"The Narrow Road": Blogs By Shane Kastler

Hobby Lobby, Obamacare, & Attacks on Liberty: Your Rights Don't Come From a Court!

By Shane Kastler

In one sense, the recent Supreme Court decision regarding Hobby Lobby was encouraging. The Court decision stated that corporations such as Hobby Lobby could not be forced to provide services or products that they have religious objections to, as a part of a government mandated health plan. This decision would seem so obvious to any proponent of liberty that it almost defies logic that anyone might oppose it. Why on earth would any rational person think their employer should be required by law to pay for their sex products? Whether it be contraception or abortion services, these are clearly matters that many of Americans (including those individuals who make up corporations) have religious qualms about. So why should they be forced to violate their conscience to appease their employees?

Furthermore, the idea that employers don't have to pay for such services doesn't limit the employees access to such things in the least. The court decision simply states that government cannot force the company to fit the bill. If the individual wants to buy birth control pills they still have the ability to do so. To suggest this court decision is discrimination against women is patently absurd. If I were to demand that my insurance company provide chocolate for me, would it be discrimination that they refuse? In my case, chocolate makes me feel good and I'm convinced it's beneficial to my health. Isn't this discrimination against chocolate lovers such as me? Of course it's not because I still have access to chocolate. I just have to buy it myself. Likewise with the feminists and their pills. Don't expect your boss to pay for your sex life; and furthermore don't expect the government to be your personal bully who demands such things from your boss. Yet all too often this IS what government does; because the government routinely oversteps anyone's idea of normal bounds, when it seeks to force it's will upon the people. Let us not forget that the Hobby Lobby court decision was 5-4. Which means this entire case was one heartbeat away from being completely different. This leads to a deeper question: Where did we get the idea that our rights and liberties are granted to us by the Supreme Court in the first place?

Have you ever wondered why your liberties should be threatened by the whims of nine Washington dictators in black robes? It should go without saying that the American system of government, with its separation of powers, has seldom actually worked as advertised. While Congress is supposed to make the laws in reality they are often nothing more than a rubber-stamp for an overbearing President. And while the President is supposed to be an executive who enforces law, he is usually more of a tyrant who either pushes Congress to do his bidding, or simply bypasses Congress with illegitimate executive orders. Barack Obama has made a mockery of the whole system with such acts, but he is certainly not the first President to do so. The entire office is corrupt and flawed; as any honest person would be forced to admit. And then we have the Supreme Court.

In THEORY, the Supreme Court is supposed to defend liberty by making sure that laws are “constitutional” in nature. Yet in REALITY, the United States Constitution is so routinely ignored that it has almost become a worthless letter. Think about it. How in the world can you have something as obviously anti-liberty as government enforced purchase of contraception coming down to a 5-4 vote? Or even worse, how could you have government enforced purchase of health insurance coming down to a 5-4 vote in favor of? Under the commerce clause (as John Roberts infamously defended it)? This should make it clear to all that the Constitution means nothing to the powers that be. And why would we expect that it would mean anything to them? Why would you be so foolish as to expect the government to adhere to a document that limits the role of the government? The Feds are called to police themselves. Do you honestly think they will? Very rarely.

In conclusion, I'm glad the Hobby Lobby case came down the way it did; but it doesn't solve the deeper problem of constant attacks on our liberties. And it doesn't change the fact that most Americans wrongly assume that it's the government who GRANTS these liberties. It's not. It is our CREATOR, not the so-called earthly masters who assume power over us that isn't theirs to assume.  Even my declaration that my rights come from my Creator is a controversial statement that not all agree with.  Yet I'm entitled to believe it and to proudly proclaim it.  Just as you are entitled to disagree and speak against it.  But neither of us have the right to force the other to submit to our own view on such things.  This is what true liberty is all about.  True liberty is about you doing as you please; and I doing as I please.  And not using the government to force YOU to do as I PLEASE.

Ladies, no one owes you contraception. In truth, no one owes you health insurance either. Liberty would declare that you can buy what you want. But liberty would also declare that I don't have to buy it for you. Neither does your boss. And at least for today, five of the nine justices agree. Of course that might change tomorrow, but even if it does it wouldn't matter. Our rights don't come from a Court to begin with, nor any other government entity. Live your life enjoying the freedoms you have, without striving to infringe upon the freedoms of others. In short, buy your own pills and I'll buy my own chocolate. And then maybe we can all get along in a free society and live by the dictates of our own conscience.

Why Doesn't Obama Demand a "Minimum Wage" for "Voluntary" Tax Collectors?

By Shane Kastler

The arguments that are typically put forth for a government enforced “minimum wage” involve supposed precepts of “fairness.” Barack Obama and others have argued for the fact that people should be able to “make enough money to pay their bills” if they work a full time job.  The free market arguments against his line of reasoning are too many to mention here.  With that said, there are numerous solutions to help people “pay their bills” if that's what he's really interested in.  For one, Obama could push for the complete elimination of taxation. Just imagine how much easier it would be to pay the grocery bill, if you didn't have to fork over a large portion of your income to the government. Or if you didn't have a percentage added to every purchase you make as a means of taxation. Yet any demand that might involve sacrifice on the part of the government is routinely ignored by those in the government. In their mind the “bad guys” are the business owners and the “good guys” are the government goons who will step in and force the “bad guys” to pay a “living wage.”

It occurs to me that Obama's constant bark for an increase in the minimum wage is conveniently forgotten when one considers the citizen's work of filing and paying taxes. Be it the individuals paying income tax, or businesses paying the collected sales taxes --- we are expected to do this work and promptly send our payments to the government.......FOR FREE! Where is the outcry from the benevolent Obama for such a travesty? Not surprisingly, it's non-existent.

