How Does Faith Justify?
He also wrote that justification is “the most delightful” doctrine. But he added, that there were “few…who have thought it through well and who teach it aright”. About 150 years later it still needed correct teaching and thinking. John Brown of Wamphray wrote The Life of Justification Opened in order to clarify the doctrine against those who were introducing error. This problem remains today. One of the areas that Brown discusses is how faith justifies:
Faith is looking to Christ, as the stung Israelite in the wilderness looked to the brazen serpent (John 3:14,-15). Faith is saying ‘In the Lord have I righteousness’ (Isaiah 45:24).
You Might also like
-
The Transgender Movement’s House of Cards Is Falling
Instead of fostering serious, objective scientific inquiry and heeding concerns from within their own ranks, the establishment continues to rely on WPATH’s guidelines for dealing with gender dysphoria. And contrary to sound inquiry, WPATH cherry-picked studies instead of conducting a systematic review of the best available evidence. As one member of the Endocrine Society recently wrote about its guidelines, “the society’s full-throated endorsement of gender-affirming care implied condemnation of anyone who holds differing views.” This cows doctors into silence and coerces them into providing dangerous interventions to children.
This week, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is holding its annual leadership conference at its headquarters in Itasca, Illinois. One issue that won’t be on the formal agenda but will be on the minds of many members is how to treat gender dysphoria in children. AAP, along with most of America’s medical establishment, endorses the approach of the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH). This transgender advocacy group recommends that doctors irreversibly alter a child’s physical appearance to appear as a different gender through hormones and surgeries. But two transgender-identifying doctors in WPATH caution that teenage patients are receiving “sloppy care.” And there is dissent in AAP’s own ranks as to the legitimacy of this practice.
As many countries around the world turn to safer, non-invasive “watchful waiting” and psychotherapy to treat gender-confused kids instead of defaulting to hormones and surgeries, America is rapidly becoming an outlier. Now former patients (known as “detransitioners”), with the support of whistleblowers, are filing medical malpractice lawsuits and testifying in support of legislative limits on administering these experimental procedures to children. The architects of pediatric gender transition have built their arguments on flimsy evidence and the reputations of prestigious groups instead of objective, sound science. Their house of cards is starting to collapse.
Politicized Standards of Care
Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder that creates incongruence between one’s internal sense of gender and the reality of the sexed body. But unlike with anorexia, AAP’s recommended treatment does not focus on resolving the mind-body incongruence through counseling. Instead, doctors at “gender clinics” try to make a person’s body resemble their self-perception, disordered though it may be. Recently, 21 doctors from nine countries raised concerns that the American medical establishment has adopted “politicized” standards of care.
This isn’t the first time this has happened. Back in the twentieth century, another radical ideology captured the scientific and medical establishment. Eugenicists persuaded doctors to sterilize 70,000 Americans, who were disproportionately women and minorities. Medical schools taught eugenics. Wealthy tycoons funded the practice. And three presidents (Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson) lent their political support. The support for eugenics also existed on a systemic level: The American Neurological Association endorsed forced sterilization of people with schizophrenia, manic depression, epilepsy, and Down syndrome, and the American Medical Association relied on the research of a wealthy eugenics advocate for its contraceptive testing. Eventually, the premise of eugenics, genetic inheritance, was debunked and discredited by scientific evidence. But for three decades, doctors participated in one of the greatest ethical scandals of the last century.
Legal Endorsement of Eugenics and Growing Skepticism
Sadly, courts also enabled doctors to use their licenses, credentials, and skills to carry out experiments in eugenics on their patients. In the 1927 case Buck v. Bell, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Virginia law that allowed an 18-year-old woman, Carrie Buck, to be sterilized against her will. After Buck reported that she became pregnant through rape, her foster parents committed her to an institution for the “feebleminded.” Doctors sought to sterilize Buck on the grounds that it would eliminate an unfavorable trait from the population. In an infamously cruel endorsement of eugenics, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., declared, “Three generations of imbeciles is enough.”
The legal battle against eugenics reached a turning point when the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a prisoner’s human right to have children. In the 1942 case Skinner v. Oklahoma, the court rejected efforts to forcibly sterilize an inmate on the grounds that it violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause. Advocates for the disabled finally brought an end to eugenics in America by persuading state legislatures to pass “white cane laws” to protect the disabled from discrimination. The wave that began in state legislatures culminated in Congress’s passing the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. These laws made involuntary sterilization effectively unlawful and culturally unthinkable.
But, in a tragic echo of this dark moment from America’s past, some U.S. courts are now greenlighting a course of irreversible treatment for confused, vulnerable youth that would potentially render them sterile, often with a raft of lifelong medical complications and mental health challenges.
