Corridors of My Mind

Did FBI Scientists Identify a Single, Unique Flask?

We are slowly getting more information about the FBI's lack of a case against Bruce Ivins. When we first learned of his suicide, we were told that he was the anthrax killer. Period. Then we got a statement that there was some technology developed by the FBI for the purpose of this case. Is this why nearly 7 years passed before an arrest was made?

The full briefing was still skimpy on the details, and not very convincing. But what we were told is that the anthrax was traced to a single flask that was in Bruce Ivins’ possession at Ft. Detrick. Then, Science Magazine reported on a "close reading" of the four relevant paragraphs in the 25-page written brief. We now had a better idea of what exactly this new technology was, although the FBI refused press access to its staff scientists.

Read more.

It saddens me to think there may be more to the tragic story than meets the uncritical eye.

[Excerpt from] Chapter 43: The Ninth Commandment

Protecting Others’ Reputations

As we have seen, one of the major emphases of the ninth commandment and the confessional expositions of it is that we should not distort the truth in order to hurt a neighbor. Scripture emphasizes this concern in many contexts. Like American law, for example, it insists that when someone is accused of wrongdoing, the burden of proof is on the accuser: “innocent until proven guilty.” In the Old Testament, this burden is expressed by the requirement of “two or three witnesses.” This principle bears obviously on capital crimes (Deut. 17:6), but also on all other charges of wrongdoing:

A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. (Deut. 19:15; cf. Heb. 10:28)

Jesus incorporates this teaching into his plan for discipline within the church:

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed1 in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. (Matt. 18:15-20)

It is, of course, possible and legitimate for a Christian sometimes to ignore the sins of others, for “love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Pet. 4:8). If we made an issue of every sin that someone else commits, we would be tied up every hour in confrontation and ecclesiastical litigation. But when we see a definite need to correct the other person, either for his own good or for the good of the church, Jesus gives us the pattern for doing it. That pattern is not to talk about the sinner behind his back (gossip), but to confront him directly.12 If that confrontation doesn’t bring restoration, then the accuser is to bring “two or three witnesses” (cf. 2 Cor. 13:1, 1 Tim. 5:19). If that second confrontation fails, the accuser should pursue formal church discipline, trusting the promise of Christ’s presence (verse 20) even through this distasteful process.

But note especially here the protection of the accused: by open confrontation rather than gossip, by a burden of proof on the accuser, by many in the church participating in the process, by the presence of Christ, who judges all things rightly.

A further protection is this: Paul urges those who would confront others at the same time to confront themselves:

Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. (Gal. 6:1)

One who would correct others should, as Jesus says, take the plank from his own eye before removing a speck from someone else’s (Matt. 7:3-5). One who would correct someone else should not sit on a high horse; he should set aside his pride, understanding that sin afflicts us all. Indeed, Satan uses the very process of correction to tempt the accuser to pride.

According to Gal. 6:1, harshness is another barrier to godly correction. When we are dealing with someone else’s sin, we need to ask regularly if we are approaching him gently. Gentleness is an important character trait in Scripture, and it is often compromised in the anger of confrontation.

The reputation of a person is a delicate thing, not easily restored after it is compromised. When someone accuses another of wrongs through gossip, inadequate testimony, and/or harsh confrontation, he does great harm. Note the concern that God himself has for his own great name (Ex. 32:11-14, Josh. 7:9, etc.)

I believe that this is one area where Christians today have often grieved the Lord. Many churches today have no formal church discipline, so there are no protections for those who are accused, and often the local gossip determines the outcome of a dispute. People start whispering, a negative consensus develops, and the target of the criticism leaves the church.

Further, Christians have often attacked one another with a total neglect of biblical standards of evidence. One might think that theologians, at least, would be careful to judge disputes fairly, gently, and cautiously; but in my judgment they are often the worst offenders.13 In theological controversy, writers often delight in distorting the words of one another, reading them in the worst possible (or worse than possible) sense. Many writers invoke the rhetoric of anathema and condemnation, without any adequate argument, and without any meaningful attempt to seek peace.

Such controversialists often invoke the example of Luther and Calvin in this regard. I think these Reformers were themselves too quick with insulting epithets and anathemas. But for the most part they justified these epithets with careful biblical argumentation. I do not see a similar care in many of the self-appointed modern guardians of orthodoxy. It is true, also, that the prophets, Jesus, and Paul often used strong language against their opponents. They used that strong language against oppressors of the poor, against Pharisees who burdened the people with unbiblical moral standards, and against Judaizers, who wanted to force Gentiles to become Jews before receiving the grace of God in Christ. But they were very gentle with others they disagreed with: Jesus with the woman of Samaria (John 4), Paul with Christian vegetarians and day-observers (Rom. 14). Present-day defenders of the faith often fail to make such distinctions.

Many theological controversialists today set themselves up as internet gurus, declaring brothers and sisters to be excommunicate on their say-so alone, showing contempt for the authority of the church, which alone God has authorized to make such judgments, and violating God’s standards requiring protection of the accused. Many of these have no conscience about spreading lies to anybody who will hear. It never occurs to them that they have a responsibility to protect the reputations of fellow Christians, even those they disagree with.

In part, the problem is due to the failure of church discipline in most contemporary congregations. Denominationalism has played a role in this failure (cf. Chapter 24). An accused person, or a false accuser, can easily leave one church and join another if they are threatened by discipline. Or they can express their opinions on the internet, with little or no church oversight.

It is time for Christians to recognize that this behavior is sin. It is gossip, often slander, and Christians should not support it. The church needs to wake up to the problem. Theology, especially on the internet, needs to become accountable to the body of Christ. We need to demonstrate to the world that we adhere to God’s standards of evidence, and that we deal with sin in a way that in principled, but also gentle and winsome. 14

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Emphasis mine.]

I am dealing with Christians on the internet who do not seem to like to buy and sell in the truth. By this I mean they are quick to offer invectives of the great reformed men of history, calling them essentially Manicheans, Gnostics, pagans, etc. They doubt the salvation of men such as Augustine, Calvin, et al.

They do not even seem to have their factual information straight at times. If they were simply wrong in their assessments of things, I think it would be easy to show them where they err. But they are not only wrong, they are also proud and mockers of Calvinists (Lord forgive me if ever I mock others, especially publically), they do not study the arguments of Calvinism but promulgate the anti-Calvinistic arguments they have studied, they oft misrepresent Calvinism or in the least argue a straw-man which is not Calvinism.

In short, they want to believe what they want to believe. And how, pray tell, do you as a rhetor approach such who think in this manner?

Habeas Corpus is pretty important to freemen. Re-educate yourself here and here.

It is not a good thing to suspend petitions of Habeas Corpus. What is true about presidents who suspend this "Great Writ?" What is true is that liberty is not their primary concern.

Old Abe was one of those president's who suspended that Great Writ. Here is a book that seeks to re-educate people on why suspension of said law is/was a bad thing and to explain the sort of person who would do such a thing.

Bahnsen comments on when children should take communion:

"How about children? Well not children who don't understand these things because at Passover, remember, the child who took the meal had to say 'father what do these things mean?' The child had to be a discerning, understanding child. But now how young can the child be? The answer to that question is 'I don't know.' You bring me a two-year-old who can give me a two-year-old profession of faith and we'll have that two-year-old take the Lord's Supper. Some will say well that's not possible. I don't know, I don't know enough about human psychology to tell you whether it is or not, but if it happens I'm not going to say God's word says eleven years old before you can join the church. There's nothing like that. And if we're going to be true to our principles as Reformed people we should not impose prerequisites that the Bible doesn't impose. There's no age requirement for the Lord's Supper."

Found at Covenant Media Foundation; on the bottom of their homepage.

Maybe.

I just purchased covenanthearts.com. (Next task: read a lot.)

I plan on moving this blog to that site if I can; probably to something like covenanthearts.com/blog. It'll be powered by WordPress.org I think. It may be built with Weebly, or Google Sites but everything has to be compatible...So, we'll see.

Soon I hope to start selling some of my favorite books and my favorite publishers' books. Publishers will include Institute for Christian Economics, Dominion Press, and Christian Liberty Press (CLP). CLP offers a distributorship program making this possible. We will also sell a few books put out by No Greater Joy Ministries on child training and marriage. This will also be made possible by a similar program. American Vision also sells materials wholesale.

In the long run I hope to be able to start a Christian Daycare in the Charleston area with the namesake of the newly acquired domain.

Update (9/7/08): I don't think the book-selling is going to happen. Honestly, it will be a lot of time spent for little reward. Frankly I need to redeem the time and this is not the way to do it right now. I still hope to do this thing though. And I will still keep the site because I do want to name a Christian Daycare ministry/local Christian educational ministry by the same name.

Here are homeschooling curricula to consider:

Robinson Curriculum

Cost: $195, or $275 w/G.A. Henty collection on CD. Saxon math textbooks ordered separately (avg $61 eaX9).

Focus: Christian Worldview. Math and Science to develop reason.

The ultimate "teach-yourself" and "all-in-one" system (except for the Saxon math textbooks which must be ordered separately). Five Stars (*****).

Principle Approach - FACE

Cost: $217.50/$229.70(?) for Noah Plan Curriculum Guide Package. $199.95 for Principle Approach Foundational Set. Note that additional books would more than likely need to be purchased. See the Product Guide for more info.

Focus: Christian Character and Christian Political Involvement.

The method the founding fathers used. That is how it is advertised. They sell a book that teaches the Christian History of the Constitution, but this is at odds with the idea that the "ratification of the United States Constitution in 1787–88 was not an act of covenant renewal. It was an act of covenant-breaking: the substitution of a new covenant in the name of a new god." (source: Dr Gary North, part 3 of Political Polytheism). You be the judge. Three Stars (***).

Christian Liberty Academy School System

Cost: Tuition varies from $200-$545 depending on type of enrollment and grade. Electives cost extra and would probably be desired by most. Additional resources are offered through Christian Liberty Press.

Focus: Christian Worldview and Academics.

For those who want to homeschool and have the prestige of a private school (with CLASS administration enrollment) the CLASS system is for you. Two Stars (**).

Veritas Press

Cost:~$1000 a year (my estimate)

Focus: Classical Christian Education

This is the traditional Greek/Roman styled system of learning. One Star (*).

Old Fashioned Education

Cost: Mostly free; some materials must be purchased.

Focus: Christian Worldview. Free online books/textbooks and primary source documents.

Similar sites: Simply Charlotte Mason and Ambleside Online

Provides many free resources/links for a homeschool curriculum for "students" of all ages (beneficial and cheap for adults to brush up on some learnin'). Will most likely have to be supplemented with purchased materials. Three Stars (***).

Then of course there is the "'Shelly-esque' (as in Mary Shelley) hybrid of multiple curriculums (sic)." I plan on using the Robinson Curriculum supplemented with books I already own and resources from some of these other educational organizations. Five Stars (*****).

If sin is only an act of the free will and precipitated by choice alone, then what of common curse? Why do I suffer the curse of having to work all the days of my life by the sweat of my brow (and my wife experience the pain of childbirth)? If it only affects Adam in a very real sense, what then is the significance of Adam's sin? Why is it then when we come to Christ that He has promised us an abridgment (to some extant) of the common curse?

Common curse besides being taught by Scripture is seen empirically in that most people do not like to work hard. Most people do not want responsibility. Pareto's Law says that 20% of the people own 80% of the wealth. The 20-80 rule has been applied to many fields concerning man. It sometimes may be 10-90 or 30-70 but it does not deviate very far from 20-80. It can be seen in any organization that 20% of the people accomplish 80% of the work. Sorrow has driven man to despise God-glorifying work.

God has promised that there will always be a remnant (common grace). This is the 20%. He also says that some follow the law even though they do not know it. It can be said with some certainty that humanity would have resorted to utter chaos had it not been for the enterprising of the 20% in commerce and leadership. "Entropy" takes its toll. The Holy Spirit's work in restraining evil and the maintenance of the remnant is the only reason we are where we are today.

Classical theism shows a continuity between the Fall of mankind with Adam and the redemption of mankind by the second Adam. Then over time the effects of the fall from paradise are reversed. We began in paradise then were banished. But just like Paradise Lost ends we too "shalt possess A Paradise within."

We are told to do everything for the glory of God. But if the whatsoever applies to everything then it applies to the previously sorrowful labors. Women too may be saved in childbirth (ask my wife, the first birth was a bit rough but the second...well, read Christ Centered Childbirth). It is purported that nations will bow the knee to Christ and the wolf shall dwell with the lamb as the effects of sin in this world are removed as the Gospel goes forth as a two-edged sword smiting the nations.

If every sin is only an act of the will then every sin is itself a fall of man and Adam's fall would not have the implications that classical theists say it has and that Romans says the second Adam came to change.

"For if Adam's fall did not, or did only in part, deprive the will of the freedom and power to do good, and original sin did not consist either in a culpable loss of an original supernatural gift, then in that same measure grace became dispensible and Christianity was robbed of its absolute character." (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Vol3 Sin and Salvation in Christ, page 44)

By absolute character, Bavinck is referring to the fact that our salvation is monergistic or 100% dependent on the grace of God and that He saves us; our will in no way aiding the salvation of our souls.

Just as a person needs the nourishment of food so a Christian needs the nourishment of the word. It is not voluntary it is a requirement. Without the word there will be no knowledge of God, correct doctrine and of how to properly live before Him. The Scriptures attest to the fact that Christians must live according to Scripture. We must believe and obey. We must seek after wisdom and accept reproof. Then after we have grown in the faith we may seek after understanding mysteries as well. This is a gift given by God. But it cannot be employed without knowledge of His word. All Christians need to know the word for their livelihood, but more so do teachers and ministers need to be intimate with the word. For they cannot lead by example, reprove or correct others without knowledge of the truth. They would not know what are incorrect beliefs and practices. Today we have an emphasis on experiential religion: being and becoming instead of believing and obeying. These are untruths fed by wolves to the sheep of God. This further proves the point in that these wolves themselves do not truly understand the word. So the need is for all Christians and especially ministers to study the living word of God.

No. God said be fruitful and multiply.

What about non-procreative sex? In Augustine's day it was believed to be so.

I don't think so, but I have nothing concrete to prove so one way or another.

For more information on Augustine's views see:

Marriage and Virginity: Saint Augustine
Marriage And Concupiscence

This volume also contains Marriage and Concupiscence amongst other things:

St. Augustine Anti-Pelagian Writings: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Part 5

Jesse Morrel posted:

Augustine taught that concupiscence was sin. I read that in a Lutheran Theology book, which I don't own and I don't have handy. But from what I recall, Augustine argued that there was no sexual passion in the Garden. They would have reproduced and multiply without sexual desire. He said that it was only after they ate from the tree that their eyes were opened and they saw that they were naked, thus making the way for concupiscence. Now human nature has been changed, since we have this passion that would not have been in the Garden. That is why Julian mockingly said that Augustine thought that in the Garden, Adam and Eve would have reproduced by shaking children out of the trees.

Also, Augustine also taught that when Adam sinned, human nature was changed so that free will was lost. And this loss of free will (change of human nature) was not only the punishment of sin, but that it was sin itself.

'Human nature sinned differently when it still had the freedom to abstain from sin, from what is does not since that freedom is lost, when it needs the aid of a liberator. That was only sin; this is also the punishment of sin.' Augustine, V. 28.

"There is a necessary sin, from which man has not the freedom to refrain, which is not only sin, but is the punishment of sin." VI. 59.

In doing a bit more research on this and other topics what I have come across is surprising at first, then again not so strange as it first may seem.

Augustine like many others was a product of his time. That is to say he was influenced by his environment. He lived in a day and age when it was commonly held that non-procreative sex was sinful (Source: Bowen Simmons' review of Marriage and Virginity by Augustine). Not many people challenge what they are taught and fewer still challenge everything they are taught.

According to John Frame, Augustine was a Manichean, then a Platonist, and then a Neo-Platonist. Neo-Platonism had the greatest influence on his theology (Source: Apologetics lecture; free to download from ITunes).

Rather than being called church fathers they should be called church babies because the church was still in its infancy (My paraphrase of Frame quoting someone else.). For instance the doctrine of the trinity was not fully fleshed out until the 5th century AD. Until the Church declared what it believed as orthodox at the Council of Chalcedon there were very gnostic type views (i.e. Nestoriansim) prevalent and competing for adherence.

It seems that Augustine was anti-Manichean to the core. Have you ever met a person who switched sides on an issue? These people are relentless in rooting out everything they can that was affected by their former beliefs and spend the rest of their lives fighting against what lies they held to as "truth." (Source: Empirical observation)

You claimed that Augustine got his doctrine of sin -> Manicheans -> Gnostics. I asked where you got this information from and you referenced a Lutheran Theology book. This really doesn't do justice to my inquiry. I understand that you may have been convinced a long time ago that what you are saying now is true, but that is also the pitfall. If all you can do is make a vague reference to your past study then you probably need to re-research that point before publishing it.

Another book you have used: "A Historical Presentation of Augustinianism & Pelagianism from Original Sources" by Dr. Wiggers which by any account would appear to be impartial and therefore is a good primary source to cite. I checked up on this source and ran across a good article by A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism & Augustinianism.

There are, in fact, as we might have anticipated, but two complete self-consistent systems of Christian theology possible.

1st. On the right hand, Augustinianism completed in Calvinism. 2nd. On the left hand, Pelagianism completed in Socinianism. And 3rd. Arminianism comes between these as the system of compromises and is developed Semipelagianism.

Jesse has said: "A deeply devoted Calvinist recently told me, 'There are only two theologies that make sense to me, Calvinism and Open Theism.'" So I guess you already knew that.

This article has got to be read by anyone who wants to know more about the Augustinian-Pelagian controversy. I think some ideas in here ought to be heeded by everyone involved in the debate today:

The positions maintained by Pelagius were generally condemned by the representatives of the whole Church, and have ever since been held by all denominations, except professed Socinians, to be fatal heresy. They were condemned by the two councils held at Carthage A. D. 407 and A. D. 416, by the Council held at Milevum in Numidia A. D. 416; by the popes Innocent and Zosimus, and by the Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus A. D. 431. This speedy and universal repudiation of Pelagianism proves that while the views of the early Fathers upon this class of questions were very imperfect, nevertheless the system taught by Augustine must have been in all essentials the same with the faith of the Church as a whole from the beginning.

...the rationalistic spirit inherent in their system...

This kind of rationalism (IMHO) is what I've seen in this forum with the highly philosophical arguments for certain points of doctrine. I'm thinking about the Open Theism and The future as both Certain and Contingent threads. In fact a question was made that illustrates my fear and warning to all those who tread the paths of Semi-Pelagianism and Pelgianism.

originalsin has said: "Myquestion (sic) to the Open Theist is do they apply the same scrutiney (sic) to the Trinity as they do to free will and foreknowledge with consistancy (sic)? No matter how you cook it. The three in one God is a logical contradiction."

Socinianism was developed by these writers with consummate ability, and crystallized into its most perfect form, as a logical system. It is purely Unitarian in its theology-- Humanitarian in its Christology, Pelagian in its Anthropology-- and its Soteriology was developed in perfect logical and ethical consistency with those elements. A statement of its characteristic positions will be found below.

I see that to be consistent with the thoughts expressed by our gracious host will lead one to fatal heresies and will draw one away from established orthodoxy.

Below is Hodge's outline of Pelagianism as worked out in Socinianism, Semi-Pelagianism as worked out in Arminianism, and Augustinianism as worked out in Calvinism.

13. Give an outline of the main positions of the Socinian System.

THEOLOGY AND CHRISTOLOGY.

1st. Divine Unity.
This unity inconsistent with any personal distinctions in the Godhead.

Christ is a mere man.

The Holy Ghost is an impersonal divine influence.

2d. Divine Attributes.
There is no principle of vindicatory justice in God. Nothing to prevent his acceptance of sinners on the simple ground of repentance.

Future contingent events are essentially unknowable. The foreknowledge of God does not extend to such events.

ANTHROPOLOGY.
Man was created without positive moral character. The " image of God, " in which man was said to be created did not include holiness.

Adam in eating the forbidden fruit committed actual sin, and thereby incurred the divine displeasure, but he retained nevertheless the same moral nature and tendencies with which he was created, and he transmitted these intact to his posterity.

The guilt of Adam's sin is not imputed.

Man is now as able by nature to discharge all his obligations as he ever was. The circumstances under which man's character is now formed are more unfavorable than in Adam's case, and therefore man is weak. But God is infinitely merciful; and obligation is graded by ability. Man was created naturally mortal and would have died had he sinned or not.
SOTERIOLOGY.

The great object of Christ's mission was to teach and to give assurance with respect to those truths concerning which the conclusions of mere human reason are problematical. This he does both by doctrine and example.
Christ did not execute the office of priest upon earth; but only in heaven, and there in a very indefinite sense.

The main office of Christ was prophetical. He taught a new law. Gave an example of a holy life. Taught the personality of God. And illustrated the doctrine of a future life by his own resurrection.

His death was necessary only as a condition unavoidably prerequisite to his resurrection. It was also designed to make a moral impression upon sinners, disposing them to repentance on account of sin, and assuring them of the clemency of God. No propitiation of divine justice was necessary, nor would it be possible by means of vicarious suffering.
ESCHATOLOGY.
In the intermediate period between death and the resurrection the soul remains unconscious.

"For it is evident from the authorities cited, that they (the older Socinians), equally with others' constantly maintain that there will be a resurrection both of the just and of the unjust, and that the latter shall be consigned to everlasting punishment, but the former admitted to everlasting life." - B. Wissowatius.
"The doctrine of the proper eternity of hell torments is rejected by most Unitarians of the present day (1818) as in their opinion wholly irreconcilable with the divine goodness, and unwarranted by the Scriptures. In reference to the future fate of the wicked, some hold that after the resurrection they will be annihilated or consigned to 'everlasting destruction' in the literal sense of the words:but most have received the doctrine of universal restoration, which maintains that all men, however depraved their characters may have been in this life, will, by a corrective discipline, suited in the measure of its severity to the nature of each particular case, be brought ultimately to goodness and consequently to happiness." (--Rees's "Racovian Catechism," pp. 367, 368.)

ECCLESIOLOGY.
The church is simply a voluntary society. Its object mutual improvement. Its common bond similarity of sentiments and pursuits. Its rule is human reason.

The Sacraments are simply commemorative and teaching ordinances.

14. Give an outline of the main features of the Arminian System.

DIVINE ATTRIBUTES.
They admit that vindicatory justice is a divine attribute, but hold that it is relaxable, rather optional than essential, rather belonging to administrative policy than to necessary principle.

They admit that God foreknows all events without exception. They invented the distinction expressed by the term Scientia Media to explain God's certain foreknowledge of future events, the futurition of which remain undetermined by his will or any other antecedent cause.

They deny that God's foreordination extends to the volitions of tree agents and hold that the eternal election of men to salvation is not absolute, but conditioned upon foreseen faith and obedience.

ANTHROPOLOGY.
Moral character can not be created but is determined only by previous self-decision.

Both liberty and responsibility necessarily involve possession of power to the contrary.

They usually deny the imputation of the guilt of Adam's first sin.

The strict Arminians deny total depravity, and admit only the moral enfeeblement of nature. Arminius and Wesley were more orthodox but less self-consistent.

They deny that man has ability to originate holy action or to carry it on in his own unassisted strength--but affirm that every man has power to co-operate with, or to resist "common grace" That which alone distinguishes the saint from the sinner is his own use or abuse of grace.

They regard gracious influence as rather moral and suasory than as a direct and effectual exertion of the new creative energy of God.

They maintain the liability of the saint at every stage of his earthly career to fall from grace.

SOTERIOLOGY.
They admit that Christ made a vicarious offering of himself in place of sinful men, and yet deny that he suffered either the literal penalty of the law, or a full equivalent for it, and maintain that his sufferings were graciously accepted as a substitute for the penalty.

They hold that not only with respect to its sufficiency and adaptation, but also in the intention of the Father in giving the Son, and of the Son in dying, Christ died in the same sense for all men alike.

That the acceptance of Christ's satisfaction in the place of the infliction of the penalty on sinners in person involves a relaxation of the divine law.

That Christ's satisfaction enables God in consistency with his character, and the interests of his general government, to offer salvation on easier terms. The gospel hence is a new law, demanding faith and evangelical obedience instead of the original demand of perfect obedience.

Hence Christ's work does not actually save any, but makes the salvation of all men possible---removes legal obstacles out of the way,does not secure faith but makes salvation available on the condition of faith.

sufficient influences of the Holy Spirit, and sufficient opportunities and means of grace are granted to all men.

It is possible for and obligatory upon all men in this life to attain to evangelical perfection-which is explained as a being perfectly sincere-a being animated by perfect love --and doing all that is required of us under the gospel dispensation.

With respect to the heathen some have held that in some way or other the gospel is virtually, if not in form, preached to all men. Others have held that in the future world there are three conditions corresponding to the three great classes of men as they stand related to the gospel in this world - the Status Credentium ; the Status Incredulorum ; the Status ignorantium.
15. Give a brief outline of the main features of the Calvinistic System.

THEOLOGY.
God is an absolute sovereign, infinitely wise, righteous, benevolent, and powerful, determining from eternity the certain futurition of all events of every class according to the counsel of his own will.

Vindicatory Justice is an essential and immutable perfection of the divine nature demanding the full punishment of all sin, the exercise of which cannot be relaxed or denied by the divine will.

CHRISTOLOGY.

The Mediator is one single, eternal, divine person, at once very God, and very man. In the unity of the Theanthropic person the two natures remain pure and unmixed, and retain each its separate and incommunicable attributes distinct. The personality is that of the eternal and unchangeable Logos. The human nature is impersonal. All mediatorial actions involve the concurrent exercise of the energies of both natures according to their several properties in the unity of the single person.

ANTHROPOLOGY.
God created man by an immediate fiat of omnipotence and in a condition of physical, intellectual, and moral faultlessness, with a positively formed moral character.

The guilt of Adam's public sin is by a judicial act of God immediately charged to the account of each of his descendants from the moment he begins to exist antecedently to any act of his own.

Hence men come into existence in a condition of condemnation deprived of those influences of the Holy Spirit upon which their moral and spiritual life depends.

Hence they come into moral agency deprived of that original righteousness which belonged to human nature as created in Adam, and with an antecedent prevailing tendency in their nature to sin which tendency in them is of the nature of sin, and worthy of punishment.

Man's nature since the fall retains its constitutional faculties of reason, conscience, and free-will, and hence man continues a responsible moral agent, but he is nevertheless spiritually dead, and totally averse to spiritual good, and absolutely unable to change his own heart, or adequately to discharge any of those duties which spring out of his relation to God.

SOTERIOLOGY.
The salvation of man is absolutely of grace. God was free in consistency with the infinite perfections of his nature to save none, few, many, or all, according to his sovereign good pleasure.

Christ acted as Mediator in pursuance of an eternal covenant formed between the Father and the Son, according to which he was put in the law-place of his own elect people as their personal substitute, and as such by his obedience and suffering he discharged all the obligations growing out of their federal relations to law-by his sufferings vicariously enduring their penal debt by his obedience vicariously discharging those covenant demands, upon which their eternal well-being was suspended--thus fulfilling the requirements of the law, satisfying the justice of God, and securing the eternal salvation of those for whom he died.

Hence, by his death he purchased the saving influences of the Holy Spirit for all for whom he died. And the infallibly applies the redemption purchased by Christ to all for whom he intended it, in the precise time and under the precise conditions predetermined in the eternal Covenant of Grace-and he does this by the immediate and intrinsically efficacious exercise of his power, operating directly within them, and in the exercises of their renewed nature bringing them to act faith and repentance and all gracious obedience.

Justification is a Judicial act of God, whereby imputing to us the perfect righteousness of Christ, including his active and passive obedience, he proceeds to regard and treat us accordingly, pronouncing all the penal claims of law. to be satisfied, and us to be graciously entitled to all the immunities and rewards conditioned in the original Adamic covenant upon perfect obedience.

Although absolute moral perfection is unattainable in this life, and assurance is not of the essence of faith, it is nevertheless possible and obligatory upon each believer to seek after and attain to a full assurance of his own personal salvation, and leaving the things that are behind to strive after perfection in all things.

Although if left to himself every believer would fall in an instant, and although most believers do experience temporary seasons of backsliding, yet God by the exercise of his grace in their hearts, in pursuance of the provisions of the eternal Covenant of Grace and of the purpose of Christ in dying, infallibly prevents even the weakest believer from final apostasy.

Read the Article here.

Selection of James Jordan from Judges: God's War Against Humanism
Context: Judges 5:20-21
Text: (Page 102)

"The concept of the stars fighting in heaven, and of the stars controlling the weather (bringing rain), was common in Baalism. Here Deborah asserts that the stars are part of God’s heavenly host, and that their (angelic) control of the weather is for the good of Israel. Baalism is impotent. The notion that those who trust in the Baals have the stars and the weather on their side is a lie.

Stars in Scripture are associated with angels (Job 38:7, Is. 14:13; Rev. 12:4). Storms, at least special ones, are also associated with angels (Ezk. 1; 10; Ps. 18:9-12; 104:2-4; Ex. 19:16 with Heb. 2:2). Because of the influence of neo-Baalism (secular humanism) in our modern culture, we tend to think that God, when He made the world, installed certain “natural laws” or processes that work automatically and impersonally. This is a Deistic, not a Christian, view of the world. What we call natural or physical law is actually a rough approximate generalization about the ordinary activity of God in governing His creation. Matter, space, and time are created by God, and are ruled directly and actively by Him. His rule is called “law.” God almost always causes things to be done the same way, according to covenant regularities (the Christian equivalent of natural laws), which covenant regularities were established in Genesis 8:22. Science and technology are possible because God does not change the rules, so man can confidently explore the world and learn to work it. Such confidence, though, is always a form of faith, faith either in Nature (Bard) and natural law, or faith in God and in the trustworthiness of His commitment to maintain covenant regularities."

This is a concise statement of what I think to be the correct view of God's work in creation. Sometime, before today, I have attempted to stop using terms such as nature and luck but rather replace them with the more meaningful terms creation and providence.

I first heard this phrase used by an open theist that I am acquainted with (Jesse Morrell). I did not understand what he meant by it.

This is interesting to note since this phrase, I believe, was coined by Cornelius Van Til, a premier Calvinist philosopher and theologian and Professor of Apologetics at Princeton Theological Seminary then Westminster Theological Seminary.

As I was listening to an Apologetics course taught by John Frame (you can download it for free) I heard him use this phrase/similar phrase(?). I looked it up online and found that Frame cites Van Til.

On another site I found that Frame attributed this phrase as a paraphrase of Herman Bavinck ("...the source is Bavinck..."), another Calvinist theologian/philosopher. I believe that I have discovered the volume in which Bavinck expounds this; his Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 3 Sin and Salvation in Christ.

Update: Bavinck is difficult to read but well worth the money spent and I've barely put a dent in the book.

I thought this was an interesting article: Santee Cooper offers zero-interest loans for solar panels. Hmm, I wonder how much it would cost to get solar panels and how much I would get paid for selling energy back. My guess is that it would be too expensive for me. But if this is any indication, then I'll wait a while (Bright and sunny S.C. offers few incentives for selling solar power).

The article was not listed in the Charleston Regional Business Journal. I couldn't find it but I did find a whole host of other stories on Santee Cooper.

A few in particular caught my eye. Groan. Environmentalism...And other interests are trying to prevent Santee Cooper from building additional coal-fired power plants (Santee Cooper’s coal plans fire debate).

Are people stupid? Do they know what drives up energy prices? Use. Demand. Whatever you want to call it. We need more and there is not enough. Economists call this phenomenon scarcity.

I understand that no one wants a plant in their backyard. But it has to go somewhere. And it would be better in areas with less population, sorry folks. But I'm glad to see some efforts to push nuclear power: Utilities sign contract for nuclear construction. Sigh...When will people learn?

Apparently there has been an issue that I was sorely unaware of...Check out http://mrsbinoculars.com/to get up to speed (see Little Geneva the non-existent antithesis).

Apparently R.C. Sproul Jr. has been defrocked and there is plenty of muckraking taking place.

http://hushmoney.org/RC_Sproul_Jr-defrocking-docs.htm
http://rc-sproul-jr.blogspot.com/
http://rc-sproul-jr.netfirms.com/cnt_rc_sproul_jr_meditation.html

Apparently Vision Forum/Doug Phillips is being called to question.

http://ministrywatchman.com/

Apparently the CREC is too.

http://hushmoney.org/crec_commission_report.htm

The "Sproul" side of the story found here gets a lot of heat.

I had no clue that any of this was going on. I think that the charges made by people in the blogosphere are harsh and they are made because they aren't staring someone in the face as they make the accusations. Personally I have a hard time being dogmatic about third hand information and will relegate myself to the sidelines until things get clearer.

~~What I do not like is the tone of the anti-Sproul/Phillips/Wilson crowd. I have in the past myself been very critical of others and am now very critical of this pastime.~~

What I would like to see from the anti-Sproul/Phillips/Wilson crowd is fair and balanced reporting. There is no need in mixing opinion with fact when there is a need to disseminate information.

Here is where the muddy water becomes clearer. And check out their newer blog. They have several links to Vision Forum responses, the MrsBinoculars.com site, etc. So now I've come full circle.

Also see Kevin Swanson on the controversy.

Since this controversial matter continues (even now) to be controversial I have for the third time wandered through the wilderness to search for more answers. One of my reasons for remaining skeptical of Sproul's defrocking was that initially I actually thought it was a hoax. After several more hours though I began to realize that it had spread too far across the internet and would otherwise have to be an extremely elaborate hoax.

Thus according to my parsimonious reasoning (i.e. Occam's Razor) I concluded that it must have actually occurred and that without my knowledge. I was mystified. And in any case the burden of proof is always on the accusers (innocent until proven guilty). Thus I remained unconvinced.

Some might point to the well documented case against Mr. Sproul, but I could not simply accept even that at face value (I question almost everything, or do I?). I have some experience with logic and debate and have learned to question the legitimacy of a source. It is something that needs to be established before the discussion may continue.

Up till now I had not yet delved into answering the lingering questions of mine (Why not? Not enough time for one; I finished this post late at night and couldn't take any more of wading through the muckraking). Why does only hushmoney.org have all the documentation? Who are they? Why do they care? Well I answered those questions today and have tentatively concluded that the documentation they provide may be taken at face value.

Sources: Read Peter Kershaw's (runs hushmoney.org) statement on poohsthink.com (I have linked to google's cache of this page, so get it while it's hot.). And most importantly note that the RPCGA's website links to hushmoney.org (aka. Heal Our Land Ministries). This latter source establishes the credibility of hushmoney.org as a primary source and more than likely unbiased.

This answers one question but still leaves more: What is Doug Wilson/CREC's connection and why (i.e. what does it mean?)? Why do the critics of Sproul/Wilson appear to stand shoulder to shoulder with the critics of Doug Phillips?

If it was a simple scenario: "Sproul did bad stuff and is being punished" then I could say "Well I'm glad that's over with." But it gets more complicated than that. Apparently the CREC got involved and it didn't get access to the entire case file so was uninformed about the entirety matter. Does this mean that the CREC committed wrong doing and should be shunned? Should Sproul be shunned? Is he still trying to pass himself off as a Pastor? What does defrocking truly mean in all of its illustriousness?

Are the answers too difficult to discover? NO. But do I have the time to answer all of them? NO. So is it fair to accuse me of disservice to others? Keep in mind that I did not cast a judgment one way or the other. I had and still have too little information to make sense of the entire affair; I will not be happy, nor was I ever, in making sweeping judgments based on insufficient data.

If anyone is willing to answer my questions please do. But I do not take information simply asserted. Provide the links from unbiased sources (where possible). With more and more [true] information the muddy waters become clearer. Thanks for reading.

Vision Forum links to Mrs. Binoculars, an endorsement (I presume). Mrs. Binoculars says that there is no connection between Phillips and Sproul (debacles, etc.).

Last Edited: Thu, Aug 28, 2008.

The Puritan Board.

Calvinism in History, By Loraine Boettner (excerpt on puritanboard.com is from ch3)

Witherspoon of Paisley and Princeton, By John A. Mackay (an excerpt? published in Theology Today Vol 18, No. 1 - January 1962)

Church History: America once an Episcopalian nation, Article found on Free Republic orig. from The Daily Citizen)

The Church History article conflicts with the argument provided in the previous link (Witherspoon). Both use numbers or statistics to make their point.

Point: "The Presbyterian Church, moreover, was the principal Christian denomination in the America of that time, both during the Revolutionary War and in the years that immediately followed."

Counterpoint: "Statistically no group of Christians held a greater influence over the founding and initial direction of the United States of America than the Episcopal Church."

Found one of the articles after taking the bunny trail of Little Geneva's broken link. But here is the other missing article. Of course it only exists in the archives and I have saved the image so...

More info on the origins but not defense...I'm working on it. Wiki-pedia may have the answer...

Here is a good resource: Political Sermons of the American Founding Era. (2 vols.). In it can be found the political theories of colonial ministers.

Summary: While attempting some semblance of research, what I have found is a discussion of the socio-political origins of the "Presbyterian Parson's War." Or perhaps a psychology that provided a willingness to go to war due to the Calvinists' recent history: Cromwell, War of the Austrian Succession, religious persecutions, antithesis with the Church of England, etc. Thus the climate was one of libertarian ideals/classic liberalism.

Wikipedia mentions the Hebrew Scriptures as a possible source for a Biblical defense. The colonialists saw themselves as Israel rebelling under Pharaoh, etc. Or maybe that they were the divinely appointed tool being used by God.

I also found that there was the fear of losing their religious freedoms due to a soon to be had Bishop of the Church of England being installed in the colonies. Obviously this would have been someone under the influence of the king and as such would result in a diminishing of religious and political freedoms.

"After the Seven Years’ (French and Indian) War ended in 1763, Whitefield arrived in America for his sixth tour. On April 2, 1764, he held a private conversation in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, with Samuel Langdon and other established ministers that alarmed Americans already worried about their liberty. Whitefield was quoted as saying: 'I can’t in conscience leave the town without acquainting you with a secret. My heart bleeds for America. O poor New England! There is a deep laid plot against your civil and religious liberties, and they will be lost. Your golden days are at an end. You have nothing but trouble before you. . . . Your liberties will be lost.' Whitefield outlined the secret plans (as he said) of the British Ministry to end colonial self-government and to establish the Anglican Church (William Gordon, The History of the Rise, Progress and Establishment of the United States . . . [2d ed., 3 vols. New York: Samuel Campbell, 1794], 1:102). This episode galvanized the clergy in their opposition to British policy, especially when the intelligence proved true and the 1765 Stamp Act was adopted." (Ellis Sandoz on George Whitefield's BRITAIN’S MERCIES, AND BRITAIN’S DUTIES)

Still inconclusive as to the "Why?". Too exhausted to continue. This will have to suffice for now.

Update (9/7/08): I think I am slowly beginning to understand...The Church of England was an imposition on the Puritans/Presbyterians in Britain and prevented them from worshiping God with clear consciences, thus their revolt and Oliver Cromwell and such. This sentiment carried over into the New World as they were seeking religious freedom on these shores. But with the threat of British consolidation of power (taxation is a form of control) they feared that they would lose their religious liberty. I suppose then that the War for American Independence was seen as a defensive war.

Would you not practice civil disobedience if your religious liberty was constrained? Civil disobedience comes in various degrees. And to the early American Presbyterians taking up arms to defend their right to live and worship how they pleased was important enough to them.

Just watching out for your benefit...Well besides the overtones of surveillance, this could be helpful in avoiding highway traffic...Who am I kidding it's practically worthless. But check it out anyways.

http://www.dot.state.sc.us/getting/cams/

If I were to vote solely on the basis of who gave me a larger tax cut, I would vote for Barack Obama. The Washington Post article Obama and McCain Tax Proposals shows us something of politics and media. John McCain caters to the capitalists; Obama caters to the populace (or at least 60% of taxpayers). So who wins out?

McCain gets the backing of the wealthy; money is necessary to a campaign and the backing of those with money. Obama gets the backing of a large voting block; votes are necessary to a campaign and the accompanying charisma. Will money and advertising sway the voting public or will popularity and the vague doctrine of "change" rue the day?

We also see what the Washington Post wants us to see. "Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy." This appeal to emotion fails the test of logic. Is it right or better to give tax cuts to those who make the least? Is it right that those who work harder/smarter bears the larger burden because they make more money?

This is a case of "politics of envy." Show me someone who votes to raise the taxes on America's wealthiest and I'll show you a hypocrite who would vote the contrary if his economic position improved to the point where he was in the top 1% of wage earners. Is Obama supposed to be some kind of "Robin Hood" because he "steals from the rich to give to the poor?" The reality is that he will "rob Peter to pay Paul."

Under Obama's plan capital is transferred from the few experienced and knowledgeable investor to themany fractious and divided mass of consumers who spend what they do not have, do not save money and do not know how to successfully invest their money. This is not a good economic plan. This is a good political ploy. This country needs sound money not political pandering.

My view is that our current state of taxation is unethically high for everyone. Although McCain is giving back more than Obama by an average of almost 7X as much. This would benefit the economy more if that is what your aiming for in the tax cut.

Comparatively Obama will be far more ruinous to this country's economy than McCain will. But McCain will not provide a means of restoring sound money either. I vote for the clssic liberal who promotes freedom and liberty. For that is what this country needs (meanwhile I will concurrently promote attending to the deplorable spiritual state of this country as well).

But what about throwing your vote away when you could have a Republican with some adherence to the conservative agenda? This country needs long term vision. Short term gains and long term losses are unacceptable. I cannot in good conscience vote for the "lesser of two evils." You cannot split rotting wood (Gresham Machen). The war must be over the long run and short run battles must be in the direction of less not more government. Tactics must be consistent with strategy.

Both candidates will bring more government, not because they personally will seek its augmentation but because they will not resist those who do. We need a president who is keenly aware of the unwritted alliances and seek their abolishment. It is common knowledge that "politics is dirty." Then why are we upset by those who act in terms of that thinking? The policy setters are not the same people who are the policy makers. Who then set policy? Follow the money.

Why the title Discriminatory Tax Cuts? Because our entire tax structure is currently discriminatory and to give so little back (both candidates stop far too short) is discriminatory. Taxes discriminate against Americans. We fought for our indeppendence under a system of taxes lower than today's...Where have we gone wrong?

We need to get rid of income taxes altogether and support our fiscal needs on something like an excise tax(es). We need people like Ron Paul (R) and Chuck Baldwin (CP). But we need them all over this country and in every level of politics from the "dog catcher" to the president.

Picture borrowed from http://allgodsword.com/Btl/

August 10, 2008
Sermon text: Revelation 1

Amidst training my child to sit still during the Sunday service for the last several months, I somehow manage to catch the main points of the sermon. I attribute this to my pastor's explicit enumeration of the key thoughts..."My first point...point three is...and finally..."

Pastor John Olson wants to make this point clear: Our Lamb has conquered; Let us follow Him. This is the central message of Revelation for Christians in every age. His five points are as follows:

1. We are to follow Him "on our faces." Revelation 1:17, Matthew 17:1-8
2. We are to follow Him in faith and repentance. (Did not catch the citation.)
3. We are to follow Him with confidence. Revelation 4 & 5
4. We are to follow Him with perseverance. Revelation 12:10-11
5. We are to follow Him in hope. Revelation 17-22

This was a great reaffirmation of truths that most Christians already know. That does not make the sermon less noteworthy. What is noteworthy however is that the five points fit the Five Point Covenant Model. Most Christians even Reformed Christians are unaware of what the Covenant really is (Reformed Theology/Calvinism aka. "Covenant Theology").

The Five Point Covenant Model:

1. Transcendence
2. Hierarchy
3. Ethics
4. Oath
5. Succession

What is the point of knowing this? Well, what is the point of knowing about the trinity? It enriches our understanding of Biblical truths, that is the point. When we survey the Scriptures we see patterns of "threes" all throughout. This comes to mind because we know the significance of what trinitarian "three-ness" represents. The Five Point Covenant Model shows us significance of things of five.

It has also been noted that the near eastern suzerainty treaties resemble this Biblical model. The suzerainty treaties have been broken down as preamble, historical prologue, [ethical] stipulations, curses and blessings or sanctions, and provisions or succession arrangements.

The Hittite treaties have six characteristic elements, though the order in which they occur is not fixed.

1. Preamble: this element identifies the author of the covenant.

2. Historical Prologue: this describes the previous relations between the two parties.

The historical prologue places great emphasis upon the benevolent deeds which the suzerain has performed for the benefit of the vassal. It is never lacking in any of the Hittite treaties, though it has been minimized or is often absent in later Assyrian treaties. The historical prologue functions to give the reasons for which the vassal should be loyal to the suzerain. That is, the vassal will promise future obedience to specific commands for the past benefits which he received without any real right. The language of this section is usually in the I - Thou form of address. The covenant is thought of as a personal relationship of friendship rather than an objective, impersonal statement of law. In the parity treaty this element is much more brief, for the obvious reason that the previous relationship between the two parties was generally one of antagonism.

3. Stipulations: this section states in detail the obligation imposed upon and accepted by the vassal.

The treaty typically includes the prohibition that the vassal cannot establish treaty relations with other foreign states. The suzerain does not want the vassal to have divided loyalties. Other typical stipulations of the treaty include: the prohibition of enmity against anything under the sovereignty of the great king; the vassal must answer any call to arms sent him by the king; the vassal must hold lasting and unlimited trust in the king; the vassal must not give asylum to refugees whatever their origin; the vassal must appear before the king once a year, probably on the occasion of annual tribute; and controversies between vassals are without exception to be submitted to the king for judgment.

4. Provision for deposit in the temple and perodic public reading: the treaty was under the protection of the deity, thus it was deposited as a sacred item in the temple of the vassal.

The treaty was to be read publicly, usually once a year on the anniversary of the treaty, in order to remind the people of their obligation to the suzerain.

5. List of gods as witnesses: both the gods of the suzerain and the vassal are listed.

6. Curses and Blessings: treated as the action of the gods, though the suzerain might himself serve as the agent in administering the curses.

Borrowed from http://moses.creighton.edu/simkins/203/lectures/lecture15.html emphasis mine.

It is not very difficult to see that the unbelieving Hittites loosely followed a God-given model of the covenant. For the benefit of the western world this suzerainty treaty structure should be studied and understood. Of course you should not force the Bible to a human conception but you should merely benefit from a brief study of this ancient form.

Transcendence (includes the idea that God is a witness) and Preamble
Hierarchy and Historical Prologue
Ethics (includes the idea that man is a witness) and Stipulations
Oath and Sanctions
Succession and Provisions

Now that we understand a little something of the covenant model, how did Pastor Olson's exposition fit this model?

1. When we follow on our faces we are affirming the transcendence of God. He is in charge and we will follow Him.
2. When we follow in faith and repentance we are affirming that we are sinners saved through faith and are bound to a code of ethics requiring our repentance.
3. When we follow with confidence we are affirming that we know our place in the hierarchy of the Kingdom of God. We know what God had done for us and we know our place before Him, coram deo.
4. When we follow with perseverance we are affirming by how we live the succession of the covenant. We love Him because He first loved us. We will keep His commandments because we love Him and we will not neglect to teach them to our children.
5. When we follow in hope we are affirming that we know the oath that God has made to us as believers. We know there are curses for disobedience but more so do we look to the blessings of obedience. In this there is much hope, even maybe a puritan/postmillenial hope.

We know God's word is sure. We know that God has promised a new heaven and a new earth. We know that He has taught us to pray "Thy kingdom come...on earth as it is in heaven..." We know that there is much more in Revelation than meets the eye.

Pastor Olson I eagerly look forward to your exposition of Revelation.

Notes:

Source: Introduction to Days of Vengeance, by David Chilton;

For more information read That You May Prosper, by Ray Sutton; Treaty of the Great King, by Meredith Kline; definitions of parity treaty, suzerainty treaty and covenant formulary.

Scandals, wars, economic ruination...Just a hard day at work for a politician.

