Canada and in Mexico and in Europe and Australia and Japan and in Kenya and in Madagascar. But here's the thing people are unwilling to admit: it's not just white people who are racists. 

Whaaat?? Tim! What did you just say??? How dare you, sir! How. Dare. You. 

If we accept what the Bible says about sin nature. If we accept the fact that we are dead in sins (Ephesians 2:1; Colossians 2:13) and that the heart is unceasingly wicked (Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 1:21 & 2:5; Ephesians 4:18, etc) then it follows that no people group is exempt from being racist. It would seem that many evangelical leaders, both black and white, think that only white people can be racist. Interestingly enough that idea itself is actually pretty racist. ONLY white people can be racist? ONLY white people are capable of such a heinous sin? 

Intellectual discussion and debate in the 21st century is so mortified and so ignominious that the now acceptable de facto argument heaved at any dissenter is "you're a racist!" Whether the topic at hand is at all related to race is entirely irrelevant. I don't even need to cite any examples because if you've disagreed with anyone in the last 5 years about anything, then you've been called a racist. 

Racism is just the exaltation of self. You believe your race is the elite race just as you believe you are the elite person. Sin nature is self-centered. We pursue our interests first. We think of ourselves first. We think the best of ourselves. Racism makes sense to the man enslaved to his flesh. This means that black people can be racist. This means white people can be racist. This means all people, without distinction, can be racist. 

But the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ rejects that. One of the mysteries of the Gospel is that Jesus' blood paid for the sins of an indistinct group of people:

Revelation 5:9-10
9 And they *sang a new song, saying,“Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.10 “You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.”

This is why Paul tells the Galatians, "there is neither Jew nor Greek..." And to the Ephesians he writes:

 Ephesians 2:14-1614 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

Racism is incompatible with the Bible. I reject racism because I accept that the Bible is true. And the Bible is true whether or not anyone accepts it as such, thus racism is wrong regardless of how many people think it's right and the Bible is wrong. 

But is there systemic racism? Are the police involved in a systemic plot to oppress a certain group of people, namely African-Americans? 

Systemic: of or relating to an entire system

This is where I really, really, really lose my cool. To suggest that there's systemic racism in the criminal justice system is to suggest that EVERY police officer is involved. Unless words don't mean anything, then that is exactly what people are saying when they say there's systemic racism in the criminal justice system. It's a bit insolent to just flippantly toss that word around. If racism is tossed around too loosely, then it's increasingly wicked to add systemic to it. That's just compounding the error and heaping condemnation and judgment upon yourself. 

You can't just say there's systemic racism without facts any more than you can say "you're a racist." What laws exist today that distinguish between races? What laws give rights to one race but not to another? What laws are illegal for some but not for others? 

The only thing I can think of that treats people differently based on race is Affirmative Action. It grants preferential treatment to people based on their race. It also implies that only white people can get jobs and get into schools on their own merits. It implies that non-whites need help simply because they're not white. They can't do it on their own. People laugh when I say this but I oppose Affirmative Action because I strongly believe that it is racist. It's like patting another adult on the head. Maybe it's just my sinful pride but I'd be ticked if I got a job just because of my skin color or ethnicity. That's pretty condescending. 

What's true, whether right or wrong, is that people get treated differently based on their appearance; not their skin color. A black man smiling in a suit is going to get treated differently than a white man covered in tattoos with saggy pants and an indifferent countenance. Seriously, which guy are you going to avoid? 

The police chief in Dallas is black. He's been an incredible leader during their whole situation. He disproves the notion of systemic racism by virtue of his position. I think he's great because he speaks hard truths. I would be racist if I rejected what he said because of his skin color even though what he said was true. What's annoying is if you agree with what he says after you rejected what white officers said....because they were saying the same things! 

Any of us can be racist. I don't for a second think anyone is immune or incapable of being racist. I fully accept that there are still racist people and some of them may be cops. But do you accept that some of these racist people are involved with the Black Lives Matter movement? Do you accept that the poor relationship between the police and the black community is not at all entirely the fault of the police? Do you accept that emotional anecdotes aren't the proper basis on which to condemn an entire system of justice ordained by God? Do you accept that you look like an incorrigible idiot when you say the police are all racists as they defend and protect the protests targeted at them? Do you even know how stupid you sound? Do you care? 

Racism, Police and the Bible

You know all the news stories. You know of them all so well.
Headline:
Police Shoot Unarmed Black Man

Every few months we get one of these stories that take over the news. I expect liberal non-Christians to take the side that stands in rebellion to God. What else would I expect from non-Christians? I even expect some Christians to call out the police. What I never expected was for so many reputable Christian leaders (Russell Moore, Albert Mohler and The Gospel Coalition) to be so quick to condemn those in law enforcement. 