Fortunately, a contingent of courageous doctors is working to stop history from repeating itself. These doctors have repeatedly tried to introduce resolutions in the AAP calling for systematic evidence reviews, the gold standard in medicine.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Tyranny and the Seeds of Persecution
A tyrant then is not necessarily a sinner (we are all sinners) or even an unbeliever. A tyrant is one who defies not only God’s Law in the 10 commandments, but also the created order. In this, he destroys civil and social life and so is responsible for unrest in society as people are pitted against each other, left without freedom of movement or assembly, and have their livelihoods threatened. We were made to work, to worship, to live in relationships.
One of the challenges to understanding the times that we live in is related to our definitions. What exactly is tyranny? What exactly is persecution? How does God call us to live during times such as these?
There is a saying that is attributed to the Scottish Reformer John Knox: “Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.” For those who know more of the history surrounding this reformer, images might be brought to mind of the fiery reformer preaching to Mary Queen of Scots, persecutor of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. This man offered stout resistance to tyrants.
Most fundamentally, a tyrant stands opposed to the law of God as it is laid out in the 10 commandments and in the summary of the 10 commandments in the Law of Love. But while tyranny may end in a black and white opposition to the Word of God, it often begins in the grey. And so we must understand that tyranny is connected to something more fundamental to who we are as human beings before it stands in direct opposition to the law of God. Most fundamentally, tyranny is the fruit of unbelief that has blossomed in places of power.
In its initial expression, any form of tyranny stands opposed to God’s created order. In this, it also stands opposed to the law of God which is intended as a rule to order things again. There are kings and emperors in history who were not Christian and sinners who ruled well, relatively speaking. But how do we distinguish between those and other kings who have not ruled well, whether Christian or not? Johannes Althusius is a Calvinist lawyer in the 1600s who writes this: “So not every misdeed of a magistrate deprives him of his sceptre, but only that in which he, having accepted and then neglected the just rule of administration, acts contrary to the fundamentals and essence of human association, and destroys civil and social life….”
There are a couple important aspects to this quote from Althusius.
The first is the principle of equity. You can find this principle commanded throughout the book of Deuteronomy. The Bible often speaks of the call to rule with equity and points to Jesus who is the only King in history who has ruled with equity in the fullest sense of the word (Psalm 45/72). It is the just rule of administration that maintains this equity in the land and there is no partiality that is shown to one person or the other based on something outside of what is defined by God as evil or good.
The second principle that Althusius speaks of here is something that is fundamental to being human. There is an acting contrary to creational realities (ie natural law). The civil authority acts contrary to the fundamentals and essence of human association and in so doing destroys civil and social life.
Read More -
What Does Joshua 24:15 Mean?
Joshua’s call to Israel was urgent: “choose this day whom you will serve” (Josh. 24:15). For us today, this remains an urgent and timely summons to choose the Lord. What’s the difference between them and us? Do we have any hope of choosing the Lord? Because of Jesus, yes, we do. Joshua brought the people into the land of God’s presence, but he could not bring them out of rebellion. Jesus is our new Joshua, a better Savior who brings a better salvation.
And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
Moving On or Moving In?
Joshua 24:15 is what we might call a kitchen calendar verse. It’s short, pithy, inspiring, and it’s God’s Word. On the one hand, we might lift this verse from the context of the book and attempt to live on it devoid of its broader story. Alternatively, as we grow in the knowledge of the Scriptures, we might “move on” from such famous phrases into the deeper things of God.
Perhaps there is a better way than either living on or, alternatively, moving on from verses like this. How about moving into them? Verses like these are a doorway into the message of the book, an entry at a high point of the story with all its tension and drama. So, let’s walk through the door of this verse to witness God’s grace to us in the story of Joshua, for it is, after all, the story of our salvation.
This verse comes to us in the course of Joshua’s final speech before he dies, a speech given to the whole congregation of Israel. A high point indeed! What did this passage mean for the original hearers? What did it mean for the original readers? What does it mean for us?
A Call to Serve
On the surface, Joshua issues a call to his hearers to serve the Lord in the land by means of his own example and resolve.
Service is, after all, the goal of the exodus, expressed many times over in Moses’s confrontation with Pharaoh. We’re familiar with the first part of his charge, “Let my people go,” but must remember what he said next: “. . . that they may serve me” (Ex. 4:23; 7:16; 8:1). What is more, Joshua’s generation lives not only on the other side of the Red Sea but in the land promised to Abraham.
Thus, the people standing before Joshua have every reason to serve the Lord. Not only have they seen his wonders, but Joshua has recounted and interpreted these wonders for them.
Read More
Related Posts: