Corridors of My Mind

…blame it on the alcohol.

2010-04-23T20:35:00.003-04:00

with a few more a-a-a-a-a-a's in there, hence goes the song.

I Co 10:23

Good point AmericanAfrican. "Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial…" that does not mean that "everything" is permissible. "What!? but it says!!!" ok, this is why ppl were not allowed to read the bible for a very long time (sarcasm).

The point is not to overturn everything that has been scripturally established up to this point some 4000 yrs after "in the beginning." the point is to cover what has not been specifically ruled on…that is "everything [else]."

IF IT HAS NOT BEEN FORBIDDEN, IT IS PERMITTED.

ok, i'll stop yelling now. the "baptists" somehow turn scripture on its head and end up with something more like: 'if it is not permitted, it is forbidden.' this is wrong. they are manipulating scripture for good intentions (and yeah…uh…nvm;). but they are wrong to do so.

ok so, we can drink! woohoo, party at my place tonite!! now now, let's not get carried away. indulging is not expressly forbidden, but indulging to excess is forbidden.

but that is not an answer either. what is excess? this is why i say we have little ground to judge, w/o obvious destructive behavior. don't judge me and i will not judge you. how abt we leave it there.

NO?! not good enough huh? so here we go:

since i've written my june first post i've seen: alcohol makes ppl stupid, they make poor decisions, they are more prone to suggestion, the relationships kindled over drinking are very strong, bonds are formed that may not have formed or have been able to be formed otherwise…

now having said that, let me say that it's not the alcohol. IT doesn't make ppl stupid. alcohol speeds things up socially. self-destructive personalities may achieve 'success' sooner by imbibing. in my experience far too many ppl have self destructive habits…

a word abt relationships: if the ppl you're drinking with are ppl you already wanted to be friends with then great. you'll probably become friends faster. but if you don't know them, not really, if you don't know if you can trust them; then why in [someone important]'s name would you make yourself vulnerable?? rant. done.

i have tested my limits and found them. now i can drink and make merry, extremely merry, and not get "wasted." but again, who defines wasted? i think that it's a personal definition honestly. how do i feel the next day? can i do my job? take care of my boys? how do i treat ppl when i have "drunk"?

to conclude: it is permitted. warning: it is strong drink and must be handled accordingly.

Prov 31:4-7 & I Tim 3:3,8 & Tit 2:3

the lower on the totem pole = the more appropriate it is to indulge and make merry. the higher you go, it becomes less appropriate. misuse can bring someone low, really low. i have seen it. but for those who are already low, hey go for it. sadly, that is all some have to live for, why deny them that bit of earthly comfort? also note Prov 31:6,7. not only does scripture NOT forbid alcohol at this juncture, BUT it orders it to be given to a select special group of ppl: those who NEED it most…

once my thot…now my writ.

but to be explicitly or abundantly clear:

"At what point do you actually believe the consumption of alcohol is sinning?" ~J

b4
you have sinned before you even started when your intentions are sinful. this may not make sense at first. think abt it tho. when you want to do something you know is wrong, but won't 'let yourself' you can drink and poof! your inhibitions are gone…also if you know that you're prone to sinning when drunk (swd;) but drink anyways…strike one.

during
you go along with suggestions you normally wouldn't have, but that doesn't absolve you of wrong doing. you fight. all manner of sin can take place swd…strike two.

afterparty
you have a hangover that prevents you from completing your responsibilities. you wake up in a strangers house. ppl usually don't even remember what happens while they're sinning while wasted (sww)…but who ppl really are comes out. you default to your baseline programming sww.

drunk=merry
wasted=sin…strike three.

but bigger than the BAC a person has is their attitude/heart/intentions. these are the real sources of the SIN…

Debate...

2009-08-16T04:51:00.001-04:00

To quit the discussion at this juncture is to quit thinking and "prove" your own point that there can be no conclusions on absolutes.

I come from a very different school of thot...while most ppl are in their beds sleeping I am a slave driver—pushing my intellect past it's biases into the plane of absolute truths....

I readily admit when I am wrong...I have had plenty of practice...at 25 yrs old I have admitted being wrong twice as often as most ppl do by 50—thus I am four times further along in my intellectual development than most ;) obviously a math joke...with a hint of truth.

I am reformed, but I did not start that way. I am a Christian but I did not start that way. I hold to libertarian ideology but I did not start that way. I hold to free market economic theories but I did not start that way. I am in a box but I did not start that way...or I started in the same box that most ppl are still in, you can phrase it anyway you like, but I am a "truth seeker" and can easily detect untruths...I have a knack for it and have trained myself to do this for many years...

And I listen...that is my strength...ppl may not think I listen but I do...that is how I know so much. Only becuz I listen. I have listened/read as much as I can/could and sifted the truth from the lies...I have a working body of knowledge/wisdom and the gift of understanding...to understand philosophers and their dark sayings...

I have mathematical as well as visual acumen...I do not allow my own thots to cloud my judgments. I know pride...I have it, I've been horribly humbled. Jesus was humble, but he did not budge on truth.

I am not Jesus, but where I detect self-contradiction...I too will not budge...but I now have just come to the startling realization that to further discuss this with you would result in a loss of friendship before truth could be culled from the mess...

Blame it on the alcohol...

2009-06-01T23:12:00.005-04:00

Well, it's been like forever...God is good, He is faithful even when we are not.

Just live and let live. Is there any validity to this sort of thinking? If this is the driving philosophy by which you live; mmm no, not a prudent modus operandi. But for those that are theistic in their reasoning, and are not pastors, what should the extent of our "meddling" be? Street-preachers I know would call anyone a sinner who does does go out evangelizing the lost. Is this right? Are they right? Don't judge/condemn another man's servant...this leads me to believe that their judgmental spirit is wrong. Now i'm not inconsistently calling them "heathen" or some such nonsense (tho they wouldn't hesitate in applying that word to this "hyper" Calvinist). Just because they are wrong doesn't mean they're gonna burn in hell for it. And that's the thing...they might burn in hell but I have no clue; it's not my call you see? They are so quick to cram religion down the throats of others. Some of these guys I love but they revel too much in stirring up strife and getting arrested "for the sake of the Gospel."

If there is blatant disregard; please approach a brother and nudge him, but if it's not clearly spelled out in Scripture the way that the Baptistic types teach it, then don't hold someone accountable to your theology...hold them accountable to the Word, not your interpretation of it. What you have "Biblical" definitions for: outlining proper Christian living-is what I refer to as an issue of conscience. Don't judge me. I'm learning to enjoy alcohol, does that make me a drunkard? I never get wasted; I continue to go to work; I provide for my family; I don't even "go out" every weekend...Yes, there is a learning curve there is sometimes more; sometimes less indulged in...I'm finding out what my limit(s) are, etc. I use it to make merry, and not all that often either...is that a sin?

Deception

2009-01-13T23:54:00.001-04:00

In Genesis we read of the sin committed by the parents of the human race. Often we like to point out how easily decieved Eve was for whatever reason...But what we fail to consider just how easy Adam was self-deceived.

You see the difference between the sexes at this juncture is not 'who is more easily deceived?' but 'how is each deceived?'. Women are more relational and will be more easily taken in by one who appears safe and friendly. OTOH, men are suspicious of others and are more likely to fool themselves rather than be fooled by another.

Just a thot...A generalization, obviously.