This particular injustice was exemplified for me recently when one of my children asked me about the sales taxes we pay at the store. “Dad, does the store get to keep that money?” I explained that in fact the store is required to do the work of collecting these taxes, then send it to the various government agencies, without being compensated in the least for their work. Of course the employees who do this ARE compensated.....by the business, not the government. The government requires this service to be rendered at no cost whatsoever to them. It's a form of forced servitude, otherwise known as slavery. Yet your Master Obama has no problem with it. Nor do any of the other politicians who reap the benefits of your labor.

This is also true regarding personal income tax. Like many Americans, I'm required to pay each year. I'm expected to do all the work, file all the correct papers, calculate the correct amount, then send in the check. Yet I get compensated nothing to be the government’s tax collector. Not only do I NOT get compensated, I will be severely punished if I fail to render this free service to them.  In my case, I'm also required to pay quarterly payments against my will, and if they end up being insufficient I can expect a fine for my "negligence." It doesn't seem fair. Yet I hear no outcry from the White House.

Years ago, Murray Rothbard wrote of this: “The employer is forced to expend time, labor, and money in the business of deducting and transmitting his employees’ taxes to the federal and state governments—yet the employer is not recompensed for this expenditure. What moral principle justifies the government’s forcing employers to act as its unpaid tax collectors?....To add insult to injury, the individual taxpayer, in filling out his tax form, is also forced by the government to work at no pay on the laborious and thankless task of reckoning how much he owes the government. Here again, he cannot charge the government for the cost and labor expended in making out his return.” (For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, pg. 105-106)

If Obama and the powers that be were really interested in “fairness” as they pretend to be, they would demand that the taxpayer be compensated for this forced labor. If it took me 15 hours to prepare my tax return, then I should be able to deduct the amount of my labor for the service rendered. And rather than the “minimum wage” I should be able to charge the government the market rate for tax preparation. Obama should demand this change to the law in the interest of “fairness.” And I suspect he will eventually do this, right after he abolishes the federal government, jumps on his unicorn, and flies to Mars. (In other words, it's not happening). Nor does this surprise me. I'm well aware of the fact that I will be required to continue rendering service to the government as a “voluntary” (coerced) tax collector. And that if I refuse, I will be imprisoned (or worse). But my purpose here is to simply point out the inconsistencies in the reasonings of those like Obama, who claim to be concerned about “injustice” and yet engages in numerous injustices of his own that most people blindly accept, never thinking about how hypocritical such government mandates truly are. When I explained this whole system to my daughter, she thought it sounded grossly unfair. Indeed it is. If only the adults in power were as aghast at "injustice" as they pretend to be...... when the cameras are rolling.

 

Totally Depraved and Without Excuse: How Both Are True in the Unbeliever

By Shane Kastler

In Romans 1, the Apostle Paul lays out the argument for why the unbeliever is “without excuse” in his rejection of God. Paul writes: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20 NASB) An equal truth taught in Scripture is that man, by nature, is “totally depraved.” In other words, sinners do not have the moral ability to submit to Christ as Lord as they are required to do. Some see these truths as being incompatible and would in fact use Romans 1 as an argument against the doctrine of total depravity; but this argument falls flat upon closer examination. The key to understanding these complementary doctrines is to remember this basic axiom: Total Depravity is not an “excuse” for man's rejection of God, rather it is an “explanation” of it. The unbeliever is both totally depraved and without excuse and here are three reasons why this is true.

First of all, it's true because the Bible says it's true. While I know the unbeliever would scoff at this reason, it's sad to see many Christians who would claim to believe the Bible “from cover to cover” who would also disregard this reason as being overly simplistic. Nevertheless, Christians live by the standard of God's Word and not the standards of this world. If the Bible declares something to be true, then the believer should accept it as such. Even if they don't clearly understand all the implications of the doctrine being taught. Too many Christians fall into the trap of setting themselves up as the judge of God's Word, rather than submitting themselves to it. If the Bible teaches that man is “dead in his trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1) and cannot come to Christ “unless my Father draws” (John 6:44) and that the “natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 2:14) and that “you must be born again” (John 3:3) then who is sinful man to question it?

Likewise, if the Bible teaches that man is responsible for his sin and is “storing up wrath for himself” (Rom. 2:5) and that he is “without excuse” in his rejection of God and that he does not come to Christ because he rebelliously refuses to believe (Acts 7:51), who are we to question this truth? The fact that God's Word declares it -- should be all the “proof” we need that something is true. But I'll offer two more reasons as well.

Unbelievers are both totally depraved and without excuse because even in their depravity, the sinner still has the ability to see that God is there. This is a major part of Paul's argument in Romans 1. God's invisible attributes are clearly seen (which is itself an amazing statement) through “what has been made.” In other words, even the unbeliever can look at creation and clearly see the hand of God at work. Unmistakably they can see things that are “created” and they can discern that there is a “Creator” behind it. And this is one of Paul's major indictments against sinful man, that he can see God in the created order yet he does not acknowledge God. He does not “honor (or glorify) God, nor does he give thanks” (Romans 1:21). To see the hand of God at work in creation and to be the beneficiary of His blessings (as we all are) and then to turn around and not only refuse to glorify, nor give thanks; but even deny His very existence is utterly unconscionable. Indeed it is inexcusable, which is why Paul says the unbeliever is “without excuse.” Total depravity does not excuse such behavior. It explains it, but it doesn't excuse it.

Finally, sinful man is both totally depraved and without excuse because it is man's fault that he is totally depraved in the first place. Man is in the condition he is in because of his own moral failure, going back all the way to the first man Adam, in the Garden of Eden. “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.” (Romans 5:12) In Adam's fall mankind was infected with the sin curse. So mankind's problem is the fault of mankind himself. You might argue that Adam's sin should not effect you, and that if you'd have had a shot in the Garden you would have done better. But this argument falls flat because, you and I have evidenced repeatedly that we too sin and sin often. If you're so good at “not sinning” then go ahead and dazzle us all now with your holiness. You can't dazzle us because you can't keep from sinning in your natural condition; as is the case with all of us.

