Knowing which ones fall into which category is also dealt with. And the answer is that it really depends on the person, the abnormal behavior (whether it's depression, anxiety, hyper-activity, obsessive compulsiveness, mania, etc.). And the goal of course is to get to the root issue that is causing the abnormal behavior. Is it sin? Is it a chemical imbalance? Is it both?

How the person is treated depends on the answers to those questions.

Now that it's attainable, we have "millions" of women protesting that possibility. And while Christians should always be doing our best to live at peace with all (Rom. 12:18), there is still a responsibility to speak out against those "who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Isa. 5:20). Consequently, there is a certain joy that comes with the knowledge that our nation might actually stop the murdering of 3,000 innocent lives a day - an atrocity that far outweighs the Holocaust to the point that it's now beyond measure.

While good-intentioned as these arguments may be, I reject them for at least the following reasons: (1) The political atmosphere is only a byproduct of the cultural war, which we evangelicals as a whole have given up on long ago. If we're to worry about tainting our witness to the world, it must start first and foremost with the cultural war, (2) We have a solid history in Scripture where our fellow-saints were able to live in good conscience, given the circumstances around them, with supporting immoral people in office (or a position of political power) and even helping them attain such a position. The situation we face today is similar. And we would do well to follow their example. (3) Seeking the world's approval should be the furthest thing from us - even when it comes to politics.
​

What probably didn't come across in my last post as much as I should have stressed, is that either of these options (Trump or Hilary) is a judgment from God (Prv. 16:4; cf. 1 Sam. 8:7-8, 9-18).

I did say it in the last post, but I probably didn't stress it enough.

And I'm certainly not going to tell you to vote for Hilary. What I am going to do is write down the principles I believe we have in Scripture when our nation is faced with such a choice as is before us today, and what I plan to do in light of them.

But before I do that, let's go in reverse order as to why I'm not going to tell you to [fill in the blank]:
​

Obviously, like in any area of life, we need to take into consideration what the whole Bible says about a situation, and not just limit ourselves to pet proof texts. Yes, our true citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20), yet our marching orders from the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom all authority in heaven and on earth has been given, are to disciple all nations of the world (Mt. 28:18-20). Discipling includes applying His Lordship to every area of life - even the politics of this world (Rom. 11:36, 13:1-7; 2 Cor. 10:5).

However, I need to be clear up front that, from a constitutional stand point I don't believe having it on our money in any way violates the First Amendment (if history means anything). If we were to take into consideration the context under which the First Amendment was written, it was not at all separating church from state in the sense of separating religion and state. It was simply declaring that congress (at the federal-level) did not have the right to establish a national Christian denomination. Even after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, many states had their own state religions (read "denominations") at the state-level of government.

To say that Congress (at the time) was saying religion had no place in government at all is really to just dismiss history and context all together. We won't get into that here, but if you're interested I'd recommend the following for starters:

However, in a recent post, he has made a terrible mistake in regards to advocating an unbiblical view of Christian ethics in the social sphere. This has been responded to greatly by several people (most notably for me was Dr. Joel McDurmon's response: A biblical response to John Piper’s denial of the Right to bear Arms.)

And while I've written on this issue before, since the Washington Post has now also picked up Piper's discouragement for armed Christians, I feel the need to reach people in my own sphere of influence (however small that may be) in pointing out some of Piper's inconsistencies that must not go unnoticed.

​As Christians, we need to presume he is innocent until proven guilty.

​As the number of individuals accusing Bill Cosby of rape and/or other sexual offenses has reached 55, there's a large part of the public (including Christians) who are determined that that's plenty of evidence to determine his guilt.

Furthermore, God's Word - the standard to which all governing measures (whether self-governing, family-governing, church-governing, or state-governing) should be subject - never gives the State the right or authority to dictate what one can and cannot ingest in their bodies (provided it's not breaking some other lawful matter, like the taking away of an innocent life - for instance, the State does have a right to prohibit any type of ingestion that would induce an abortion, and execute those who would use such ingestions - Ex. 21:12, 22-25).

Therefore, yes, I think marijuana should be legal for individuals to grow and use.

In addition to that, clearly something does need to be done to help prevent such tragedies from being so frequent. I think we would be hard pressed to disagree with the idea that ultimately what will reduce or eliminate these tragedies is the mass conversion of individuals to becoming Christians through the power of the Holy Spirit, which He will use by the preaching of the gospel to the unsaved, and then training Christians in full-orbed discipleship in our churches.

In the meantime, I wish to express the following thoughts on what it means to be a Christian in the face of these types of situations.

With the threat of undercover terrorists it seems a little difficult to sort out. I get that.

But on the other hand - while I realize there are still practical issues to wade through carefully - if we turn to God's Word where it actually speaks to socio-political ethics - it does seem to clear up pretty well what our obligations are. So what are our obligations?

The phrase "presuppositional apologetics" might be lost on many in the church, but its method and use has continued to increase in popularity even today. Dr. Bahnsen didn't develop the method but learned it from Dr. Cornelius Van Til. He did, however, give teeth to it, as demonstrated remarkably in his formal debate ("The Great Debate: Does God Exist?") with Gordon Stein and other debates.

All I wish to do is to call attention to the false dichotomy being imposed in the chant: "Do your job or resign." For one thing, Kim Davis, by neglecting to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples, is doing her job. The State of Kentucky Constitution reads thus:

I'm not going to take the time here to lay out a case as to why that is an abhorrent ruling in the eyes of God (Lev. 18:22, 20:13) and why gloating over it as Obama did will only incur further wrath on himself and his nation (Ps. 2:10-12).

What I also will not be doing is claiming myself to be sitting on a mountaintop, waiting for God's judgment on America because of this ruling and, in my mind, even far more gruesome sins (like the 3 million babies we kill each year in terrifying ways). No, I'm not sitting on a mountaintop, waiting for God's judgment on a sinful nation.

What I'm saying is that the church has already been doing that very thing for far too long; and we need to repent from that method of Christian living.