Are we in the millennium?

2009-01-10T11:09:00.001-04:00

Isaiah 65:17-25

This is not a discourse on heaven-although it does say new 'heavens'-otherwise we would be left to conclude that their indeed is death in heaven.

Throughout Ezekiel and Isaiah I have noticed the discourse concerning the future plans God has for Israel. He wants to give them His spirit and the attendant ability to actually keep His law. There are very many promises made about the new covenant/new heavens and earth to Israel: spiritual Israel by extension.

Without understanding the Church to be the spirtual heir of Israel much of Scripture cannot be made sense of...But in considering the Church to be true Israel the promises of God from the OT can be seen to be fulfilled...The promises given to OT believers are fulfilled in the NT believers.

For us, that means we are living in the age where we build and inhabit; we plant and harvest our own crops...People will begin to live longer. In the same way that men's lifespans slowly dimished to about 70; so we shall see lifespans slowly lengthen to about 100.

Of course I don't know if it will happen in our lifetime, but at the very least I know that I can plant my crops and work hard on this earth because I will reap the temporal rewards for my physical labors. And that knowledge is very motivating..."Occupy till I come..."

Scoffers in the Last Days

2009-01-10T10:47:00.001-04:00

Peter speaks at length about what the early Christians can expect to see in their near future. I don't want to take it out of its context but simply want to make an application to today.

2 Peter 3:3 talks about scoffers. Who were these scoffers? They were people who didn't believe...In the former days you had people who were so superstitious they believed just about anything. Monotheism was akin to atheism. But in the last days (which we are in) their will be scoffers...People who choose unbelief rather than belief. To them monotheism is akin to superstition.

Our God has not changed in the millennia that true believers have known Him but everything around us has...In this day and age we need to learn to deal with scoffers and not the polytheistic paganism of the former ages. The NT itself was written in the last days, or the time of scoffers, Jesus and the Apostles all dealt with unbelief. We can look to them for guidance on how to deal with scoffers.

It is written that the preaching of the cross is foolishness to them...We also see extensive use of the Law-Word of God in bringing conviction and conversion. We also see the humility of Christ and His disciples as well as love amongst the brethren.

In the contemporary age we have great examples to follow as well. Francis Schaeffer and the L'Abri Fellowship with its brotherly love towards all...Greg L. Bahnsen who with every breath stopped the mouths of the scornful...Gordon Clark with his Christian theistic philosophy in opposition to the philosophy of unbelieving man...

We should take comfort knowing that the extreme unbelief was not unforseen but was expected. If you have dealt with scoffers take heart, they have chosen unbelief; they are tares. They may be elect and thus we ought always to share the gospel with them, but don't get discouraged when they only revile you. They claim science but they hold to doctrines which are falsely called science. Our God is the creator and sustainer, without which science could not exist. If ignored by the scoffers, they do so to the damnation of their souls...

Don't criticize me...

2009-01-09T01:15:00.001-04:00

Yes, I'm in the Navy. But I'm on leave, what did you expect? I don't get much time to even pretend to grow a beard/mustache/goatee/whatever...

Free On-Line Book on Covenant Theology

2008-12-31T11:51:00.003-04:00

For those interested in Covenant Theology Read:
THE MARROW OF MODERN DIVINITY
by Edward Fisher

"Them bones, them bones, them dry bones..."

2008-12-26T12:17:00.005-04:00

Ezekiel 37:11 Then He said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel; behold, they say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope has perished. We are completely cut off.’ 12 “Therefore prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel. 13 “Then you will know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your graves, My people. 14 “I will put My Spirit within you and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the LORD, have spoken and done it,” declares the LORD.’” (Emphasis mine.)

Matthew 27:52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. (Emphasis mine.)

I don't recall anyone ever pointing this out, I'm sure it has been in some commentary somewhere...It seems to me that the graves were opened in fulfillment of this prophecy. I have wondered for a long time, the significance of the dead saints being raised and walking through Jerusalem. But it seems that the prophecy was for those in whom God would put His spirit and that He would make them to walk upon the land of Israel. This prophecy is characteristic of many Ezekiel passages which refer to the New Covenant. In this case the only "saints" that could be raised were O.T. believers/saints. But in other passages where promises are given to the living, it appears that they are to the Jewish Christians and "Gentile" Christians; given our N.T. understanding of the mystery which is Christ in us...Every Christian truly is a "Jewish" Christian...This goes against our modernistic thinking, though; but Paul said it:

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

If I could summarize; there is only one sense to the prophetic passages but there can be many applications. Thus, either the specifically Jewish orientation of the prophecy contains the real sense with the fact that all Christians are "true Jews" as an application or else the sense is really going for a promise aimed at all believers in the N.T. era with an application specifically directed at the Jews. Divorcing non-Jewish Christians from the promises in the O.T. Prophets seems to result in misapplication of the texts or maybe even missing the real sense of the passages; I withhold any conclusions either way on my part as of yet.

Why we fail

2008-12-24T00:42:00.003-04:00

We fail because we do not think covenantally. Most evangelical Christians would be hard pressed to even describe what the covenant is...let alone to think in terms of it. I have described the covenant in an earlier post...

Where is the wisdom in that?

2008-12-24T00:32:00.005-04:00

Is it wise for a young Christian to be attempting to tackle the most difficult book in the Bible to exegete? Does the fact that it is so mysterious have any strange attraction? Of course it does. So what does one do when you get this 'end-times bug?' You read a good book, that's what I did. A book that clears the apocalyptic haze not muddies the water...that is what is needed. With no knowledge of the Greek language, without establishing the interpretive hermeneutics, without consulting the works of the respected authorities; where does one intend to go?

Update: This is especially true for those intending to working as a minister of the Gospel...First things first:
1. Survey the broad themes; become a student, learn.
2. Study in greater detail; become a scholar, find out what others have learned.
3. Research the minutiae; become an expert, understand its grave implications.
Explain, Interpret, Exegete. There is a [super-]natural order to things...follow it.

Ignorance is no excuse.

2008-12-24T00:20:00.002-04:00

Recently, someone I know was accused, in an informal debate, of making the Bible mean whatever he wanted it to mean and ignoring what it plainly said.

Now listen closely, have you ever said something but did not actually mean what you say? Why? Maybe you were using a figure of speech or exaggerating for effect or trying to get a reaction out of someone. Was the Bible not written down by men who also used these common elements? Especially, in the prophetic literature...you have lots of verses which are obviously not supposed to be taken at face value (i.e. Jesus is not a real lamb 'standing as if slain,' but we get the metaphor).

This is naturally followed by the next question; how do you interpret the figures not so obviously interpreted? But the fallacy in the question is easily exposed. The obviousness or not is a very subjective assertion; what is obvious to one may not be obvious to another. Thus we must go back to a principle which changeth not: that is that Scripture interprets Scripture.

The fact is that very little in Biblical exegesis does not rely on another passage from the Bible. Incredible as it seems, ignorance of what the Bible says in all of its boring glory does not allow for speculative interpretations nor does it excuse one for falsely accusing a brother who has the Biblical knowledge on which an interpretation depends when you do not...

'The Boys'

2008-12-23T23:43:00.002-04:00

Now, I haven't posted photos on here in a while for a reason...But I thought this one had to be posted...My two Covenant boys learning to obey mommy and daddy so that they may live long...