There seems to be no end to the bad news. John Edwards had an affair? Of course he did. What drives men like Clinton, Edwards, Spitzer, et al. to become politicians in the first place? Are they after the money? Not likely. Most politicians are independently wealthy. There are numerous senators that are millionaires. Is it the power? Probably has something to do with it. Is it the sex? For sure. Money, power and sex are the drives, although money is not a great incentive for American politics. It seems like you already have to have money in order to join the fray.

Why does nothing ever change? The complaints my father had are the complaints I have. The complaints my father had are the complaints my grandfather probably had. Why?

It doesn't really matter who is elected to office, nothing changes. But that doesn't answer the real question. Can it be changed? Yes. But we have had no one willing to change the system. Until now...In 2008 we have witnessed a resurgence of "classical liberalism." It started when Ron Paul announced his candidacy for President. It still continues though the establishment has chosen its candidates: Barack Obama and John McCain.

Campaign for Liberty, Restore the Republic, Constitution Party and many other grassroots efforts are committed to the long term vision of restoring freedoms and liberties in America. Slowly our freedoms are being eroded in guises of safety and environmental and social concerns.

I have no fear that the establishment will maintain their stranglehold perpetually. It may get worse before it gets better but it will get better. George Orwell and Aldous Huxley amongst others may have foreseen where the evils of humanity would take us, but they did not figure God into their calculations. Without God their dystopian conceptions of the future would well play out as history, but God has different plans for our future. God grants freedom not slavery. Thus how can we even think that man could be enslaved in such "novel" ways?

The truth shall set us free. Ultimately evangelism is the spiritual answer to the "kingdoms of this world." They try and "lord it over us" and may succeed in their own goals, but we know that greatness comes from servanthood. So how do we reconcile our spiritual understanding with the politics of the day? Should we as good men sit idly by while evil men take the reigns of power? We are not talking about a monarchy here; we are talking about elected representative government.

Good men need to get involved. It is remarkable to note how a single man could change the attitude of a nation in the O.T. He would tear down the "high places" and bring God's blessing upon the land. He restored the Law-Word of God to its rightful place. Do I say we should foist a theocracy on America? No. It would not work. It would not be right. It would be missing the point.

Evangelism and changed hearts will precede a nation becoming godly. It has to come from the bottom up and inside out rather than from top down and outside in. Then and only then could we even start talking about theocracy.

But what of today? What should be our political goals and aims for this modern era? I would suggest that we start digging our heels in and slow the drift towards authoritarianism. In the short term we can work with the "freedom movement" to take back some of our God-given rights. Christian ideals lineup very closely with classical liberalism in most of its political ideals. The decentralization posed by Scripture meshes very well with individualistic libertarianism.

Philosophically the "only" problem with individualism is its neglect of man as a corporate entity. The rights of the individual supersede the rights of the group. Socialism goes to the other extreme and says the rights of the many supersede the rights of the few. Is there a moderate position to hold? I think the Christian position explains the apparent paradox between the rights of the one versus the rights of the many.

God is trinity. God is one. God is many.

Man is one. Man is many.

Socialism claims to care for the poor and libertarianism says that private charity can deal with that issue. Socialism has stated as its goal the eradication of poverty. Jesus said "The poor you have with you always." But it is also written that if you have power to do good and you neglect to do it, you have sinned. In Christianity charity is not an option.

So we can work within the confines of the "Freedom Movement" without conflict of conscience but we must note its inadequacies and make up for them with our doctrines. What if we do nothing? What if we allow evil or even aid and abet the evil by encouraging Christians to get out of politics? Will we slip into the modern "dark ages" when we are under a "one world government?" The U.N. is poised to accept a nomination...

"I motion..."

"I second..."

"All in favor..."

"Aye!"

Welcome to the "New World Order." Oh wait we are not there yet. Remember, baby steps. First it's the European Economic Community or Common Market; tomorrow it's the European Union. Today it's Canada, America and Mexico; tomorrow it's the North American Union.

Will humanity suffer it? They'll suffer it before they fight it. History bears this out. But you can bet they will fight it, eventually. These freedom loving philosophical movements all seem to begin in conditions of squalor. They all seem to originate under the most extreme of circumstances. Authoritarianism breeds a desire of freedom in people. It will happen again. There is no new thing under the sun.

Every empire has crumbled; every empire will crumble. Even this new type of empire will crumble. It is not an empire forged by war. It is not an empire built by imperialism. It is not an empire derived from politics at all. It is economic. Banking and economic alliances and economic treaties all serve to centralize the control of the monetary unit. The elitists think they are impervious to the plight of historical empires but they are wrong. People will eventually figure out who holds the reins. "Follow the money." And they will. Revolution will probably be bloody and violent. God has coded something in us...A desire to be free? Yeah. Freedom.

So what is this classical liberalism? It was a freedom movement that started under the absolute monarchies of the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe. Think authoritarianism, then think about the opposite; whatever is diametrically opposed to absolutism is classical liberalism, pretty much. These were the first "liberals." The "conservatives" during this period were the authoritarians.

Today the "conservatives" and the "liberals" are authoritarian parties. It seems as if the swapped ideologies; I guess it is the evolution of the movements. But liberalism did not maintain its freedom loving status. Today we generally say the liberals want civil freedoms while conservatives want economic freedoms and the inverse also being true. But where then did the classical liberals go? Today the expressions of classical liberalism can be found in the libertarian camp. Spawned by the free-market "Austrian" school of thought, libertarianism fights the fight of classic liberalism in the modern age.

I have a basic faith in humanity, that even if good men fail them, that they will not tolerate tyranny forever. I hope for my future and my children's future and so on that good men indeed will rise to the occasion to show the world what good people in positions of influence would do.

The status quo is no longer a good quid pro quo, when it is our liberties being traded for tyranny.

Lately my thinking has been on the subject of the relationship between the family and the church. It has led me to such questions as; "Which is more important, the family or the church?". I think that I err in making the assumption that there is a disparity between any of the God-ordained institutions.

Which is more important: prophet, priest or king? I do not think that question can be answered. Likewise I do not think that an importance of the family over church or vice versa can be argued.

Will there be marriage in heaven? No. What implication does that have for the family? Will there be a non-theocratic 'state' in heaven? I am pretty sure there won't be, but I don't know what source to cite as evidence. On the other hand you could argue that there will be a 'state,' though it will be a theocratic one. Likewise you could argue that we are all the 'family' of God and so there will still be the concept of 'family' even in heaven. Does the church exist in heaven? It ought to. I believe it is orthodox to look at the visible and invisible aspects of the church as the "church."

In one sense you could say that the institutions of family and state go away in the new heavens and new earth. From this you could argue that the church is the only lasting institution and therefore somehow most/more important than the others. I think this is where I have been recently, but I think I am coming to a more moderate position.

Neither institution is any more important than the other. I believe they are all aspects of God's administration of His creation (that is, covenantal aspects). The state represents a kingly institution, the church represents a priestly institution, and the family represents a prophetic institution. At the end of time I think we will see these earthly types melt away revealing God's singular covenantal ordering of the new heavens and the new earth. It will resemble something of a conglomeration of these institutions, not because God will combine them but because God separated them at the beginning of time for our benefit (a decentralization with 'checks and balances,' if you will; maybe so that no one could gain preeminence and proclaim himself as god).

What we shall see will be more comprehensive a covenantal governing than what a conglomeration of church, state, and family would look like. In every way God is inexhaustible and in general He is incomprehensible.

[As an aside, some of my favorite visualizations/ideations.

God is like a diamond with its many facets. Anyone person may see several facets of God but no one person can see them all at the same time. This is what I refer to whenever I use the term "multi-faceted." There are always aspects of every issue that go unconsidered by men in their thinking. This is why I try (hopefully) to always be humble and open to a fresh perspective. (Source: I dunno)

God is like an onion. There are many layers. But unlike an onion which gets smaller as you peel away another layer, God (or at least your view of Him) gets larger with each layer peeled away. (Source: C.S. Lewis, "The Last Battle" if I'm not mistaken)

God has not told us everything. But everything He has told us He wants us to know. John heard the voice of seven thunders but was commanded to not write what he had heard. So we know God has not revealed all there is to know. But what He has given, He wants us to know, understand and apply (I take this as a presupposition, I think or maybe I'm just copping out of a defense for it; well hit me up if you want more on this issue). (Source: Bible)

God is triperspectival. This is my latest discovery, courtesy of John Frame. Epistemology deals with convoluted thinking. We don't just "think" when we are thinking epistemologically, but now we are thinking about our thinking. Why do we believe what we believe? These are the sorts of issues epistemologists deal with. They also consider such things as the knower, the object that is known and the rules/norms governing this knowledge. God at all times and in every way knows all three perspectives about everything. (Well I suppose it helps that He sustains everything concurrently through His covenant with creation.) But we as humans never get beyond seeing things uniperspectivally. Barring any "out of body" experiences, we cannot not be ourselves. We can never go outside of ourselves to see something from a different perspective, not truly. It helps when someone shares their perspective with us. (But even then you are understanding what they are saying through your own perspective.) I guess when you are "one" with someone you've come the closest any man will come to biperspectivalism. If you and your wife are truly one, then you have something of two differing perspectives working to the mutual benefit of the parties invovled. In some ways we may speculate at what triperspectivalism looks like. Again we cannot elucidate it in any situation comprehensively, but we can "give it a go." (Source: John Frame, "A Primer on Perspectivalism," I do not give justice to this concept here. If you want to know more click the link.)

Alright, so those are the thoughts that go through my head when I deal with ideas beyond the grave.]

In summary, all institutions are equal and equally necessary. All three social institutions represent some aspect of prophet/priest/king.

But can we emphasize family over church? I don't think we can. God has no grandchildren. The family exists to provide conception and maturation of the children of God, but at some point it ends (and begins for the next generation). The father no longer has authority over their adult children. There is a certain respect due, but it is due to any elder regardless of family "ties." After a child is "liberated" he joins the church as it is now his "family." The church is not a family of families; the church is a family. The relation you have to your pastors, elders, deacons, and members are not mediated through your father any longer. Instead of viewing the church as a family of families it is more like a "little church." As we are "Christians" (little-christs), so are families "churchians" (little-churches). In other words the family is not an atomical(ly a) building block of the church but sub-atomical(ly) to the church; the church being the essence of society.

I know it really sounds as if I denigrate or even despise the family to those raised in our family-worshiping culture, but I do not. In fact I adore the family for its God-given role. I love being a father and have had the unction for it in me since I was five years old (am I strange?). I would not trade it for the world. But is my role more important than a pastor's role? No. Is it less important than a pastor's role? No. These are different callings and all equally valid and beneficial to the kingdom. They really are the same job; they deal with Christians at different levels of growth/maturity. Fathers are first in chronology, but pastors are final (in the earthly sense). Pastors pastor from ones birth to ones death. Fathers only father from birth to liberation. Each is necessary but pastoring is the permanent 'fathering.' Likewise the church is the permanent family.

I am saying all of this in my defense of my emphasis on the church. I am not saying that the church is more important than the family. I am merely placing a slight emphasis on the role/work of the church. I am not here debating importance but emphasis. Neither institution is any more important than any other. Thus no institution deserves an inordinate/disproportionate share of our attention. But I think this is where we fall apart. Most Christians hold the family to have greater importance and give an inordinate/disproportionate amount of attention to the family. I think they do this to the neglect of the church. Does this mean that no institution needs to be emphasized? I don't know? But I do know that until Christians in general give equality to the church in importance with the family I will continue to emphasize the church.

We do not get the sacraments in the family. The evangelical institution is the church. The mechanism of discipleship is the church (discipleship may take place in the family but it is not the family's work necessarily; it may be argued that any discipleship taking place in the family is the outworking of the fact that your children are your fellow heirs in Christ. I think many parents have a hard time looking at their snobby two-year-old as a fellow heir. This emotional or psychological detachment is not a reflection of reality however.).

State = legal, negative sanctions, order
Church = spiritual, sacramental, covenantal, worship, evangelism, discipleship, common grace, positive sanctions, Kingdom of God, "Christendom," Christian community
Family = economic, life, entrepreneurial, educational

If nothing else, take this away: We need more fellowship and the gathering together of believers.

What is it that drives a man to seek the truth? What causes him to hunger and yearn for that which he does not know?

At what point does this go away? Why does a man think he has found the ultimate truth? What makes him spew forth bile in defense of his [probably] erroneous views?

To be sure, we as Christians ought to be valiant for truth. We should know what we believe and why we believe it. If you are being questioned then you ought to be sure in what you believe. But when you debate, not being any less sure, you ought to present yourself in such a way as to have a winning spirit/attitude.

I guess this spirit of animosity between people who like to debate their beliefs is due in great part to lack of study of rhetoric. Rhetoric is the use of forms and methods in speech or writing that serve to convince the listener or reader of what you are saying. Obviously it should not be used for spreading lies, but has been and can be abused this way. If you believe that you hold to the truth, then win people to your belief.

Take the time to study rhetoric. Learn about logos, ethos, and pathos. Learn rhetorical forms such as alliteration, several variants of repetition, and so many others. This is assuming that you have also studied logic or will simultaneously study logic; it is also necessary.

It is shameful that we as Christians do not follow our Lord. He was gentle and winning to the lost...He was scathing and accusing to those who knew better...He was true and righteous altogether.

If "knowledge is power," then privacy is sovereignty.

The contemporary age we live in is referred to as the information age. We are becoming more of a surveillant society ("This call may be monitored for quality control purposes." Or notice that every bank, gas station, etc have cameras the Feds can requisition the data from if "necessary."). Everything that can be stored digitally is stored digitally. This has led to the modern policy called "data mining."

Recently public opinion has been questioning whether the Constitution does not protect the right of privacy. Well then what does it protect? 'Obviously' it does not protect God-given rights...They are being trampled on. Regardless of the issue, the Feds will "wiretap illegally until it becomes legal," or in this case they will data mine personal information even if it goes against the sense of the Constitution.

Safety will not be found in "giving up a few rights" but in the protection and defense of privacy rights.

Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate for president, is a minister, radio talk show host and writer. He has been an outspoken critic of the United Nations’ aggressive Agenda 21, a program Baldwin calls “the mechanism by which Americans are rapidly losing their sovereignty, their Constitutionally- guaranteed rights and their liberties”.

Baldwin points out: “The United Nations’ stealth policies, through so-called Sustainable Development will serve only to create a tyrannical New World Order. Americans must begin to connect the dots on global schemes to advance gun control, promote a globalist education agenda in our classrooms and take away our freedoms under the guise of ‘environmentalism’. The U.N. is behind the push for national ID cards, higher taxes, denigration of the Judeo- Christian world view and the coming North American Union”.

Agenda 21 wiki-page.

Agenda 21 Document.

Rule #1. Deny everything.

Rule #2. If you want to be popular with your opponents supporters propose something you know will not pass. "But, hey you tried. And that's all that counts, so I'll vote for you instead of McCain."

Obama says offshore drilling stance nothing new

First of all what is anthrax? It is a bacteria and can be deadly, that is what you need to know. If you want to know more check out the wiki-profile.

Why is it important to us? We had a scare in 2001, the "anthrax attacks." The fear is that terrorists will get a hold of anthrax and release it in a major city or something like that. Is this plausible? Well the record for the controls of anthrax are not promising (in light of this, of course the control will become more stringent or more strictly enforced).

Here is the article: Anthrax slip-ups raise fears about planned biolabs But are terrorists likely to get a hold of an anthrax strain that leaked out of a lab? No, what you would need is a scientists who defected or was a "sleeper" for the enemy. Now, is that possible? Anthrax suspect, scientist, kills self as FBI closes in You be the judge.

If fears of a weaponized anthrax are a reality what do we do? There are vaccines. But are they safe? Check out Squalene is a no, no. Remember the Air Force Officer who refused the vaccine? Air Force officer faces court-martial for refusing anthrax shots

Ed: The Major did not get court-martialed. Others did however. Question: Is there still squalene in anthrax vaccines? If so, I will refuse it too if so ordered. I will give my life for this country, but to give my life over an inoculation is absurd.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Sunday, August 24, 2008

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Friday, August 22, 2008

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Saturday, August 16, 2008

Friday, August 15, 2008

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Sunday, August 10, 2008

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Monday, August 4, 2008

Sunday, August 3, 2008

Saturday, August 2, 2008

Friday, August 1, 2008

Cookies Notification

Blog Archive

Sites of Interest

Blog links

Labels

Coram Deo