From the LA Times October 1. Giuliani is concerned about security for who? Not for the 3,700 babies slaughtered each day in the USA, that's for sure!
Christian right is split over GOP field
Jeff Reinking / Associated Press
SECURITY FIRST: Concern over security could lead Christian conservatives to overlook disagreements with Rudolph Giuliani, shown at a campaign stop in a Kirkland, Wash., cafe last month.
Conservative evangelicals haven't found a perfect fit among the Republican presidential candidates — and that could benefit social liberal Giuliani.
By Michael Finnegan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer October 1, 2007
WASHINGTON — Barely three months before the voting for a new president begins, the religious right has yet to unite behind a Republican candidate, heightening concerns among evangelical leaders that social liberal Rudolph W. Giuliani will capture the party's nomination.
The splintering of religious conservatives, if it endures, could ease the way for New York's former mayor to emerge as the party's first nominee to explicitly support abortion rights since the Supreme Court legalized the procedure in 1973.
But the lack of a consensus choice for president is only one of the troubles facing conservative evangelicals, a powerful force within the GOP for more than a generation.
"It's low tide right now for our movement," said Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Assn.
Opportunities for the religious right to press its agenda suffered a blow when Republicans lost control of both chambers of Congress in last year's midterm election.
Making matters worse are sex scandals besetting Republicans who have championed family values, most recently Sens. Larry E. Craig of Idaho and David Vitter of Louisiana. Their troubles -- after the sex scandal last fall involving then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) that contributed to the GOP's midterm losses -- have diminished enthusiasm for the party among many social conservatives.
Also hobbling the religious right is the decline of the Christian Coalition of America. A mobilizing force in the 1990s, the South Carolina-based group has suffered financial setbacks and now plays a marginal role in Republican politics.
At the same time, evangelical leaders are roiled in internal debate over whether to broaden their agenda beyond opposing abortion and same-sex marriage. Some argue that they have a responsibility to also fight poverty, AIDS and global warming.
"The old Christian right that automatically could be mobilized against a few issues -- that movement is being diluted," said the Rev. Joel C. Hunter, whose appointment as Christian Coalition president was cut short last year amid an outcry over his push to widen the group's focus.
In the presidential race, several of the lower-tier candidates have cast themselves as staunch supporters of the Christian right's priorities -- most obviously Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas. But few observers see those candidates' prospects as realistic. And many social conservatives have doubts about the higher-profile contenders vying with Giuliani.
"There's just no enthusiasm for this crop of first-tier candidates," said Richard Viguerie, a veteran conservative activist and author. "Not one of them is a principled conservative, so why support them?"
Leaders of Christian conservative groups are threatening to back a third-party candidate in an attempt to stop Giuliani from winning the nomination, the New York Times reported Sunday.
Some evangelical leaders hoped that former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee could be their standard-bearer. But his early stumbles have raised doubts about his capacity to rally support. And some evangelical leaders have questioned his commitment to battling same-sex marriage and abortion.
James C. Dobson, one of the country's most influential evangelicals, told allies in a recent e-mail that Thompson could not "speak his way out of a paper bag."
"He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to,' " the founder and chairman of Focus on the Family wrote. "And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"
Also vying for the backing of the evangelical community is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. His heavy spending on TV ads in Iowa, where religious conservatives dominate the GOP caucuses that traditionally launch the nomination contest, has vaulted him to the front-runner's spot in polls there.
But he is still struggling to surmount guardedness toward his Mormon faith and his switch to conservative stands on abortion, gay rights and other matters after campaigning in Massachusetts as a moderate on social issues.
"He's come to a lot of those positions late, and there's a lot of concern that he's come to those positions only for political convenience," said Danielle Vinson, associate professor of political science at Furman University in Greenville, S.C.
Another Republican, former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, seems a natural fit for evangelicals: An ordained Southern Baptist minister, he has deep ties to the religious right. But Huckabee's lackluster fundraising so far has made it tough to convince many that he is a viable contender.