Does God promote cannibalism?

2008-12-13T08:01:00.006-04:00

Ezekiel 5:9 'And because of all your abominations, I will do among you what I have not done, and the like of which I will never do again. 10 'Therefore, fathers will eat their sons among you, and sons will eat their fathers; for I will execute judgments on you and scatter all your remnant to every wind.

What we see here is an example of God's pronouncement of judgment. In other passages we see the same curse mentioned...but why was this curse added to the Deuteronomy curses in the first place? If nothing else, because God knew the future. Note that He says that He has not actually brought this curse to bear before and that He will do so in a very specific capacity and that He will never do so again (which could be figurative, in order to emphasize the gravity of the situation). It is an earthly judgment reserved for the severest of offenses: rejecting God and whoring after other gods. The next question is, when was/will this fulfilled?

The Word of God?

2008-12-01T00:37:00.004-04:00

What is the Law-Word of God? Is it the KJV, NASB, or NIV? Is it the manuscripts in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, et al.? Are all of them the Law-Word of God or none of them?

For one who holds to the inerrancy and infallibility of the Law-Word of God, these questions may seem disconcerting.

I am currently studying this issue to have my conscience settled and for a paper I will write on the topic (makes my work light since I want to know the information). Here I will lay out some of my thoughts on the subject.

I heard first the arguments for the priority of the Greek from which the KJV was written. I was led to believe that the Greek manuscripts which were translated from until the last century were the pure text and that the more recently discovered manuscripts had been edited, for instance, by gnostic sects which had hidden them away and had incidentally preserved them.

The first books that I picked up on the subject of text versions were both arguing against modern translations. Their method was to compare the English KJV translation to other modern English translations. They argued that other versions significantly reduced verses in support of, most notably the doctrine of Christ's deity. They argued for a majority text tradition and invoked the theory of providential preservation.

More recently I have read a book by D.A. Carson on textual criticism. I took him to be Reformed Presbyterian initially but I don't know how he could have some very liberal leanings as far as altering Scripture is concerned and still be "Reformed." I thought he made many good points and nearly convinced me to be a textual critic...compelling anyways. But the more I look into it, the approach of textual criticism seems be atheistic as if somehow you can approach the issue neutrally...Oh sweet autonomy!

KJO proponents are on an extreme position. Proponents of the critical-text are on an extreme position. Proponents of the priority of the Majority/Byzantine text-type take external science into account as well as internal theological evidence. They seem to moderate the two extremes in a healthy way. It would place one much closer to KJO to side for the Majority text, but these are generally God-fearing evangelical Christians, than the textual-critics side, which is the side of intellectualizing to a fault the issue in question. Apparently, as one was wont to say, simple issues like evolution have been settled by science but are not accepted by some religious types. Well, I'm a religious type that will never accept an unproven theory as equivalent to experimental science.

Other issues I had with the Alexandrian prioritists were the use of statistical analysis, evolutionary concept of memes, mathematical analysis, etc as intellectual arguments. Sure, that is what is used in science but the Law-Word of God is not a scientific derivative and should not be treated as such.

I think the issues of theology, psychology, geography, history/tradition etc play a role as well as scientific modes of inquiry. Let us not use one to the exclusion of the other, but let us take both when they can both be of assistance and see where they lead us.

Let 'em breathe, let 'em live.

2008-11-15T12:18:00.004-04:00

Jeremiah 20:17 Because he did not kill me before birth, So that my mother would have been my grave, And her womb ever pregnant.

I really think this provides some grotesque imagery in consideration of one of America's favorite past-time: abortion. Abortion is "killing before birth." No denying that. Even if it isn't murder, it is killing something that was alive...

But it is murder and that's what makes it worse. You have turned an instrument of life into a chamber of death. God gave sexual intercourse, a wonderful thing, between a man and his wife. This act serves a two-fold purpose: bonding the couple and producing offspring. Lord knows that if sex wasn't how children were made and they were made in some neutral fashion as to be a chore, then we as a human race would've died out long ago by disobeying His command to be fruitful and multiply.

The womb ought to be a haven not a hades, safe not sheol, help not hell, peaceful not purgatory, life not death...

The curse of wealth.

2008-11-03T09:42:00.003-04:00

1 Timothy 5:16 If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed.

Who is the Church? And why are Christians so financially burdened? Do we not want to be in the position to assist when called upon? There is no excuse for the Church of Christ to be impotent today given our improved wealth and standard of living, as compared to the first century Church for instance.

The more we have, the more we want. Christians need to stop being so fearful when talking about money. They need to avoid beggars in clerical robes and give to the real beggars. They need to help when it is in the power of their hand to do it. Christ will come back and we will reconcile all accounts with Him. Christians also need to tithe. Don't be fooled by my soft way of making that last statement.

The FED; Beginnings

2008-11-01T23:14:00.001-04:00

http://www.garynorth.com/public/4188.cfm

Gas savers website.

2008-10-29T12:45:00.002-04:00

http://www.gasbuddy.com/Trip_Calculator.aspx

Visiting family for Christmas?

What are the chances of that?

2008-10-25T15:46:00.005-04:00

What are the chances that a meteor will crash into the earth and end all life?

the probability of occurrence is less than 0.01% in ten thousand years, i.e., less than one chance in one hundred million (10-8) per year. This is roughly equivalent to the probability estimated for mass global extinction of life caused by the impact of an extra-terrestrial body on the Earth (Crowe et al., 2006).

Now you know...

Source: NRC Report

Eschatology Bible Study

2008-10-21T16:07:00.003-04:00

http://www.christianciv.com/eschatology_bs_TOC.htm#TOC

The bible study I was going to write...someday. If you are nervous about the future of Christianity or the future in general go through this study.

Major and Minor Prophets

2008-10-20T08:34:00.004-04:00

Pre-Exilic Prophets ( Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah)

Exilic/Post-Exilic Prophets ( Ezekiel, Daniel, Joel, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi)

Note which Propets are which. This will aid in the study of the action-packed tomes.

Women Civil Rulers...

2008-10-20T07:57:00.002-04:00

Isaiah 3:12
O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over
them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And
confuse the direction of your paths.

Posted post-election...Even though we will not have a woman VP for the next four years it is still a valid question to ask; what is the Bible's position on this subject?

Free Microsoft software and Cheap Office Ultimate

2008-10-19T23:43:00.003-04:00

https://downloads.channel8.msdn.com/

http://www.microsoft.com/student/discounts/theultimatesteal-us/default.aspx

Heyah!

Who are your SC Legislators?

2008-10-14T17:42:00.006-04:00

Find out here: http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/zipcodesearch.exe.

Results for 29445-9614:

U.S. Senators
Senior - U.S. Senator Lindsey O. Graham
Junior - U.S. Senator Jim W. DeMint

U.S. House District 1 - U.S. Representative Henry E. Brown, Jr.

Your South Carolina State Senator is SC Senate District 37 - Senator Lawrence "Larry" K. Grooms

Your South Carolina State Representative is SC House District 117 - Representative Thomas "Tom" M. Dantzler

Now I can figure out who to vote for in the State races...Too bad I don't have any SC Constitution Party Candidates running in my districts. There a few of them:

Declared Candidates for the 2008 Elections:

South Carolina - Constitution Party of South Carolina

Candidate: Frank Waggoner

Office Sought: U.S. Congress - District 5
Ballot Status: Ballot Access Secured
Residence: , SC

Candidate: Polly Nicolay

Office Sought: State Senate - District 1
Ballot Status: Ballot Access Secured
Residence: , SC

Candidate: John Langville

Office Sought: State Senate - District 7
Ballot Status: Ballot Access Secured
Residence: , SC

Candidate: Patricia. Matthews

Office Sought: State House - District 104
Ballot Status: Ballot Access Secured
Residence: , SC

Candidate: Matt Jarfi

Office Sought: Horry County Council District 6
Ballot Status: Ballot Access Secured
Residence: , SC

Update: Links fixed!

SC Legislature

2008-10-14T17:33:00.003-04:00

http://www.scstatehouse.net/index.html

Posting post-election...sry 'bout that...

Do you know the song?

2008-10-14T11:14:00.002-04:00

Revelation 14:3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth.

I hope you do. If you do not, ask me and I will tell it to you. I hope by then you will discover what it takes to really learn the song.

My crude historical outline of Free-Market thought

2008-10-09T06:47:00.008-04:00

Mercantilism gave governments an excuse for privation of their countrysides for the benefit of their "country" or royal coffers. (Terms to google: Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Louis XIV)

Physiocrats or economistes came into existence under authoritarian France. They coined the term laissez faire. They applied the enlightenment ideals of freedom and liberty to economics during a time of growing enlightenment in the culture at large. (Terms to google: Francois Quesnay)

Adam Smith was an intellectual heir to the physiocrats and also English. His Wealth of Nations popularized free market theory. (Terms to google: Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations)

Carl Menger and others in Austria (I do believe they were also under an authoritarian government) had amazing insights into what really drove the market's pricing of goods: demand. The next generation of Austrian free market economists Ludwig von Mises, Frederick Hayek, explained the trade cycle in terms of economic theory thereby discovering the source of the "boom-and-bust" cycle. (Terms to google: supply and demand, Ludwig von Mises, Frederick Hayek, Austrian economics)

Today there is a thriving school of thought call Austrian economics. Ludwig von Mises Institute is the de facto headquarters. Some famous or infamous people associated with it are Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, et al. (Terms to google: austrian theory of the trade cycle, Murray Rothbard)

To aid in the learning process I am including a list of links to sites promoting liberty in politics and economics:

"The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the research and educational center of classical liberalism and the Austrian School of economics."

I also subscribe to GaryNorth.com which is where I get most of my knowledge from. But it costs $15 a month. You can get most of the same information for "free" but you'll have to work harder for it (it'll only cost you time...).

Congressman Ron Paul's website.

Lew Rockwell blog and site.

Constitution Party. I vote for their candidates.

Chuck Baldwin's website (Constitution Party Candidate 2008).

Chalcedon Foundation. A Christian educational organization.

Campaign for Liberty.

Ron Paul Archives.

Gary North Archives. And his Freebooks website.

If this list isn't daunting enough Google: Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Carl Menger, Frederick Hayek, Frederick Bastiat, Adam Smith...

What did they expect?

2008-10-08T10:16:00.002-04:00

Lawmakers steamed over ritzy AIG retreat after bailout

Should you vote for the lesser of two evils?

2008-10-08T07:56:00.007-04:00

It depends on the reason why.

I will not, because I will vote my conscience. I cannot in good conscience vote evil into office and thereby be a part of perpetuating evil in our elected leadership.

But I have colleagues who I deeply respect voting for the candidate whom I would call "the lesser of two evils." Are they wrong in taking this course of action? I think not, if their actions are well reasoned. By this I mean that they actually have valid reasons for voting for a major party candidate. Their "good" reasons alone I cannot take issue with...So why do two people who hold such similar beliefs take actions so dissimilar?

I have concluded that we are approaching this particular issue from different perspectives. I am a conscience voter. I believe my friends are approaching the issue from a practical/pragmatic viewpoint. The next question is: How ought one to presuppose this issue? I don't think this question is valid however. I don't think that it is wrong to decide to vote by conscience or vote by what is practical, so long as the issues are clearly understood.

Not one of us believes in salvation by state. This is fundamental. This must never be lost on those who like to debate politics from a distinctively Christian perspective. Another issue which may cause some division is that; that which is pure cannot be elicited from that which is impure. Politicians with faulty views will fix nothing. I hope my friends are keeping this in mind. A vote for a major party candidate will at best slow the descent into chaos. There will be no reversal in policy. If they understand this then I fully support them in their vote; in fact I could almost join them...But I think we need people like me as well as them.

One faction votes to slow the descent into chaos while working for restoration; the other faction votes only for the candidate which "would" bring political restoration while working to bring this country to a point where they would actually vote for him (i.e. "restoration," s.a.a.).

Conclusion: Note that both factions must work for restoration. To ignore this critical element is truly casting a wasted vote (even if the vote is an abstention; God bless the political dissenters). Ultimately salvation is by the cross. Preaching Christ crucified is what will bring restoration. Preaching Christ's Lordship over every area of life will bring restoration. Obedience to the preaching is what will bring restoration.

FED: Private or Public?...er...Hybrid?

2008-10-07T20:40:00.002-04:00

In response to a comment; Gary North on his Q&A forum:

If the FED is not private "at all," then why do all the 12 regional Fed banks have .org in their web addresses? Why do they all pay postage, unlike the Board of Governors?

The Board of Governors has .gov. It is a government institution. It mails out under the government's frank.

You learn something new everyday. The FED really is a monstrous hybrid from Jekyll sland.

Are we in recession?

2008-10-07T20:37:00.002-04:00

Depression, recession, mild downturn...What do these words mean anyways?

Did anyone see this coming? Yes. I was warned by those who study economic theory. By all indications as of the end of 2007 we were heading for recession.

If you want to learn more check out this required reading list: The Recession Reader

Gary DeMar on Third Party Candidacy for President

2008-10-07T18:19:00.002-04:00

Third Parties and Political Presumption, Gary DeMar

I understand the point being made. And I agree that we ought not ignore local politics, but by the same token we ought not swing to an extreme in the opposite direction.

In my mind, I have to make one of two choices: vote my conscience or abstain. I will not vote for evil when it is in my hand to vote for righteousness. Don't waste your vote!

So far it looks like my candidates will be:
President/VP - Chuck Baldwin/Darrell Castle (Constitution Party)
U.S. Senate (SC) - Bob Conley (Democrat)
U.S. House - District 1 - NONE
Anyone running below that doesn't appear to have competition and I haven't (yet?) evaluated their platforms.

SC Voting...

2008-10-06T08:29:00.004-04:00

Are you registered? Too late if you are not, but if you've forgotten where you need to vote check out the SC State Election Commission website.

Berkeley Co. Candidates

Charleston Co. Candidates

Dorchester Co. Candidates

The evil in counting.

2008-10-05T23:51:00.001-04:00

Dan,

I was thinking of Deut 17:14-17;

14 “When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,’ 15 you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman. 16 “Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, ‘You shall never again return that way.’ 17 “He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself. (NASB)

But, there was no mention of a census! I was wrong. Obviously there were principles laid out here that may be taken to cover the way in which David carried out his census.

The passage you spoke of was II Sam. 24 and its parallel is in in I Chron. 21.

My footnotes (Geneva) make some good points:

II Sam. 24:2 For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which [was] with him, Go speedily now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the (c) number of the people.

(c) Because he did this to try his power and so to trust therein, it offended God, else it was lawful to number the people, Exod. 30:12; Num. 1:2.

I Chron. 21:1 And (a) Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

(a) He tempted David, in setting before his eyes his excellency and glory, his power and victories, read 2 Sam. 24:1.

21:3 And Joab answered, The LORD increased his people an hundred times so many as they [be], O my lord the king: [are] they not all my lord’s servants? wherefore doeth my lord require this thing? why should he be a cause of (c) trespass to Israel?

(c) It was a thing indifferent and usual to number the people, but because he did it of an ambitious mind, as though his strength stood in his people, God punished him.

Conclusion: Numbering the people was not itself a sin. But, it could be a sin if done for the wrong reasons as evidenced by the scriptural account with David, Joab, et al.

Vote No for those who voted Yes

2008-10-04T14:48:00.008-04:00

Find your Representative in the roll call for the vote on the bailout...er, Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

My SC Rep Brown is down. Whoever the Democrat running against him may get my vote...

"Nobody really wanted to do this" and yet they did. They didn't want to vote against "their conscience," so they ignored the voters who put them in office. Pardon me!? Honorable Sir/Madam, I am your conscience. You are answerable to me, not Wall Street bankers. But I guess I have no sway with you because I don't pander to you. But I thought you worked for me...

If you (reader) want to make a difference, know that we are in the fight for the long haul.

1. Educate yourself (Google: campaign for liberty, restore the republic, ludvig von mises institute, austrian economics, Christian economics, gary north, ludvig von mises, frederick hayek, carl menger, murray rothbard, laissez faire, austrian theory of the trade cycle, rousas john rushdoony, david chilton, greg bahnsen, ron paul, constitution party, howard phillips, etc.)

2. Stay away from D.C./get involved locally ("All politics is local.").

3. Educate/catechize/indoctrinate your children in the same, thereby perpetuating the growing ranks of freedom lovers (who will do the same, and on and on and on).

Senate roll call vote on the bailout bill.

Senate roll call vote on the bailout amendment.

Update: Gary North's post that inspired my call to arms: A Civics Lesson for Very Slow Learners: American Voters

A small victory for liberty

2008-09-29T21:37:00.002-04:00

Lawmakers quickly point fingers after bailout fails

Energy Efficient Homes

2008-09-24T08:16:00.001-04:00

A link was passed my way and I thought I'd pass it on. Although I think it applies more to new construction, it should still offer many tips to current homeowners.

http://www.dougrye.com/

Managed "Free" Market

2008-09-24T08:11:00.002-04:00

Conservatives: 'Take a breath' before passing bailout

"Nobody wants to do this. Nobody wants to be involved in this. Nobody wants to take the chance, but I would argue... if we do nothing, we are jeopardizing our economy, jobs and people's retirement security," [Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the top Republican in the House] said.

"[I]f we do nothing" is exactly what this country needs from you Sir. Please do nothing and allow the economy to right itself.

Shameful behavior

2008-09-24T07:58:00.003-04:00

Commentary: Christian bookstore's shameful actions

Story Highlights
Lifeway stores put Christian magazine behind counter

Magazine featured female pastors on its cover

Lifeway has no respect for freedom of the press, Martin says

Lifeway, Southern Baptist Convention should apologize, he says

What gives religion a bad name? Behavior so described and responses of the like. Yes, it is true the bookstores should have been more professional. But deal with it on that level. The moment you start making it a religious issue then professionalism isn't what the true story is about, but the real story is one of retaliation for hurting his wife's feelings.

We can deal with the polemics in another forum but to give your interpretation of doctrine is to add insult to injury. Furthermore you undermine the authority of scripture by claiming that not all of scripture is God breathed and given by Him. Even when Paul said "this is my own thoughts," was he not carried along by the Spirit?

The very breath of God

2008-09-22T20:44:00.004-04:00

John 20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

Interesting, C.S. Lewis makes use of this picture of Christ with his character of Aslan. God breathing is an amazing thing. Oh, what wonders wrought by the very breath of God!

Whether He meant for them then to receive or later to receive, it would seem very awkward if it was Jesus returning only in a different form. Other passages would also be awkward to read if there are not three distinct persons in the Godhead.

May God heal our land

2008-09-22T12:35:00.002-04:00

2 Chronicles 32:25 But Hezekiah gave no return for the benefit he received, because his heart was proud; therefore wrath came on him and on Judah and Jerusalem. 26 However, Hezekiah humbled the pride of his heart, both he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the wrath of the LORD did not come on them in the days of Hezekiah.

And that folks is the only mention of sin in Hezekiah. Not that he was nearly perfect or any other such nonsense, but it goes to show you that no one is perfect. Even those we would highly esteem are not perfect. I do not remember where I read this but someone pointed out that the only person mentioned in the Bible (besides Jesus) who is mentioned without a speaking of his sin is Joseph (assuming that Jesus did not sin and for Joseph it is not spoken of).

Even after these verses it goes on to laud Hezekiah with more praise. Just remember, he was but a man. Getting beyond that however he is worthy of looking up to and we should all strive to be like him (amongst others we should be like of course). He came out of a time of wickedness and restored a godly social order. No he was not perfect but what he did was acceptable to God so that God would heal the land. I pray that we too could restore a godly social order and that we might do the right thing if not in exactly the right way but that God may still heal our land.

God and War

2008-09-22T12:23:00.004-04:00

2 Chronicles 32:8 "With him is only an arm of flesh, but with us is the LORD our God to help us and to fight our battles." And the people relied on the words of Hezekiah king of Judah.

Does this apply today? Could we say that "God is with us" when we go to battle (i.e. given a just war)? Does this mean we wouldn't have to fight or be the best war fighters we could be?

I think that would be an extremist view of the verse. Notice in the second part of the verse that God would "help" them and "fight" their battles. But God cannot help those who do nothing. God could fight the battle for those who do nothing but it appears that He wouldn't always do that. So given the case that He 'merely' helps, what is the scenario? Men fight with all their ability and they win because God has deemed it so. That is true in any case. If we win or lose it is because God has deemed it so.

So when was the last time that America won? Makes you wonder...

2 Chronicles 32:17 He also wrote letters to insult the LORD God of Israel, and to speak against Him, saying, "As the gods of the nations of the lands have not delivered their people from my hand, so the God of Hezekiah will not deliver His people from my hand." 18 They called this out with a loud voice in the language of Judah to the people of Jerusalem who were on the wall, to frighten and terrify them, so that they might take the city. 19 They spoke of the God of Jerusalem as of the gods of the peoples of the earth, the work of men's hands. 20 But King Hezekiah and Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, prayed about this and cried out to heaven. 21 And the LORD sent an angel who destroyed every mighty warrior, commander and officer in the camp of the king of Assyria. So he returned in shame to his own land. And when he had entered the temple of his god, some of his own children killed him there with the sword. 22 So the LORD saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib the king of Assyria and from the hand of all others, and guided them on every side.

The God of the Old Testament

2008-09-20T16:24:00.010-04:00

Selections from the narrative:

2 Chronicles 30:3 since they could not celebrate [the Passover] at that time, because the priests had not consecrated themselves in sufficient numbers, nor had the people been gathered to Jerusalem.