In conclusion, the Bible teaches both that man is totally depraved and he is without excuse. Sinners are indeed “dead in their sins” and morally unable to do what God requires, yet they are equally responsible for their sin and bear the blame for the condition they are in. Regeneration is not required in order to see the hand of God at work in creation, yet still man in his sin “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness” by both denying God and refusing to honor and thank Him for His provision. Man is in a bad way, exacerbated by the fact that he argues against it. When God confronted Adam over his sin, Adam immediately begins to blame others for it. He blames Eve, and ultimately he blames God for giving him Eve. Then Eve blames the serpent. (see Genesis 3:12) What Adam did was inexcusable but explainable. Adam was without excuse, but his behavior is explained by the doctrine of total depravity. The same can be said of all sinners, including you and me.

“But God demonstrates His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8) The only hope the unbeliever has it to be found in the grace of God through the gospel of Jesus Christ. The sinner is called to repent and believe in Jesus, yet this he will not do naturally. But it can happen supernaturally. Through the new birth Jesus described in John 3, sinners are granted spiritual life, they repent of their sin, and they submit to Christ as Lord. And when they do, they can see clearly, for the first time, that they were once both totally depraved and without excuse. Both realities are Scriptural and both realities are clearly seen in our experience. Total depravity doesn't excuse man's rebellion but it does explain it. And the blood of Christ solves both problems for all those who “believe” by grace.

A Rebuttal of Tom Chantry's Polemic Against New Covenant Theology

By Shane Kastler

In a recent polemic against the “New Calvinism” and charges of antinomianism by those who hold to New Covenant Theology, Tom Chantry, pastor of Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Milwaukee, WI makes several erroneous characterizations and I fear unduly seeks to define all things “Calvinist” according to his own terms. According to Chantry, the good, old-fashioned, pure “Old Calvinists” are the true blues who hold to the reformed confessions.  While the "New Calvinists" are antinomians who hold to New Covenant Theology.

Chantry refers to the “New Calvinists” as “sub-confessional.” Of course this would be problematic if they were tossing aside the confessions for the funny papers. But those who hold to New Covenant Theology (NCT) strive to embrace a system more Biblical in nature. Rather than looking to confessions primarily; should we not look to the Scriptures? While the confessions might provide some helpful insight they must never be elevated to Scriptural level. A Calvinist who does so, sounds eerily like the Catholic who disregards Scripture since the Pope has settled the matter ex cathedra. I was once rebuked by a die hard Covenant Theologian because I quoted a Bible verse. He told me to “quote a confession or stay quiet! Leave the Bible out of this debate!” Needless to say, I gladly left the debate realizing we weren't on the same playing field. I'm interested in no theological system that BEGINS with confessions then works back to the Bible as a secondary source. While “Old Calvinist” Covenant Theologians wouldn't usually claim to be doing this; it is in practice what sometimes occurs (knowingly or unknowingly).

Chantry describes NCT as “antinomian.” He writes, “The word “antinomian” means “against law,” and in theology it denotes some opposition to divine law.” Clearly he is implying that NCT “opposes” divine law; though I have yet to meet a fellow NCT'er who would claim to do so. Looking to the New Testament teachings of Christ we accept his statement that he “fulfilled” the Law. He did not abolish it (which is to declare it wrong) but He did fulfill it (which is to declare it finished). Given this statement, not to mention his Sabbath activities, it seems pretty likely our Lord would draw Chantry's ire as antinomian as well. We might shudder to think of what Tom would think of the Apostle Paul in his constant Spirit-inspired railings against the Judaiszers who wanted him to live by a law he declared us to be free of. Of course when Paul speaks of this freedom he forgot to clarify that it was only the civil and ceremonial aspects he was free from. Thankfully the confessions came along later to correct his (and the Holy Spirit's) error. (please note the mild sarcasm)

Chantry continues: “A right understanding of the proper use of the law is of little benefit to the Christian who does not know what that law is. The New Calvinism will not only fail to instruct the Christian in this, it will in most instances tell him to ignore most of the Scripture’s teaching on the law.” I don't think an NCT'er would tell anyone to “ignore” but they would tell them to understand the Scriptures in context. Not every law in the Scriptures applies to the New Covenant believer, even Chantry agrees with this. The question is over which ones from the Old Covenant do apply; and in what form. And what type of hermenutical principles should we use when doing our study. NCT doesn't teach licentiousness, as seems to be the fear of CT'ers. It teaches that we look to Christ and interpret everything through the New Testament teaching of He and His apostles.

It is the undue obsession with catechisms and confessions to justify every position that seems most disturbing on the part of the Old Calvinists (or whatever it is they want to be called). Why not stick to Scripture as the primary source? It would seem that if this practice is done, the NCT position starts to make a lot more sense. And the “Old Calvinism/ Covenant Theology” ship begins to take on water. And how shall this ship be righted? While the Old Calvinism is quoting Westminster, Heidelberg, and 1689 London, the NCT crowd is quoting Galatians, Hebrews, and Romans. Choose ye this day whom ye will serve! (I'll stand with the Apostle Paul.)

Chantry describes NCT as “a radical form of dispensationalism which takes the eraser to the entirety of Old Testament moral directives, insisting that the Christian look only to the New Testament as a guide to life.” Unfortunately this statement seems to indicate Chantry knows very little about the group he's criticizing. It sounds like the barb of someone who has only read one side of the debate (his side). If he has ever read NCT writings from one who holds to it, he would know it's a far cry from Dispensationalism and that it doesn't erase the Old Testament. It simply encourages reading the Old Testament in light of the New; and looking to Jesus rather than Moses as law giver; which is exactly what God the Father thundered from Heaven in the very presence of Moses (“this is my beloved Son, listen to Him”). Chantry's caricature of NCT proves he either hasn't really studied it; or he simply doesn't understand it. The statements he makes really leave no other conclusion to draw.

As for the Ten Commandments, which Covenant Theologians refer to as the Moral Law, a massive fly resides in their ointment. Nowhere in the Bible are the Ten Commandments referred to in this way. Nowhere in the New Testament do the authors split the Law into sections like moral, civil, or ceremonial. The only way for a CT'er to justify this division of Law is to appeal to a confession (which is of course what they do). At this point, we might be tempted to say, if the Bible doesn't support it maybe you shouldn't either.

NCT is not antinomian, nor does it oppose the Ten Commandments. Rather, NCT teaches that the Old Testament (including the Decalogue) should be read in the light of the New. And when this is done we see that “Thou shalt not murder” isn't sufficient when Jesus specifically elevates the command to hatred. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” isn't sufficient when Jesus says not to even look on a woman with lust. NCT is not antinomian. In truth it is Christ-nomian. We see Christ as Lord and Lawgiver and much, much more than simply the most accurate interpreter of Moses. While NCT is often accused of being loose on holiness, in actuality it elevates some matters of morality by looking to Jesus rather than Moses. In other ways, NCT disregards Old Covenant laws when the New Testament says to. The Sabbath is unambiguously declared to be fulfilled in Christ (Heb. 4:8-9) and Paul tells us “let no one be your judge” regarding the Sabbath (Col. 2:16-17). Was Paul antinomian? Was Jesus? If you wish to keep the Sabbath feel free. But don't try to force other Christians to based on incorrect exegesis. And if you DO keep it, remember it was Saturday, not Sunday. And if you CHANGE it to Sunday you're guilty of changing the “unchanging moral law of the 10 commandments” that you've declared are unchangeable. Very ironic.  Even more ironic when you consider the New Testament never declares Sunday to be a "Christian Sabbath" either.

In conclusion, I'm not horribly interested in debates between Old vs. New Calvinists. I'm not sure where the self-proclaimed pillars of all things Calvin would allow me to stand. I often tell people I'm a “theological Calvinist” I hold to the 5 points; and disagree with a lot of other things Calvin taught. I hold to New Covenant Theology NOT because I'm young and cool (in fact I'm neither). I hold to it because I think it's the most faithful interpretation of the Scriptures on these particular theological issues. Not Westminster. Not Heidleberg. Not London 1689. The Scriptures. These are my guide. Everything else is just a servant to the master of holy writ. And true, it doesn't hurt that D.A. Carson, Tom Schreiner, Jim Elliff, John Reisinger, Blake White, Fred Zaspel, and many others hold to certain aspects of NCT. These men may not be perfect; but they're certainly not heretics either.

While much work needs to be done by all believers as they seek to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord.” Firing unnecessary shots at those who dare quote Paul instead of a Puritan are not helpful. Let us all show one another grace and realize that here we see through a glass dimly. Then fall on our faces in heartfelt prayer, and in Berean fashion seek the Scriptures (not the confessions) daily to see if these things be so. When that happens, we'll all be facing the right direction where we can then, ever so slow and wobbly, help each other down the narrow road that leads to life.

Why American Christians Are Confused About Israel

By Shane Kastler

It doesn't really matter if America calls Jerusalem or Tel Aviv the capital of Israel.  At least for American Christians it shouldn't matter.  America isn't Israel. In fact, Israel isn't even Israel in the Biblical sense. Modern day American Christians frequently get themselves into trouble by taking Old Testament, Old Covenant promises made by God to the nation of Israel and applying them to the modern day United States. Incidentally, it is equally incorrect to take promises made in the Old Testament to Israel and apply them to modern day Israel. Such errors result in mistaken notions being made in areas of foreign policy, law, and war. A proper hermeneutical approach is necessary to understand the Bible; and much of this is rooted in understanding the “covenant”that God made with Israel (which is no longer in effect according to Jesus, see Matthew 26:28). And the “New Covenant” God made with followers of Christ (which is not primarily about an “earthly” kingdom according to Jesus, see John 18:36). In fact, when the New Testament teachings of Christ are understood they have a tendency to offend both those on the political left and the political right. Liberals are often offended by Jesus' notion that all religions are not included in his “New Covenant” but only those “in Christ.” While conservatives are often offended by the notion that the New Covenant was not made with the nation of Israel. As is the case with many things in life, the true teaching of Scripture doesn't reside with the political left, political right, or even the middle. It's in an entirely different realm, just as Jesus said his kingdom was. While some may be well intentioned, many American Christians misinterpret the Bible, then draw erroneous political conclusions as a result of their flawed interpretations. Let me explain.

The “Old Covenant” was a covenant that God made in the Old Testament with Abraham, promising that God would make him a mighty nation. Abraham's descendants did become a mighty nation. Consequently this covenant has been fulfilled in a physical sense. Furthermore, the true fulfillment, according to the New Testament, is spiritual in nature anyway. The Apostle Paul taught that the true sons of Abraham are those who have Abraham's faith, rather than Abraham's bloodlines (see Galatians 3:7). John the Baptist taught the same thing (see Luke 3:8). As did Jesus....repeatedly (see Matthew 12:25-28; Luke 16:19-31, John 8:36).