For Christian conservatives, a GOP loss of the White House would end eight years of advances under President Bush. He has put two conservatives on the Supreme Court, signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, imposed restrictions on stem-cell research, and put political muscle to work for state bans on same-sex marriage.
Some evangelical leaders expect Christian conservatives to rally behind one Republican alternative to Giuliani once the field of candidates narrows.
Even if Democrats take the White House and keep control of Congress, the religious right is sure to maintain significant clout within the GOP. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll in June found that 31% of Republicans identified themselves as part of the religious right.
"This is not an auspicious historical moment for the Republican Party or social conservatives, but they will continue to be a formidable force," said political scientist Ted G. Jelen of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Giuliani has remained the leader in national polls of Republican voters in part by showing wider appeal than many anticipated, given his record on social issues (as well as his three marriages). A Gallup survey released Friday found he was the top choice among Republicans who attended church at least once a week.
As the race proceeds, a key question is whether concern among evangelicals over national security could lead many to overlook disagreements with Giuliani. Many have ranked national security as a priority since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and terrorism is the core issue in Giuliani's campaign.
Also in the mix: which candidate stands the best shot at defeating Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), should she win the Democratic nomination.
"Perhaps more than ever, electability is part of the thing that social conservatives are weighing, because the prospect of Hillary Clinton is so disturbing to them," said Gary Bauer, a conservative activist who ran for president in 2000. "They're looking for both the candidate who is closest to their views but also the candidate that they credibly think can win."
Giuliani argues that he fits that bill, even as Bauer and others continue scouting for someone else.
For now, some key evangelical leaders say religious conservatives must soon join forces to back Romney, Thompson or another candidate -- whatever his flaws -- to stop Giuliani.
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said the early caucuses and primaries in January would show whether conservative evangelicals understood "that politics is the art of the possible, and you don't make the perfect the enemy of the good."
"Sometimes," he said, "three-quarters of a loaf is better than none."
Dr. Dobson says winning an election is important, but not at the expense of our core beliefs.
Reports have surfaced in the press about a meeting that occurred last Saturday in Salt Lake City involving more than 50 pro-family leaders. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion. Although I was neither the convener nor the moderator of the meeting, I'd like to offer several brief clarifications about its outcome and implications.
After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.
The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged.
Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent or the other leaders gathered in Salt Lake City, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.
The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don't measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one's principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.
One other clarification is germane, even though unrelated to the meeting in Salt Lake City. The secular news media has been reporting in recent months that the conservative Christian movement is hopelessly fractured and internally antagonistic. The Los Angeles Times reported on Monday, for example, that supporters of traditional family values are rapidly "splintering." That is not true. The near unanimity in Salt Lake City is evidence of much greater harmony than supposed. Admittedly, differences of opinion exist among us about our choices for president.
That divergence is entirely reasonable, now just over a year before the national election. It is hardly indicative of a "splintering" of old alliances. If the major political parties decide to abandon conservative principles, the cohesion of pro-family advocates will be all too apparent in 2008.
(This piece originally appeared as an op-ed in today's New York Times.) ---------------------------------- Comment on this blog here! http://zeke1319.chatango.com
Planned Parenthood to close 5 killing centers in Michigan!
Current mood: excited
Category: Life
Planned Parenthood Will Close Five Michigan Clinics
--> -->
Planned Parenthood of West Michigan and Northern Michigan is facing a combined 40 percent cut in state and federal funding this year, prompting the closure of five clinics. Facilities in White Cloud and Hart closed Monday; centers in Grand Rapids, Muskegon and Mount Pleasant will close by the end of the year.
"It is good news because Planned Parenthood is America's No. 1 abortion provider and promoter," said Pam Sherstad, director of public information for Right to Life of Michigan. "Women deserve better than Planned Parenthood."
