Jay Adams at the Institute for Nouthetic Studies takes a look at American Idol. Here’s a snippet:

What a wealth of no talent! What ridiculous and superficial evaluations! What supercilious self-promoting judges! What a waste of time!

If this is what Christians are spending their good American dollars and wonderful evening hours on, they’re nuts!

Sorry! That’s how it is in my book.

Dr. Ronald Meeks of Blue Mountain College. See the great things you can get from a Christian college? Dr. Meeks was one of my undergrad professors and continues to influence my teaching and preaching. Currently, I am using material from his Old Testament class in my series of sermons Covenant: The Old Testament Story.

Taking advantage of the special offer from Desiring God, I’ve just ordered 216 copies of John Piper’s devotional book 50 Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die. We will be giving out these books at our church but I thought I’d offer a few copies on here as well.

The description of the book reads:

John Piper has gathered from the New Testament fifty reasons behind the crucifixion of the Christ. Not fifty causes, but fifty purposes—in answer to the most important question facing us in the twenty-first century: Why did Jesus suffer and die?

I am giving away 5 copies of the book. If you would like a copy, the requirement is simple: add a comment to this entry and in your comment give a sentence or two telling why the death of Jesus is so precious and necessary. I will draw names from these comments. Be sure and fill in your email address when you add your comment, the address won’t be posted but it will ensure I can get in touch with you if you win.

Now, I don’t even think I have five readers of this blog, so the chances of getting a copy are pretty good. If you know someone else who might like a copy of the book, spread the word to them.

Update:
Okay, okay, this is my first giveaway – cut me some slack. I forgot to mention when the giveaway will end. I’ll draw names on Good Friday, April 10th.

Also, if you’re a member at Immanuel you don’t have to enter, you’ll get a free copy anyway.

The New Oxford American Dictionary defines embryo as an unborn human baby, esp. in the first eight weeks from conception, after implantation but before all the organs are developed.

Embryonic stem cell research is scientific research on human beings. Humans put into the test tubes, lab rats destroyed when the experiment is over.

Embryonic stem cell research has always been legal. Under President Bush restrictions were put into place that limited federal funding for ESCR but did not ban such research. Obama lifted that restriction, opening up federal money to any ESC researchers.

The New York Times had a recent article that both celebrated the broad funding support offered under Obama’s policy and voiced opposition to those who want Obama to put in place at least some restrictions on what embryos can be used for research. What blew me away is how The New York Times described the creation of embryonic stem cell lines for research:

Hundreds of stem cell lines have been created around the world, all or virtually all from surplus embryos.

Surplus embryos? Keep in mind the definition of an embryo, an unborn human. What the New York Times is saying is we have surplus humans. Since they serve no other purpose, why not use them for research and experimentation?

In a recent blog post Al Mohler talks about another outrageous use of “surplus humans”. He discusses the argument that aborted babies should have their organs harvested. They aren’t using those organs, are they? We might as well let some good come from those wretched mistakes, those inconveniences, those surplus humans.

The killing of millions of unborn humans through abortion opened the gates for all sorts of atrocity. Embryonic stem cell research pushes us farther along. I pray we never see aborted babies used as organ farms, but the same reasoning that justifies abortion and drives embryonic stem cell research will someday usher in the harvesting of organs from unborn babies. At that point abortion will not just be about letting people decide whether or not they want their child to live or die, abortion will be seen as a way to meet the needs of society. Those who choose to have abortions will be heralded as heroes for providing organs to the sick and dying. And mankind will take another giant leap into the abyss.

Preacher, when you exhort your people to do evangelism, be careful to instruct them in the use of Scripture. The Bible is our primary witnessing tool. Tracts, evangelistic presentations, and the testimony of personal experience *might* have their place, but they will never replace or supersede the Bible. Please, please don’t leave your people thinking that relating their own experience of salvation is a more effective, more important method of evangelism than sharing the Bible.

And while on the subject of evangelism, never promise people that if they follow a particular method it will result in a definite conversion. Salvation is in God’s hands, not ours, and he has made no guarantees.

John at While We Sojourn is offering a free copy of The Unwavering Resolve of Jonathan Edwards by Steve Lawson. Jump over there and leave a comment to qualify for the drawing.

“Reversing an eight-year-old limit on potentially life-saving science, President Barack Obama plans to lift restrictions Monday on taxpayer-funded research using embryonic stem cells.” (from the AP)

It is potentially life-saving and absolutely life-destroying. Considering the loss of life involved in ESCR and all of the alternatives now available to researchers I am really baffled as to why anyone would even consider ESCR. I know not everyone believes an embryo should be cherished as human life, but as big as the debate is and with the alternatives out there why even open up the debate? Don’t just block government funding, ban that method of research completely and move people to the alternatives.

Continuing to go through Read the Institutes in a Year, today’s reading was interesting as it relates to both the argument over imputed righteousness and the question of what Christ did at the cross.

Emergents seem to increasingly favor the idea that what Jesus did in his life and at the cross was little more than set an example for us to follow. He was living righteously simply to show us how to live righteously. His death did little more than show us just how much he meant what he had said. It all sets an example for us, it doesn’t actually cause anything to happen in us.

Here is what Calvin says in 2.1.6:

We must surely hold that Adam was not only the progenitor but, as it were, the root of human nature; and that therefore in his corruption mankind deserved to be vitiated. This the apostle makes clear from a comparison of Adam with Christ. “As through one man sin came into the world and through sin death, which spread among all men when all sinned” [Rom. 5:12], thus through Christ’s grace righteousness and life are restored to us [Rom. 5:17]. What nonsense will the Pelagians chatter here? That Adam’s sin was propagated by imitation? Then does Christ’s righteousness benefit us only as an example set before us to imitate? Who can bear such sacrilege!

To answer your question, Calvin, many people in the church today can bear it.

No, not the swimming sort of fish. It is rare that one could turn to the New York Times for good spiritual counsel, but a recent opinion piece by Stanley Fish is really quite good.

Here’s a snippet from the conclusion of the article:

This economy, in which funds depleted are endlessly replenished, is underwritten by a power so great and beneficent that it turns failures into treasures. Some economists identify that power as the market and ask us to have faith in it. God might be a better candidate.