We ALL have questions about what happened. Any reasonable person would. We don't look at a dead man and say,"ok, that's that." We all want to make certain justice is served. What reasonable and clear thinking Christians do is wait. We simply wait for the proper procedures. We wait for evidence, corroborating witnesses and we wait to make sure the officer involved followed protocol. After a reasonable amount of time we can start making some conclusions based on established facts.

Certainly, and I mean this to be condescending and harsh, a decent Christian wouldn't immediately conclude that a police officer committed a racially motivated murder. Think about that!

When you see that a police officer killed an unarmed black man and you, before the officer is even given a chance to tell his side, assume that he killed the man out of racial prejudice you are making an incredibly serious accusation. Keep in mind that many police officers are fellow believers. Do you really want to risk slandering a potential brother to score political points with the left? Really? 

Police shoot white people. A man just a mile or two from me was killed by police last year. He was white. This didn't make the news (the mainstream, big time news) because of his skin color. Blacks kill one another all the time and Russell Moore doesn't call that system out. 

There are 27 references to slander in the Bible (NASB). Some are about Christians being slandered by the world and some are about our need to cease slandering. In either case slander is a worldly virtue. Let's just look at this one verse:

2 Corinthians 12:20
20 For I am afraid that perhaps when I come I may find you to be not what I wish and may be found by you to be not what you wish; that perhaps there will be strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances;

Imagine the heartbreak Paul would feel to see Christians accusing other Christians of murder before any type of legitimate trial had taken place. What a devastating idea to even contemplate. We're not talking about me accusing you of hurting my feelings because of a misunderstanding. We're talking about me accusing you of singling out  a black man, abusing your authority as a God ordained enforcer of the law and taking a man's life in cold blood. And it's not that I just harbor that idea in my heart. No, I go ahead and publish it for the world to see. 

You can disagree with the protocol police use. You can disagree with the crimes people are arrested for. You can disagree with a lot of things and I'll hear you out. But I cannot tolerate Christian leaders slandering men who put their lives on the line for you and I. 

Again, no one is saying these men deserved to die. No one thinks that stealing some money, selling illegal cigarettes or CD's are crimes deserving of capital punishment. What people are saying, and it's not to be cold, is that when you do illegal things and then don't cooperate with police you take the risk of losing your life. If I broke into your house to steal a movie and had no intention of harming you, I'm not really doing anything deserving of death, right? But when I do that I'm taking the risk of you owning a firearm and shooting me because you have no idea what I'm doing at your home. 

That's not at all contingent upon anyone's ethnicity. That's all about someone reaping what they sow. You can't be surprised if you end up in trouble if you're committing a crime. 

Also, this doesn't dismiss the possibility that police officers can be guilty of abusing their power. There are corrupt teachers, businessmen, pastors, construction workers and people of all walks of life. I don't for a second believe that police officers are any more or less prone to the effects of sin and thus I'm as skeptical of them as I am of anyone else I don't really know. So of course there are bad cops. There are bad waiters, too but I don't condemn the entire food service industry as being systemically opposed to people like me. 

This is what's so troubling and concerning about the men I listed earlier. They have to know better. They have to know that in a world as sinful and depraved as ours that there are going to be serious problems at every level. There are going to be ugly messes where 2 sinful people met and the solution is neither pretty nor clear. And they really should understand that the biggest problem facing the black community isn't systemic racism. I can think of several verifiable bigger problems: 

1. Liberal politics 
2. Fatherlessness
3. Lack of Godly leaders

The last one is the most important one and also the exact same reason why white communities fall into sin and why Israel fell into sin and why churches fall into sin. All 3 are connected and feed off one another but number's 1 and 2 would be less common if number 3 didn't exist. 

The way Moore and others talk about police is shockingly similar to how racist people talk about minorities. They lump all police together. They are making no efforts to hear from the police. Just last year there was a shameful conference led by many reformed Christian leaders where they talked about white privilege and systemic racism in law enforcement. Pretty serious charges to bring against the police, right? Yet they didn't have one person from law enforcement on their panels. Isn't that weird and also really irresponsible? 

The Christian community should be a clear voice here and willing to call sin what it is. If the police officers are guilty, they're guilty. If they're not, they're not. Let's please, please, please, please wait to hear both sides before we accuse men of killing a man because of his race. Why do I need to tell men with doctorates this?