The reduction stems from changes in how the state allocates money. Under the new formula, funds are distributed according to the percentage of recipients below the poverty line. This year, Planned Parenthood will receive $1 million in state and federal funds, down from $1.7 million last year.
Sherstad said there are more than 100 pregnancy and adoption centers in Michigan serving women — centers that are not run by Planned Parenthood.
"We do have the resources in Michigan to help women who are faced with an unplanned pregnancy," she said.
Giuliania stuck on stupid when it comes to God
Current mood: amused
Category: News and Politics
Giuliani thumbs his nose at God and also the Roman Catholic Church calling their specific requirements for receiving communion "their interpretation". Is it just me or does Giuliani's comments on the Christian faith remind you of something you'd hear from a mindless 9th grader?
"I'm not running for religious office," Giuliani told reporters during a brief appearance at a coffee bar in a St. Louis suburb.
"I'm not going to debate the opinion of an archbishop of the Catholic Church or an official of the Protestant Church or a rabbi," Giuliani said. "That's an interpretation of religion. They're entitled to their interpretation of religion."
Sorry Giuliani, we won’t let these stupid comments go
Current mood: amused
Category: News and Politics
When I first read this I thought it was some sort of joke from The Onion or some other comedic fake news website. Keep in mind, this is the presidential candidate that a lot of Republicans and alleged "conservatives" claim is the best pick for the Republican nominee in 2008. This is the best guy!?
WASHINGTON — Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani compared the scrutiny of his personal life marked by three marriages to the biblical story of how Jesus dealt with an adulterous woman.
Republican presidential hopeful and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani takes questions from the media about Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., not seen, outside The Original Pantry restaurant in downtown Los Angeles Friday, Sept. 28, 2007.
In an interview posted online Friday, Giuliani was questioned about his family and told the Christian Broadcasting Network, "I think there are some people that are very judgmental."
Giuliani has a daughter who indicated support for Democrat Barack Obama and a son who said he didn't speak to his father for some time. Giuliani's messy divorce from their mother, Donna Hanover, was waged publicly while Giuliani was mayor of New York.
"I'm guided very, very often about, 'Don't judge others, lest you be judged,'" Giuliani told CBN interviewer David Brody. "I'm guided a lot by the story of the woman that was going to be stoned, and Jesus put the stones down and said, 'He that hasn't sinned, cast the first stone,' and everybody disappeared.
"It seems like nowadays in America, we have people that think they could've passed that test," he said. "And I don't think anybody could've passed that test but Jesus."
In the New Testament story, related in the Gospel of John, Jesus does not actually hold stones. The Pharisees bring Jesus a woman charged with adultery, reminding him the punishment for adultery is stoning. They are testing Jesus in an effort to charge him with breaking the law.
The Gospel reads: "But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, 'Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.'
"... And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders."
Giuliani has insisted his family relationships are private. In 1968, he married his cousin, Regina Peruggi. They divorced 14 years later, and Giuliani obtained an annulment from the Catholic Church on the grounds that as second cousins, they should have received a dispensation to marry.
Giuliani married Hanover in 1984 and they divorced in 2002. He has been married to Judith Nathan since 2003.
Likewise, he says his faith is private, although he evokes his Catholic upbringing on the campaign trail.
He told CBN he believes in God and prays to Jesus for guidance and help.
"I have very, very strong views on religion that come about from having wanted to be a priest when I was younger, having studied theology for four years in college," he said. "It's an area I know really, really well academically.
"... And my personal view of it is I need God's help for everything, and I probably feel that the most when I'm in crisis and under pressure, like Sept. 11, when I was dealing with prostate cancer, or (when) I'm trying to explain death to people, which unfortunately I've had to do so often.
"So it's a very, very important part of my life," he said. "But I think in a democracy and in a government like ours, my religion is my way of looking at God, and other people have other ways of doing it, and some people don't believe in God. I think that's unfortunate. I think their life would be a lot fuller if they did, but they have that right."
Giuliani also addressed a cell phone call he took from his wife, Judith, last week during his speech to the National Rifle Association, an important appearance because Giuliani clashed with the group when he argued for tougher gun control as mayor of New York.
"And quite honestly, since Sept. 11, most of the time when we get on a plane, we talk to each other and just reaffirm the fact that we love each other," he said.
"Sometimes if I'm in the middle of a very, very sensitive meeting, I don't take the call right then; I wait. But I thought it would be kind of nice if I took it at that point, and I'd done that before in engagements, and I didn't realize it would create any kind of controversy," he said.
MORE great quotes from Ann Coulter
Current mood: happy
Category: News and Politics
Ann on Columbia University inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak:
Columbia president Lee Bollinger claimed the Ahmadinejad invitation is in keeping with "Columbia's long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate."
Except Columbia doesn't have that tradition. This is worse than saying "the dog ate my homework." It's like saying "the dog ate my homework" when you're Michael Vick and everyone knows you've killed your dog. --from Tase Him, Bro!
Ann on liberal's use of the word "hypocrite":
Liberals don't even know what they mean by "hypocrite" anymore. It's just a word they throw out in a moment of womanly pique, like "extremist" -- or, come to think of it, "gay." How is Craig a "hypocrite," much less a "blatant hypocrite"?
Assuming the worst about Craig, the Senate has not held a vote on outlawing homosexual impulses. It voted on gay marriage. Craig not only opposes gay marriage, he's in a heterosexual marriage with kids. Talk about walking the walk!
Did Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I'm not seeing the "hypocrisy." -- from CRUISING WHILE REPUBLICAN
Aug. 21, 2007 – The little voice in your head that warns you not to do something you were just about to do is real, brain researchers say.
Well, maybe not the voice. But researchers now say last-minute second thoughts come from a specific part of the brain.
A different area of the brain allows us to act voluntarily. That's free will. This is "free won't," suggest Marcel Brass, PhD of Germany's Max Planck Institute and Patrick Haggard, PhD, of England's University College London.
"Many people recognize the 'little voice inside the head' that stops you from doing something, like pressing the 'send' button on an angry email," Haggard says in a news release. "Our study identifies the brain processes involved in that last-minute rethink about what we are doing."
Brass and Haggard find that a brain region just above and between your eyes -- the dorsal fronto-median cortex or dFMC -- is specifically designed to let you pull back from doing something you were just about to do.
University of Pennsylvania researcher Martha Farah, PhD, says the findings have major implications. Farah was not involved in the study.
"It is very important to identify the circuits that enable 'free won't' because of the many psychiatric disorders for which self-control problems figure prominently -- from attention deficit disorder to substance dependence and various personality disorders," Farah says in a news release.
In their study, Brass and Haggard hooked up 15 healthy young adults to functional MRI machines that did real-time scans of their brain activity. The participants were asked to decide to push a button at times of their own choosing. Some of the time the participants were asked to decide at the last minute not to push the button.
Brain scans taken when the participants actually pushed the button were different from those taken when the subjects restrained themselves from pushing the button.
This self-control came at a cost. The subjects reported feeling frustrated when they did not push the button as they had intended to do. That fit with their brain scans; a part of the brain linked to feelings of frustration (the anterior ventral insula) lit up along with the dFMC "free-won't" brain region.
Interestingly, some of the study participants were less likely to refrain from pushing the button than others. These subjects had relatively weak dFMC activity, while those with better self-control had stronger dFMC activity.
"This could be a factor in why some individuals are impulsive, while others are reluctant to act," Haggard says.
Brass and Haggard report their findings in the Aug. 22 issue of the Journal of Neuroscience.
Obey? Bible says yes, if government’s ’good’
Current mood: thoughtful
Category: News and Politics
TESTING THE FAITH Obey? Bible says yes, if government's 'good' 'No civil rulers should be followed if orders inconsistent with God's'
Posted: August 26, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
In Romans 13, the Bible instructs Christians to obey the government because God has placed it in power, but several experts and leaders, both historic and modern, have indicated that cannot be interpreted as an unqualified loyalty.
In the report, Durell Tuberville, chaplain of the Shreveport, La., Fire Department and the Caddo sheriff's office, said the mission of such Clergy Response Teams would be to express the sentiment: "Let's cooperate and get this thing over with and then we'll settle the differences once the crisis is over."
Currently
listening
:
Growers of Mushroom
By
Leaf Hound
Release date: 07 November, 2005
Looking to contact one of my friends?
Current mood: pensive
Category: Friends
AHA! You clicked on one of my friend's profile links/images and imagined that you would then go to their profile and perhaps check them out further.
Well.............normally, that would be the case on most profiles, but not here.
Why is that?
Is it because I am some sort of a control freak? NO.
Is it because I don't want my top friends to be your friends? Not exactly.
The reason why is I've had some people whose intentions range from bad to malicious either harassing some of my wonderful, very good looking friends on account of the content of this profile or for other reasons relating to things about me personally which are inherent and unchangeable.
So, if you want to contact anyone in this friends space then leave a comment here letting me know which person(s) you want to contact and I may give you the link to their address if it so pleases me to
THE ONE
Currently
listening
:
Let’s Be Friends
By
Elvis Presley
Release date: 26 September, 2006
The pictures were quite graphic, so we did not include them here.
Some drivers stopped to complain that the pictures of aborted fetuses were too graphic.
The protestors had been told last week to refrain from protesting.
..>
FINDLAY -- Drivers were warned of what they were about to see. The sign read: "American Atrocities Display Ahead."
Despite the warning, drivers were upset.
"I've got kids in the car. Think I want to have them drive down the street and look at dismembered things?" one driver complained.
The problem? A group of protestors met at lunch to protest abortion. And the pictures they used to make their point were -- graphic.
For one-half mile along Tiffin St. in Findlay, anti-abortion activists from Wisconsin displayed large graphic photos of aborted fetuses. Last week, Findlay officals had blocked the protestors, claiming the group needed a permit.
The group went to Toledo Federal Court, claiming their first amendments rights had been violated. Findlay officials backed off.
"It is a victory for free speech and that's one of the silver linings of what we can do. If you don't exercise your rights you tend to lose them," said Mark Trewhella, one of the protestors.
But drivers passing by the busy intersection could care less about free speech. They stop and confront the protestors, claiming the pictures are disgusting.
"You're absolutely right it's disgusting," said Mary Rivard to a driver. "You need to know what abortion is. You need to know what our country condones."
Protestors say they're used to the harassment but say it's worth it for a cause they believe in.
"This is what our country says is legal, and if it's disturbing, then there's a problem with that," Rivard said.
What is a dispensation? The Greek word for dispensation, oijkonomiva – oikonomia, is defined in two ways. The first definition emphasizes the plan of management: "The management of a household or of household affairs; specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of other's property. The second emphasizes the position entrusted to the administrator: "The office of a manager or overseer, stewardship." We refer to the term of office of an American president as an administration. We could refer to it as a dispensation.
Here is another way to understand the word. Suppose you inherited an estate and hired an overseer, oijkonovmo"– oikonomos, to manage it. You gave him a written document of instructions, the dispensation, and gave him the authority to spend your money to carry out your directions. Although a dispensation is not a period of time, we can see that the directions in the dispensation are carried out over a period of time. If you wanted to, you could replace the old administrator with a new one. You could also change the rules of the dispensation a little, keeping most of the rules from the last dispensation. The employees the prior administrator had hired could adapt to the minor changes easily. But if you hired an administrator and gave him instructions which totally conflicted with the previous dispensation, there would be confusion and probably strong resistance from the employees. That's what happened in God's dispensational program after the last change. God set aside His nation, Israel, and started a new dispensation with the Apostle Paul.