As a part of the Old Covenant, the “Law” was given to Moses to govern the conduct of the children of Israel. This “Law” was quite heavy-handed in many ways and is often quoted by modern day naysayers of religion as an example of how ridiculous the Bible is. The Law included such things as the stoning of adulterers and disobedient children, dietary rules banning the consumption of pork and shellfish, and even restrictions on what kinds of material could be used in the clothing an Israelite wore. Theological debates have flourished for centuries over why certain laws were handed down by God to Moses, but the New Testament sheds much light on the issue in the book of Galatians. According to the Apostle Paul, the Law was given to the children of Israel to serve as a “schoolmaster” or “tutor” to drive them to Christ (see Galatians 3:24). In other words the “heaviness” of the Law was intended to lead Israel to despair of their ability to keep it – so that they would cry out to God for mercy. Then “when the fullness of time came, God sent forth his son” (Galatians 4:4) who lived a life of sinless perfection, fulfilling the Law and granting spiritual salvation to all who trust in him. Under the New Covenant, all (regardless of nationality) are granted salvation, if they are believers in Jesus Christ. One of the primary teachings of Christianity is that Christ's life of sinless perfection is credited to the account of the believer; while the punishment for the believer's sin is poured out on Jesus as he was crucified; commonly called 'the atonement' (see 2 Corinthians 5:21). These basic Christian axioms are often misunderstood by modern Christians who fail to see what covenant they are living under. Then use Old Testament (and Old Covenant) teachings designated for Israel to justify some of their modern day political positions. Here are a few examples.

Often times, the example of Old Testament Israel's conquering of nations is used to justify American attempts to conquer nations in modern times. While there is no denying God commanded “Old Covenant” Israel to conquer certain peoples, this has absolutely nothing to do with 21^st century America. Any attempt to take a commandment specifically given to Israel under the Old Covenant and apply it to America is a blatant misinterpretation of the Scriptures. Not only would the Old Testament passages in question not apply to America; they wouldn't even apply to modern day Israel. Since the Old Covenant is no more, having been replaced with a “new and better covenant” that is spiritual in nature, according to New Testament teaching (see Hebrews 8:4). Which leads to another common misinterpretation of Biblical teaching.

While the Old Covenant was made with a specific ethnic nation (Israel) the New Covenant was also specific in that it was NOT made with a particular ethnic nation. To the contrary, the New Covenant initiated by Christ includes those “from every tongue, tribe, people, and nation” (Revelation 5:9). This doesn't mean that every individual on the planet is included in this covenant, but it does mean that there will be representatives from every nation (or people group) on the earth. The nation of Israel is not the focus of the New Covenant. And certainly America is not the focus of the New Covenant; though there will be some from both Israel and America included in it. While the condition for the Old Covenant was simply physical birth (i.e, if you were born a Jew you were a part of the covenant community), the condition for the New Covenant is “spiritual” birth; which is where we get that famous phrase from Jesus “you must be born again” (John 3:3). This leads to one final point.

Regarding matters of ethical conduct, members of the New Covenant do not live according to the letter of Old Testament Law; but rather they are guided by the Holy Spirit. Rather than looking to the heavy-handed law of Moses which was meant to drive the Jews to Christ; Christians look to the ethical instructions of Jesus and the New Testament Scriptures to guide their lives. Loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself, as the indwelling Holy Spirit empowers, is the governing factor for those in the New Covenant.

In conclusion, 21^st century America is not the same thing as “Old Covenant” Israel; therefore passages from the Old Testament delivered to Israel cannot be legitimately used by Americans to justify wars of conquest. The Old Covenant “Law” delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai is not the ethical standard for members of the New Covenant; since that Law was intended for the nation of Israel and had a temporary purpose, being fulfilled by the earthly life of Christ (Matthew 5:17). And consequently, no ethnic nation on earth can claim a divine right as the “people of God” since Christ established his “New Covenant” with those from every nation who exercise faith in Him. Jesus declared that his kingdom “is not of this world.” So while we strive to live at peace in this temporal world, Christians are also to recognize that their ultimate reality will be consummated in Christ in his eternal, heavenly kingdom. Things will eventually play out on earth according to God's plan; but the Christian's greatest joy is not in being “American” or “Israeli” or “Canadian” or any other nationality. The Christian's greatest joy is in being a “citizen of Heaven” (Philippians 3:20) and in living their life with that in view, rather than the establishment of an earthly kingdom that is destined to come to an end.

Obama Hypocritically Calls For “Soul Searching” on Gun Control

By Shane Kastler

It's truly a sad occasion anytime an innocent person's life is taken. Regardless of whether the murder weapon is a gun, or a knife, or a club, or anything else man can devise – it's the murder itself that is tragic. Even a modicum of common sense will tell you that laws restricting citizens from owning guns does nothing but lead to more murders. Because such laws do nothing but empower the bad guys; and attempt to disarm the good guys. A mass public murderer has yet to ever turn around and go back home when he see's a sign that says “Gun Free Zone.” Only a complete moron would ever think he would. The President, of course, doesn't see it this way.

Anytime a shooting occurs, Obama seizes the opportunity to call for national “soul searching” which is a cryptic way of saying it's time to hand over your guns to the government. On Tuesday he called this his “greatest frustration” as President, saying: “The country has to do some soul-searching about this.” Aside from Obama's weird logic, I notice that when we hear of murders with knives the President doesn't call for expanded “knife control” or “club control” or “ax control.” It's primarily your guns he wants. Which drastically limits your ability to defend yourself, dramatically gives criminals (including those in the government) the ability to control you, and makes you even more dependant on the government than you already are. Obama elaborated further: “The only thing that's going to change this is public opinion. If public opinion does not demand change in Congress, it will not change.” So Obama blames Congress indirectly and the American people directly. “Public opinion” as he calls it, means that those who dare defend their self-defense liberties are responsible for the murders that they did not commit. Then Obama's very next statement contradicted what he just said: “I've initiated over 20 executive actions to try to tighten up some of the rules and the laws, but the bottom line is ... we don't have enough tools right now to really make as big of a dent as we need to.” In other words, what Obama is saying in essence is this: “It's Congress's job to pass the laws, but since they haven't, I've issued executive orders.....but it's still Congress's fault.....yet ultimately it's the “public's” fault.....even though I don't care what any of them think anyway......proven by my repeated executive orders.” Obviously I'm paraphrasing, but you get the point.

I think it should be clear to those of any political persuasion, that the President licks his chops anytime there is a public tragedy that he can pounce on to excuse expanded governmental control. Of course he's not the first politician to do this – since they all use tragedy to their advantage. The disappointing part is that Obama and his ilk have the luxury and the lowness to exploit the raw emotions of the victim's families, as well as others, to score political points. The “Comforter-in-Chief” is a mass manipulator of the lowest order.

It seems to me that the one who needs to do some soul-searching is Obama himself. I personally don't need to do any soul-searching on this issue because I didn't murder anyone. But if I was a government executive who sought to deprive people of the ability to defend themselves my conscience wouldn't let me sleep at night. What right would I have to assume such power, or to presume my knowledge of defense weaponry surpasses any other man's? Obama is interested in control and your personal safety is unimportant to him. He will use every tragedy to his advantage; issue executive orders to take away your freedom; then call on YOU to do the soul-searching. Incredible.

I feel bad for those who have lost loved ones to murderous tragedies. Gun or no gun. I feel even worse for them that Obama uses them as political pawns during their moment of grief. He should be embarrassed at such swarthy behavior. He should call on all Americans to be more vigilant in their own defense. He should encourage all Americans to buy a gun and know how to use it. He should do some soul-searching of his own. But he won't. He'll tell you to. And he'll smugly assume that after such soul-searching, you'll agree with his omniscient benevolent wisdom and hand over the guns. The President is arrogant. His actions are selfish. His feigned concern over the Nation's soul is sheer hypocrisy.  He needs to do the soul searching. And then he needs to repent.

Church & State Radio Program - From June 5, 2014 on KELB

During our 2nd hour of Church & State we had a group of ladies discussing concerns with Common Core education standards.  School teachers: Marla Baldwin and Leslie Truax were in studio; and Kathryn Goppelt joined us by phone.  The audio for the program is below:

Church & State, June 5, 2014 - Hosted By Nathan Curtis and Shane Kastler

Church & State is heard M-F from 8-10 am on KELB, 100.5 FM in Lake Charles and on www.kelbradio.com

 

 

Love Your Enemies

One of the hardest things for a person to do is love their enemies. In fact it is so hard to do that we might say it takes supernatural ability to truly do it from the heart. Hatred comes quite naturally for us. When someone treats us poorly, or clearly despises us the natural inclination of the sinful heart is to respond in like manner. Yet Jesus calls his followers to love rather than hate their enemies, saying:“You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:43-45 NASB)

While the concept of loving your neighbor was certainly not strange to Jesus' hearers, the concept of loving your enemies was. Common rabbinical teaching of the day affirmed the idea of hating your enemies. After all, hadn't Israel been commanded on repeated occasions to utterly blot out their enemies through military conquest? The imprecatory Psalms likewise expressed a desire for the enemies of Israel to be destroyed. So hatred of enemies seemed quite natural and Biblical to the Jews of Jesus' day. But to take commands from the Old Covenant given to the physical nation of Israel and apply them under the New Covenant to the spiritual people of Christ is to misapply scripture and confuse God's dealings with different people at different times.

The nation of Israel under the Old Covenant was a typological picture of what would become the true people of God under the New Covenant. Under New Covenant teaching, ethnic distinctions mean nothing, for the true “sons of Abraham” are those who share Abraham's faith, not his bloodlines (see Galatians 3:7-9). Likewise, under the New Covenant, believers look primarily to Christ rather than the Mosaic Law for their ethical standard of conduct. The Old Covenant is not the same as the New. The Old Covenant existed by God's ordination for a temporal amount of time, until the coming of Christ who brought (according to the book of Hebrews) “a new and better covenant.” (Heb. 8:6) And one of the realities of that New Covenant is the indwelling Holy Spirit who actually gives us the ability to “love our enemies.”

Christians are called to do that which is impossible apart from God's intervention. Just as Christ said, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34) when he hung on the cross. So we, in Christlike manner are to show grace towards those who hate us. After all, by nature we are enemies of God, who have no desire to submit to him. Yet he was loving and gracious unto us. Let his people, therefore, commit to go and do likewise.

Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation? What Hebrews 6 Really Teaches About Security & Perseverance

By Shane Kastler

In the Christian world there is often confusion as to whether or not a genuine believer in Christ can lose their salvation. The Bible teaches that those who are truly “born again” are eternally secure in Christ and will ultimately persevere in their faith to the end of their life. This truth is theologically referred to in numerous different ways. Sometimes it's called “eternal security” which is an accurate phrase, as long as it's not separated from another phrase commonly called the “perseverance of the saints.” Both are equally true and go “hand-in-hand” doctrinally speaking. The believer is “secure” because their salvation is a work of God from beginning to end. They were chosen before the foundation of the world (election – Eph. 1:4), they were paid for by Christ upon the cross (atonement – Matt. 26:26), they were born again by the Spirit at a particular time in their life (regeneration – John 3:3), and they will continue on in their faithfulness (perseverance – John 10:27). The security is rooted in the work of God. In truth, what you believe about the nature of salvation (does it come about by God's sovereignty or man's freewill?) will determine what you believe about the possibility of losing salvation. If you believe that salvation is ultimately an act of man, whereby he “chooses” of his so-called free will to come to Christ; then it would make perfectly logical sense that at some point he might change his mind and thus lose his salvation. However, if you believe that man comes to Christ as a sovereign work of God, who grants life and keeps the believer secure then you will hold to the impossibility of salvation lost.