How many dispensations are there? That is a much harder question to answer. I could settle for as few as three if I had to. If we had to call it a new dispensation every time God changed the instructions at all, I suppose we could have, maybe even thirty seven. I think we should recognize a new dispensation and call it a new dispensation every time there is a significant difference. But there's a problem with this. What is a significant difference? I hope to show you the significant differences which cause me to affirm that there are twelve dispensations. That's the reason for this booklet.
Most Biblicists agree that man was created in a state of innocence. Adam and Eve did not know good from evil. The serpent told Eve, "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Gen 3:5).1 Therefore, because they were innocent, I believe it is right to call the first dispensation The Dispensation of Innocence.
The Dispensation of Innocence lasted until there was a significant change. That change happened when Adam and Eve sinned. This is shown in Genesis 3:6-8:
So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.
They now had a conscience. Because their conscience made them aware of their sin, we call this second method of dealing with man The Dispensation of Conscience. It appears that the conscience works in man in many different dispensations. I believe this dispensation continues in effect for those on the earth until the end of the millennium.
When God saw how evil man had become, He repented that He had made man and destroyed them in the flood according to Genesis 6:5-7:
Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord repented2 that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the Lord said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I repent2 that I have made them."
After the flood, God changed His method of dealing with man. He instituted capital punishment and gave man every living thing that moves for food in addition to the green plants (Gen 9:1-17). Most dispensational theologians refer to this as The Dispensation of Human Government. This method of dealing with man will last until Jesus Christ rules in the millennium. In the millennium, "He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron" (Rev 19:15).
It is difficult to discern the method of salvation in the second and third of these first three dispensations. God seems to demand sacrifices, but we do not find the instructions for the sacrifices. It appears that they would be saved if they believed God and brought the required sacrifice. When we consider the fourth dispensation, The Dispensation of Promise, the doubt is removed, and clearer instruction are given.
In addition to the dispensations, God made a number of unconditional promises. We may call them unconditional covenants. When we look at God's statement to Abraham in Genesis 15:6, we can see justification is by faith alone under The Dispensation of Promise: "And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness."
In addition, the details of a conditional or two party covenant are displayed in Jeremiah 34:18-20a:
I will give the men who have transgressed My covenant, who have not performed the words of the covenant which they made before Me, when they cut the calf in two and passed between the parts of it – the princes of Judah, the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, the priests, and all the people of the land who passed between the parts of the calf – I will give them into the hand of their enemies and into the hand of those who seek their life.
They passed through the split animals as they covenanted with God. The split animals signified – "If I don't keep the covenant, I will be split like these animals." In contrast to Jeremiah 34, when we look at the details of the unconditional covenant of Genesis 15:7-18, we see that Abram was not allowed to pass through the animals. Only God did. He took the imprecation upon himself.
Then He said to him, "I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it." And he said, "Lord God, how shall I know that I will inherit it?" So He said to him, "Bring Me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon." Then he brought all these to Him and cut them in two, down the middle, and placed each piece opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds in two. And when the vultures came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away. Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, horror and great darkness fell upon him. Then He said to Abram: "Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years. And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions. Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces. On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates."
Because God went through the covenant animals alone, we can see God's covenant with Abram was unconditional. Abram was justified by grace through faith when He believed God in Genesis 15:6. Then, God made the unconditional covenant with him confirming the promises of the covenant. We will call this the Abramic Covenant.
We find the greatest change in God's method of salvation in the Hebrew Scriptures from the fourth, The Dispensation of Promise, to the fifth dispensation, The Dispensation of Circumcision. This dispensation of circumcision was associated with the second covenant God made with Abraham. Because Abram's name was changed to Abraham when this covenant was made, it could be called the Abrahamic Covenant. However, it is called the Covenant of Circumcision in Acts 7:8. This is the first conditional covenant. The promises of the Covenant of Promise were still certain, but conditions were added for Abraham and his progeny to perform if they wanted to participate in the covenant blessings. Let's read these conditions in Genesis 17:1-14.
When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. 2 And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly." 3 Then Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying: 4 "As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. 5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. 7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 8 Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." 9 And God said to Abraham: "As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. 13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."
This is unquestionably a two way covenant. Even retribution (v. 14) is included in this conditional covenant. This, indeed, could be called The Covenant of Works. Under this covenant, circumcision was absolutely necessary. A person's faith had to be shown by his faith-works. We have an illustration of this in Genesis 22. After Abraham obeyed God and attempted to offer his son, God said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me" (22:12). When James referred to this event where God was the only spectator, Abraham was justified before God. James wrote in 2:21-24,
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
Abraham was justified by his faith-work of offering up his son. That was God's method of salvation just as circumcision was necessary. The faith-work did not provide the righteousness. Only Jesus Christ's faithfulness could do that. That is shown in Romans, Galatians, and Philippians. Let's look at Romans 3:20-22,25,26 carefully.
Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faithfulness in of Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faithfulness, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
First, notice in verses 21 and 22, it is the righteousness of God which is revealed. How is it revealed? It is revealed through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. The phrase, "through faithfulness of Jesus Christ", is a prepositional phrase which modifies the verb, "revealed." From this we can see that the righteousness of God is revealed by Christ's faithfulness, not our belief. The word, "faith" (pivstew", pivsti") means "faith, faithfulness, pledge, fidelity, belief." It is translated faithfulness in Romans 3:3, "For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness3 of God without effect? Next, in verse 25, how did God demonstrate His righteousness? Since it is God's righteousness that is demonstrated, it must be by Christ's blood and faithfulness not ours. We can't be justified by our works of the law. They result in death. But Christ made God's righteousness available. Man acquires by faith that righteousness which Christ provided by dying. In each dispensation, man must do by faith what God requires. Under circumcision, God required faith-works. Under The Dispensation of Grace, He requires faith apart from works. No Scripture could sum it up better than Philippians 3:9, "And be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through the faithfulness of Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith."
Here was a profound dispensational change. God changed from the unconditional covenant of promise to the conditional covenant of circumcision. We will see how consistently Paul steers away from a works oriented salvation. We will also see how consistently Peter, James, and John emphasize faith-law-works in their messages and epistles.
If you consult the chart at the middle of this booklet, you will see that seven of the twelve dispensations are under the influence of the circumcision covenant. We must conclude that the circumcision covenant even includes the new covenant, for Genesis 17:7,13, and 19 all say it is everlasting.
And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 19 Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him.
We have covered five dispensations, and we're still in Genesis. The sixth one is The Dispensation of Law. Under this dispensation, God's method for having His righteousness imputed now includes faith-law-keeping. The works of the law didn't provide anything. But when a man continuously kept God's law, by faith, he appropriated God's righteousness. Romans 9:31,32 shows us Israel's problem: "But Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone." They were too busy trying to establish their own righteousness. Instead, the law produced death (Rom 7:7-14). What they needed to do was recognize they could do nothing to produce righteousness. They needed to submit only to God's righteousness as Romans 10:3,4 says: "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
In contrast, we died to the law (Rom 7:6; Gal 2:19). We are not under the law in any way (Rom 6:14; Gal 5:18). We have the indwelling Holy Spirit producing the law of the Spirit of life in us (Rom 8:2-4). We have a growing new life in the Spirit as we meditate on God's word and seek to love Him with all our being (Eph 5:18-21). It is extremely difficult to keep this focus. M
click to enlarge
Reports have surfaced in the press about a meeting that occurred last Saturday in Salt Lake City involving more than 50 pro-family leaders. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion. Although I was neither the convener nor the moderator of the meeting, I'd like to offer several brief clarifications about its outcome and implications.
excited
amused
happy
contemplative
thoughtful
pensive
determined