One such passage used by those who would claim the possibility of losing your salvation is found in Hebrews 6: “For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.” (Hebrews 6:4-8)

Right off the bat, the inconsistency of the freewill, Arminian position can be seen. If the passage truly is teaching that one can attain salvation by his freewill, then turn around and lose it. What happens after that? If salvation is of the freewill of man, then he would be able to change his mind a third time and re-attain it. Yet this is exactly what the passage says is “impossible.” Why would such a thing be impossible if salvation is according to man's freewill? So while the passage is frequently used to defend the doctrine of insecurity from a freewill perspective, the Arminian ultimately “shoots himself in the foot” by using the passage. The sovereignty of God is clearly thundered from the conclusion.

So what do we make of these people described in Hebrews 6? Are they believers who lost salvation, or are they false converts who never truly had it? An examination of the passage in context, along with other passages will prove the latter to be true. Those described are simply not true believers. They are described as having “once been enlightened.” The Greek word translated “enlightened” is “phōtisthentas” which simply means to be exposed to “light.” Clearly the word does not imply regeneration, or salvation in any sense; but rather some sort of association with the light of truth. An unregenerate person hearing a gospel message could be described as being “enlightened” (exposed to the light) in this way; even if they reject the message and refuse to believe. Man by his sinful nature always refuses the light of the gospel. This is seen, for example in the gospel of John where we read: “For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.” (John 3:20 NASB) They are “enlightened” in the sense of being exposed to light. But they are not “born again” by the Spirit who would give them a love for the light.

Next, the passage in Hebrews speaks of them having “tasted of the Heavenly gift” but once again the Greek word does not imply any sort of lasting change. One can “taste” in such a way that they ingest something, or they can “taste” in such a way that they sample and then reject. One clear example of this can be seen in Jesus' suffering when he was offered sour wine which he tasted and then spit out in rejection. (Matt. 27:33-34) Obviously what is described in Hebrews 6 is used in an analogous kind of way, and to “taste” of the heavenly gift is far from describing true conversion which involves a “tasting” that continues.

Perhaps the most controversial phrase in the passage is that these people in Hebrews 6 are described as having become “partakers of the Holy Spirit.” Here, the freewill Arminian says, is conclusive proof of those who possessed salvation, then subsequently lost it. Perhaps this might be the conclusion made at first glance, but several considerations must be made. First of all, how do we reconcile this passage with others that speak of eternal security? For example, Jesus was adamant in John 10 that the believer receives “eternal” life and that they are secure in his hand where they cannot possibly be lost. “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” John 10:27-29 NASB)

First of all, it should be noted that if you receive something “eternal” then it would be impossible to turn around and lose it at a future time. If you can lose it then it is not eternal and to re-define eternal in any other way is to strip the word of it's meaning. If “eternal” really means “temporary” then why does Jesus use the word “eternal”?

Secondly, the believer is described as residing the hand of God where none can “snatch them away.” This secure position is further solidified when we consider Jesus' teaching that the salvation they possess was a work of God to begin with. Throughout John's gospel Jesus has declared that “all the Father gives Me will come to Me and the one who comes I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37); and “none can come to me unless the Father draws them” (John 6:44) and “none can come unless it be granted by the Father” (John 6:65) and “the wind blows wherever it wishes and so are those who are born of the Spirit” (John 3:8) and “remember you did not choose Me but I chose you” (John 15:16) and “I do not pray for the world but the ones you have given Me out of the world” (John 17:3). Indeed it would be virtually impossible to begin reading John's gospel in sincerity and not come out on the other side with a firm foundation of God's sovereignty over salvation. Far from teaching a “freewill” decision-ism; Jesus declares with crystal clarity that the Triune God reigns supreme over salvation; and that those who possess it have been given a gift from above that cannot be lost. So how do we reconcile these things with Hebrews 6? Or to be more specific, what is meant by becoming “partakers of the Holy Spirit” in Hebrews 6?

The Greek word translated “partakers” can mean anything from a deep and abiding commitment to a loose knowledge of someone or something. Theologian Wayne Grudem writes: “The Greek word “metochos” allows for a range of influence from fairly weak to fairly strong, for it only means “one who participates with or shares with or accompanies in some activity.” This was apparently what had happened to these people spoken of in Heb. 6, who had been associated with the church and as such associated with the work of the Holy Spirit, and no doubt had been influenced by him in some ways in their lives.” (Systematic Theology, pg. 798)

Clearly the word translated “partaker” is not always used in a way that describes intimate or saving knowledge and should not be taken that way in this passage. The context simply will not allow it. One need only to keep reading in the same passage to see the author of Hebrews elaborate on what he means with an agricultural metaphor: “For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.” (Hebrews 6:7-8 NASB) The author of Hebrews tells us that some absorb the water of the gospel and bring forth vegetation (a.k.a. “fruit”), while others absorb the gospel and bring forththorns and thistles (a.k.a. “no fruit”). Is this not exactly what Jesus teaches in other places regarding the difference between the believer and the unbeliever? In the famous parable of the sower, it is the one who “bears fruit with perseverance” that is described as the one true believer in the group (see Luke 8:4-15), while others show outward temporal signs of conversion only to fall away at a later time. This is precisely the same things being taught in Hebrews 6. There certainly is no discrepancy with the teaching of Christ in his gospels, nor is there a description of a believer who is saved then loses theirsalvation. The unmistakable conclusion drawn from Hebrews 6, when examined in context and in the origianl Greek, in accordance with other passages, is that we see here a description of a false convert who has been exposed to the light of the gospel, has tasted and ultimately rejected the “heavenly gift” and has had some sort of loose association with the Holy Spirit and His work within the church. Though never being “born again” and never being indwelt by the Spirit. The word “partaker” simply cannot be pushed to mean “possessor” without making a mockery of the passage and the Bible as a whole which would differentiate between those who claim salvation and those who genuinely have it.

The reader can believe as they like regarding salvation and eternal security; but the clear teaching of scripture is that salvation is a work of God, not man; and as such cannot be lost once attained. “It is God who justifies, who then is there to condemn?” (Rom. 8:33-34) Hebrews 6 does not teach that a believer, once truly born again, can lose their salvation. What it does teach is that there are some (Jesus would even say “many” - Matt. 7), who exhibit outward manifestations of a commitment to Christ yet do not truly know Him. Such a person might experience “light” and “taste” and even “partake” in some sort of temporal, non-saving way. But they simply are not born again, the proof of this being found in the very fact that they ultimately “fall away.” What a sad tragedy it is that such things happen! And yet Scripture warns us of this reality.

So do not misinterpret Hebrews 6 to mean the true believer can and may fall away and lose salvation. But heed the Scripture's warning and “examine yourself to see if you are in the faith.” (2 Cor. 13:5). Make your “calling and election sure” (2 Peter 1:10) and if the Spirit bears witness with your spirit that you truly are a child of God (Rom. 8:16), then rest in that reality. All the while being watchful and mindful that the Spirit produces a life of holiness in a true believer. And that the Lord promises to never “leave you nor forsake you.” (Hebrews 13:5) If salvation is your work, then you have every reason to worry. But if salvation is the Lord's work then rest and rejoice in this grace that did not have to save you, but yet freely chose, of His own sovereign will, to do so.

Complacent Slaves: Why Most Americans Fear Freedom

By Shane Kastler

Often times change is scary and the status quo is comfortable. Even if the status quo is dictatorial, heavy-handed, and oppressive. Enslavement has some advantages I guess. You know where your next meal is coming from. You know where you're going to live. And you aren't bothered with the pesky task of making choices about your life. So enslavement has that going for it. As does prison. But there is a better way awaiting for those with the courage to consider it.

Freedom can be a frightening notion to those who only know bondage. A cursory look at Biblical history tells us that the children of Israel verbally attacked Moses when God sent him to deliver them from Egyptian bondage. Initially they complained that Moses was uppity for trying to “tell them what to do.” (see Exodus 2:14) Then they complained about their march to freedom, accusing Moses of trying to kill them (see Exodus 14:11). According to the Bible, they even murmured about the food God supernaturally provided to them from Heaven (see Numbers 21:5). Inexplicably they even publicly spoke about a longing to return to Egypt where their lives were predictable and mundane, not to mention physically oppressive. Why would a person long for slavery? Because they cannot perceive what freedom means and are thus afraid of the very concept. The same reality is prevalent in modern America.

Time and time again, Ron Paul in his campaigns for the presidency, expressed a desire to give the people their freedom back. On the surface you might assume this message would resonate with citizens. For some it clearly did and the “liberty movement” has seen some growth from those who have grown weary of the political establishment’s constant posturing, blathering, and propaganda. But for many, promises of freedom ring hollow because they cannot begin to understand what that would mean. Americans have become so accustomed to being told what they can and cannot do that when liberation is offered, rejection is the response. Much like the children of Israel, Americans would rather die under oppression than live under freedom. The governmental bondage is familiar to them, and so in a bizarre political “Stockholm syndrome” type of mentality; they swear allegiance to their federal masters and proudly support the party that will oppress the “other side” while ironically, also keep them in line. Freedom can be too scary to lifelong slaves. But there is a way in which this idolatry of government and quasi-slavery can come to an end.

Minds only begin to change when they are repeatedly confronted with the truth. The English philosopher C.S. Lewis used to say that a child who only knew how to play with mud pies in the slum could not imagine what it would be like to spend a day at the beach. Likewise many Americans cannot imagine what it would be like to have freedom from government tyranny and the ability to do as they pleased. So they must be told. And when they are told, repeatedly, over time it might begin to make a difference. Most Americans have never stopped to think about whether or not the excessive taxes they pay are beneficial. They simply argue over where these tax dollars should go. Nor have they considered why the United States military is stationed all over the world. They simply argue over which conflicts to engage in as we seek to spread a freedom, that ironically we don't possess ourselves. Nor have they considered why government should be in control of education. Nor, for that matter, why they should need government permission to get married, drive a car, or even go fishing. When you live in the Land of Oz your entire life, as your parents and grandparents before you did, you begin to think that your irrational existence is normal; never questioning the lunacy going on behind the curtain. And when someone suggests that freedom might be a better way, there is a natural reaction to lash out in fear. You long for your masters to keep you safe, not realizing it is they who are your greatest enemies.

After decades of wondering in the wilderness, the children of Israel eventually made it to the promised land. But only after a generation died off and a new mindset arrived. While the “America/ Israel” comparison is frequently exaggerated; perhaps there are some similarities. Some Americans long for freedom, while others prefer governmental bondage. We have our own modern day “Egypt” but it's headquarters are not on the banks of the Nile, but rather the banks of the Potomac. And like Israel, it might take a generation or two for the idea of true liberty to take hold. But thankfully this work began several generations ago. Though at times the light of liberty has flickered with a mere handful of libertarian advocates speaking and writing on behalf of freedom; that number has steadily grown. Wrong thinking has been confronted with right ideas and over the long haul, by God's grace, it might have it's effect. And though our captors might wish to silence and intimidate; and even our own fellow citizens may shriek in fear and condemnation, they might still yet see the light. At the very least they might begin to question the need for tyranny, and even find a new found courage to get involved in word and deed.

The unknown idea of freedom needs to become a common yearning again. May God grant us the grace to live long enough to see this land that talks so much of freedom, actually begin to experience it on a pervasive and national scale.