9 "...For the LORD your God is gracious and compassionate, and will not turn His face away from you if you return to Him."

but they laughed them to scorn and mocked them. (vs. 10)

11 Nevertheless some men of Asher, Manasseh and Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem. 12 The hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the LORD.

15 Then they slaughtered the Passover lambs on the fourteenth of the second month. And the priests and Levites were ashamed of themselves, and consecrated themselves and brought burnt offerings to the house of the LORD. 16 They stood at their stations after their custom, according to the law of Moses the man of God; the priests sprinkled the blood which they received from the hand of the Levites. 17 For there were many in the assembly who had not consecrated themselves; therefore, the Levites were over the slaughter of the Passover lambs for everyone who was unclean, in order to consecrate them to the LORD. 18 For a multitude of the people, even many from Ephraim and Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun, had not purified themselves, yet they ate the Passover otherwise than prescribed. For Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, "May the good LORD pardon 19 everyone who prepares his heart to seek God, the LORD God of his fathers, though not according to the purification rules of the sanctuary." 20 So the LORD heard Hezekiah and healed the people. (Emphasis mine.)

25 All the assembly of Judah rejoiced, with the priests and the Levites and all the assembly that came from Israel, both the sojourners who came from the land of Israel and those living in Judah. 26 So there was great joy in Jerusalem, because there was nothing like this in Jerusalem since the days of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel. 27 Then the Levitical priests arose and blessed the people; and their voice was heard and their prayer came to His holy dwelling place, to heaven.

2 Chronicles 31:20 Thus Hezekiah did throughout all Judah; and he did what was good, right and true before the LORD his God. 21 Every work which he began in the service of the house of God in law and in commandment, seeking his God, he did with all his heart and prospered.

God requires holiness.

God accepts less.

God requires absolute obedience to a rigid standard.

God helps us to keep His law by direct aid through the Holy Spirit and by declaring us righteous because of the work of Christ on the cross.

Perfectionism is an unachievable earthly ideal. In heaven we will be perfect. Moderation and a heart that desires/loves God is an achievable earthly concept.

God wants true worshipers, He wants people who will come to His marriage supper when He invites them, He wants people who are poor in spirit, He wants obedience rather than sacrifice, He wants us to be fully devoted to Him.

In our current state we will not give God what He requires without Him first giving it to us to give to Him. All in all we will become more like Him each day and will continue this process of growth through all of eternity. If this is true then why fret the small stuff? Worry first about the big picture: am I saved? do I love God and follow Him? am I giving Him His due in my life? in every area of my life? and so on...working towards the details understanding that God still does require holiness.

Truly this man was the Son of God

2008-09-19T08:45:00.005-04:00

John 18:38-40 38 Pilate said..."I find no guilt in Him.

John 19:1-42 1 Pilate then took Jesus and scourged Him.

John 19:7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God." 8 Therefore when Pilate heard this statement, he was even more afraid; 9 and he entered into the Praetorium again and said to Jesus, "Where are You from?" But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 So Pilate said to Him, "You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?" 11 Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."

A response only the Son of God would give. Any mere mortal would have cowered at the thought of the loss of his life but Jesus had no reason to fear. Previously Pilate said "Behold, the Man!" but after this exchange with Jesus, Pilate was a bit more subdued and said "Behold, your King!" Even Pilate was afraid of what might God do to him if he had Jesus crucified.

But his superstitious fear was not greater than his fear that the people would spread the word that Pilate was an enemy of Caesar. His immediate situation was at stake and this proved to be a stronger incentive for Pilate, but to try and become an outsider to this Jewish affair he "washes his hands" of the situation and "Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified."

God's or man's works?

2008-09-19T08:38:00.005-04:00

2 Chronicles 29:36 Then Hezekiah and all the people rejoiced over what God had prepared for the people, because the thing came about suddenly.

Did Hezekiah restore a godly order on his own initiative? Was it by God's direction? Is free will and sovereignty antithetical?

Psalm 85:1 O LORD, You showed favor to Your land; You restored the captivity of Jacob. 2 You forgave the iniquity of Your people; You covered all their sin. Selah. 3 You withdrew all Your fury; You turned away from Your burning anger. 4 Restore us, O God of our salvation, And cause Your indignation toward us to cease. 5 Will You be angry with us forever? Will You prolong Your anger to all generations? 6 Will You not Yourself revive us again, That Your people may rejoice in You? 7 Show us Your lovingkindness, O LORD, And grant us Your salvation.

8 I will hear what God the LORD will say; For He will speak peace to His people, to His godly ones; But let them not turn back to folly. 9 Surely His salvation is near to those who fear Him, That glory may dwell in our land. 10 Lovingkindness and truth have met together; Righteousness and peace have kissed each other. 11 Truth springs from the earth, And righteousness looks down from heaven. 12 Indeed, the LORD will give what is good, And our land will yield its produce. 13 Righteousness will go before Him And will make His footsteps into a way.

I guess it is God. But don't think that human responsibility is denied by affirming God as sovereign. Just because it may not make sense right now to affirm both doesn't mean you should throw one of these biblical truths away. Hezekiah did some amazing things, inspiring really. But God also worked out some wonderful things through Hezekiah and Judah/Israel. So we ought to pray that what we do is God's will because He is going to get His way no matter what. And we should be thankful when what we do is acceptable to God.

The Kingdom of God

2008-09-19T08:33:00.003-04:00

John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

Note that Jesus is not saying that His kingdom is not in this world but that it is not of or from this world. It is not like the kingdoms of this world but it is in this world as it is "within [us] (Luke 17:21)" Again note that He has asked the Father "thy kingdom come" to this world and that "But if I cast out devils...the kingdom of God is come unto you (Mat 12:28)." and on and on and on. Over and over you hear that the kingdom is near; know that the kingdom is here. Based on what Jesus said, the kingdom came with the coming of the King of kings. His ascension marked His inauguration. The kingdom is not like the kingdoms of this world, thus it is not of this world; but don't make the mistake in thinking that it is not currently here among/within us. We are in the kingdom of His dear Son even now. There is more yet to come, but that is another story...

Doing homework...

2008-09-18T14:03:00.001-04:00

Post

Be like Jesus

2008-09-16T12:21:00.004-04:00

John 18:4 Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, "Whom do you seek?" 5 They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus said to them, "I am he." Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. 6 When Jesus said to them, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground. 7 So he asked them again, "Whom do you seek?" And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth." 8 Jesus answered, "I told you that I am he. So, if you seek me, let these men go." 9 This was to fulfill the word that he had spoken: "Of those whom you gave me I have lost not one."

May we only be meek, like Jesus...?

Meek:
1 : enduring injury with patience and without resentment : mild
2 : deficient in spirit and courage : submissive
3 : not violent or strong : moderate

A. Not true. Jesus was bold as well. Notice that He was bargaining with the Roman soldiers for the lives of His disciples. He was also scathing at times using ideas such as "snakes" and "rotting corpses" when referring to some people.

Jesus was perfect. We ought to be like Him. Not only are we to be meek like Him we are also to be bold like Him. No, we are not perfect, but there is a whole body of literature encompassing confrontational Christianity: imprecatory Psalms, apocalyptic literature, and wise warnings all with vivid descriptions of the despicability of the spiritual state of the people you talk to and enloy the company of every day.

We don't need to unload all of this at once on the people around us but we need to remember that no matter how nice they are, they are not going to heaven without salvation. And how shall they be saved if they do not hear? Have blessed feet...Be bold about your faith.

B. Notice the authority with which Jesus spoke. The soldiers "drew back and fell to the ground" when Jesus spoke "I am he." That is the power of God. Don't expect for others to do this when you speak in boldness, but speak with boldness anyways and don't fear what persecution may come...You can be wise, circumspect, and shrewd in some senses though, note that.

C. Election: "Of those whom you gave me I have lost not one." His disciples were elect for sure but what about everyone else not recorded by scripture as such? Are we elect? "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word (John 17:20)."

It appears that the immediate application of what Jesus spoke directly referred to His disciples. But I think he places a caveat to be reckoned with. Much/if not all (there's my caveat) of what He says may also refer to "those also who believe," which would include all covenant keepers of today as well.

Ergo, you may take rest in the fact that Jesus will not lose you if so be that you really are in Him. Seek to be sure that you are in Him and take rest.

Thoughts on Sovereignty

2008-09-16T12:02:00.003-04:00

LORD, let all of these things mentioned happen/cause them to happen so "That they may know that You alone, whose name is the LORD, Are the Most High over all the earth (Psalm 83:18)."

As Christians we take the Law-Word of God to be our ultimate presupposition, for it is God's revelation to us. The Scriptures teach that God is the Most High. In theological/philosophical language we say that God is and that God is Sovereign.

If these thoughts are not the starting point of our thinking then we have already gone astray from our very intellectual "birth." Yes, original sin has even influenced our intellect besides will and emotions; thus it is imperative that we rely on the Word alone to give us the foundations of thought and life.

Following this then, get rid of any ideas of autonomy. Just say no to: natural law theory and instead embrace some degree of theonomy (be pro-God's law), rationalism and instead let God remain true and every man a liar (even if it doesn't make sense to our human reason) and autonomy and instead embrace sovereignty (because the LORD He is the Most High).

God gave some...

2008-09-15T07:56:00.003-04:00

John 17:6 "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 7 "Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; 8 for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me. 9 "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for
they are Yours; 10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.

20 "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.

Did Jesus Christ give His life a sacrifice for all men's sins or the sins of those God gave Him? And not only the elect that were there with Him, but all of the elect in Jesus' "past," present and "future"...

Intergenerational Sin

2008-09-15T07:44:00.001-04:00

2 Chronicles 25:4 However, he did not put their children to death, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, which the LORD commanded, saying, "Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, nor sons be put to death for fathers, but each shall be put to death for his own sin."

Yet God will "[visit] the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation (Deuteronomy 5:9)." Although God does this He does not allow us to judge others in this manner. We are not God. We must judge based solely on the actions of the individual...Similarly Jesus Christ "of thine own mouth will I judge thee (Luke 19:22)"...Remember sin is ethical, not metaphysical.

Note: God imputes sin but I'm not sure if He condemns solely based on imputation alone. That is a tough issue to answer, which I cannot at this moment.

A nation of priests.

2008-09-14T01:09:00.003-04:00

Every Christian is a priest. He needs no mediator to go to God. What about she...? Neither does she.

What I'm getting at is the priesthood of women. Is a female Christian a priest? Emphatically, yes! We all know Him. So what happens when I'm gone? Do I leave my boy in charge of the house in some patriarchal fashion with my wife simply as the young child's caretaker or is my wife in charge when I'm gone.

Patriarchal tendencies in conservative Christian circles would lead you to behave in such a way as to affirm the priesthood of only male Christians; at least this is my perception. But this subverts the Biblical idea that we are a nation of priests.

When I'm gone: school/work or deployed for six months; my wife will act as the priest of the home to facilitate the spiritual/religious life of our family. When I'm home it should be no different except that I will too act as a priest. And for those who think I'm attempting to subvert lines of authority, I'm not. Just think of me as the high priest of my home and my wife as a priest who functions in my stead when I'm gone.

Let us lay wait & other conspiracies...

2008-09-14T00:17:00.012-04:00

Psalm 35:20 "For [they that hate me without a cause] speak not peace: but they devise deceitful matters against them that are quiet in the land."

I am not a conspiracy theorist. In my mind their is no point theorizing about what the Bible forbids us to think about (Eph. 5:12). Especially when I already know that there are those that "devise deceitful matters against them that are quiet in the land."

Title: Let us lay wait...

2 Chronicles 24:21 "So they conspired against him and at the command of the king they stoned him to death in the court of the house of the LORD."

2 Chronicles 24:25 "And when they were departed from [Joash], (for they left him in great diseases,) his own servants conspired against him for the blood of the sons of Jehoiada the priest, and slew him on his bed, and he died: and they buried him in the city of David, but they buried him not in the sepulchres of the kings. 26 Now these are those who conspired against him: Zabad the son of Shimeath the Ammonitess, and Jehozabad the son of Shimrith the Moabitess."

2 Chronicles 25:27 "From the time that Amaziah turned away from following the LORD they conspired against him in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish; but they sent after him to Lachish and killed him there."

Psalm 83:3 "They make shrewd plans against Your people, And conspire together against Your treasured ones. 4 They have said, "Come, and let us wipe them out as a nation, That the name of Israel be remembered no more." 5 For they have conspired together with one mind; Against You they make a covenant:"

Are works necessary?

2008-09-13T23:52:00.003-04:00

John 15:8 "My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples."

The presence of fruit doesn't make a tree. This is a fallacy involving confusion between the antecedent and the consequent. You can say however that the presence of fruit proves a tree (id est: under two conditions:

1. Tree "X" bears "X" fruit [universal affirmative].
2. Only tree "X" bears "X" fruit [universal negative; to see the negative more clearly it can be re-phrased as 'No other tree but tree "X" bears "X" fruit.'].)

A logical case could be made to prove a tree by its fruit, but the fruit does not precede the tree. It cannot make the tree from which it came. Likewise morals/ethics do not save. One cannot make himself right with God by repenting, he must first be restored by God (Psalm 80:19) before he can repent.

Are works necessary? Absolutely. How else are you going to prove to be Christ's disciples?

Government and the hearts of a people

2008-09-12T12:11:00.004-04:00

2 Chronicles 21:11 Moreover, he made high places in the mountains of Judah, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to play the harlot and led Judah astray.

A government cannot make a nation righteous, but it can lead the people astray. This should be a warning to anyone Christian who may want to get invovled in politics. The state brings only negative sanctions to the nation. The church is to bring the positive sanctions.

Get all the humanitarians out of the government and into the church where they would be more effective (t.i.c.). The Christian in government should have as his priority to prevent/minimize abuses of the tool negative sanctions (a.k.a. "the sword"), but should not be mistaken if he thinks that the state should be used for positive sanctions. Peace will not come by the sword.

Righteous leadership

2008-09-11T12:57:00.004-04:00

2 Chronicles 20:32 [Jehoshaphat] walked in the way of his father Asa and did not depart from it, doing right in the sight of the LORD. 33 The high places, however, were not removed; the people had not yet directed their hearts to the God of their fathers.

This was an indictment against Jehoshaphat; he did good but he failed in other areas. He did not tear down the "pagan shrines" (NLT) and the people did not change their hearts towards God. It is interesting to note that the latter was part of the indictment of Jehoshaphat's reign. No; government cannot save you, but how much influence can the government have on the hearts of a people?

2 Chronicles 27:2 [Jotham] did right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father Uzziah had done; however he did not enter the temple of the LORD. But the people continued acting corruptly.

There again another mention of the king's shortcoming(s) followed closely by the ethics of the nation.

2 Chronicles 28:19 For the LORD humbled Judah because of Ahaz king of Israel, for he had brought about a lack of restraint in Judah and was very unfaithful to the LORD.

How is it that sin is so easily propagated? Why do we say that you cannot force a nation to be Christian but we see all throughout history the forcing of nations to anti-God religion...Ahaz forced Judah/Israel to worship the gods of the Assyrians...But God is faithful in that He retains His remnant.

God is not like man.

2008-09-10T08:49:00.002-04:00

Psalm 78:65 Then the Lord awoke as if from sleep, Like a warrior overcome by wine.

God is not like man...Oftentimes anthropomorphisms are used to characterize God's actions. But don't make the mistake in thinking God is like man.

Rather man ought to aspire to be like God. And what is God like? You'll have to read His Law-Word to find out.

CP Email Newsletter; 9/8/08

2008-09-08T20:01:00.004-04:00

Rep. Ron Paul Asks Only “Secure Borders” Presidential Candidate to Join His Press Conference:

Chuck Baldwin of Constitution Party to be Joined by Border Agent’s Wife

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin (www.Baldwin08.com) will join former GOP presidential candidate Rep Ron Paul (R-Tex.) at a News Conference at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, September 10, 2008, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

Baldwin, who joined other constitutionalists at Ron Paul’s “Shadow Convention” on September 2 in Minneapolis, will be joined by Monica Ramos, wife of imprisoned Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos. Baldwin has called for the immediate pardon and release of Ramos and Jose Compean, who are serving 11 and 12 year sentences for attempting to uphold immigration law.

Congressman Paul, who is expected to present non-negotiable points voters must demand from a presidential candidate, invited Chuck Baldwin, the only anti-illegal immigrant amnesty presidential candidate, to the September 10 News Conference. Baldwin, a long-time critic of the open-borders policy,will join concerned Americans attending the annual Hold Their Feet To The Fire Radio Row protest and Lobby Days sponsored by the Federation for American Immigration Reform(FAIR) Congressional Task Force.(www.feettothefire08.com)

Baldwin, a popular political commentator on national TV shows, is a radio talk show host, author of two books, and pastor of the Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola. Florida. He is the only candidate who received an “EXCELLENT” rating by pro-secure borders group Numbers USA .

The group rated Obama and McCain “abysmal” and rated Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr “bad” on the immigration issue. (http://www.baldwin08.com/files/ImmigrationIssues.pdf)

“The United States government aids and abets illegal criminals, and jails its own law enforcement agents for doing their job. Despite these injustices, both parties controlling our government offer us more of the same with identical pro-amnesty presidential candidates,” Baldwin said.

“Neither Obama nor McCain will end the invasion from the south, nor have they called for the release of our brave border agents. I am the only candidate representing the 75% of Americans who want illegal immigration and amnesty to end.”

In April 2008, Chuck Baldwin was elected by delegates of the nationwide Constitution Party to be their presidential candidate. The CP, founded in 1992, was initially called the U.S. Taxpayers Party. It is the fifth political party to be recognized by the Federal Election Commission. It's expected to be on the ballot in almost every state.

____________________________________________________

You can read it online here.

Just further proof that voting "Republican" is a completely wasted vote. Sarah Palin seems to be conservative...Great. What is she going to do when someone else (McCain) gets elected...That's what I thought.

If you want a better political climate in America vote CP, especially if you're a Christian; you won't have to compromise your values for a bowl of porridge.

Thoughts on Sovereignty

2008-09-08T08:22:00.000-04:00

2 Chronicles 16:12 In
the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa became diseased in his
feet. His disease was severe, yet even in his disease he did not
seek the LORD, but the physicians.

I don't think that the Bible is here being antogonistic to medicine but the abuse of it. God must be first. All else comes second to Him.

Once the proper order is established, then all things are lawful, though maybe not expedient.

Logical Order of the Decrees of God

2008-09-07T23:33:00.007-04:00

Borrowed from http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm

I liked this table comparing the alternate views of the logical order of the decrees of God (not chronological order).

Note: Click on the picture for a better view.

Cursed is He who is hanged on a tree...

2008-09-07T22:13:00.002-04:00

Deuteronomy 21:22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged [is] accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance.

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:

Trees represent life. Especially the tree of life. But in general trees represent life. In the garden which was in Eden God gave man the fruit of every tree to eat as food save one. Trees = life.

What happens when you turn an instrument of life into an instrument of death? You are cursed. This is not some voodoo hex I'm talking about, it is simply the sanctions God imposes upon sin. Blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. If you turn tools of life into tools of death you are cursed and the curse of God is upon you/your nation.

Abortion is an obvious reference. But what about hanging on a tree? If you kill/are killed by hanging on a tree this is the curse of God. The Roman nation was cursed and is no longer around today. Jesus Christ was cursed. (Sounds kind of sacrilegious to say.)

Maj. premise: Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.
Min. premise: Christ was hanged on a tree.
Concl: Christ was cursed.

But that is not to say that Christ was paying a penalty for a sin He committed...He was paying the penalty for sin. Again He was cursed.

Isaiah 53:5 But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

I Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Copied from Blue Letter Bible.

Thanks be to God for His sovereignty and providence without which none could be saved.

Impale...Pale-Im...Palin

2008-09-07T21:36:00.002-04:00

Just Politics as usual...And people don't see it.

If you do, read Sarah Palin as Stalking Horse and Sugar and Spice and Everything Nice?.

The answer for America is not a dream of a better America but a reality of a better America. You want reality...People are stupid, lazy, power-hungry, greedy, gluttonous, and such the like...I apologize if you take offense to my calling you out, but it is necessary.

Truth is the only answer. Not edited truth, mind you. Austrian economics and Libertarian politics have a measure of truth but they are not enough to solve the real problems. "Larceny in our hearts" can only be solved by the Lord Jesus Christ.

Hey Hanna!

2008-09-05T19:43:00.002-04:00

Weathering the storm...(7:23pm)

Borrowed from http://www.weather.com/maps/news/atlstorm8/floater5_large.html?from=hp_main_maps.

Coming to you live from Goose Creek...Well, almost live. The picture is from about 24 minutes ago.

(7:47pm)

(8:49pm)

Hurricanes

2008-09-03T22:03:00.002-04:00

If you didn't know, now you do:

23-39 mph wind speeds = Tropical Depression

40-74 mph wind speeds = Tropical Storm

74-95 mph wind speeds = Category I Hurricane

96-110 mph wind speeds = Category II Hurricane

111-130 mph wind speeds = Category III Hurricane

131-155 mph wind speeds = Category IV Hurricane

>155 mph wind speeds = Category V Hurricane

Data collected from http://www.weather.com/newscenter/hurricanecentral/2008/hanna.html

Latest Thoughts on Bruce Ivins

2008-08-27T21:11:00.002-04:00

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 of John Frame on the Ninth Commandment

2008-08-25T01:09:00.004-04:00

[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

2008-08-25T00:25:00.004-04:00

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.

Paedocommunion

2008-08-24T22:16:00.001-04:00

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.

New Home Business!

2008-08-24T21:56:00.011-04:00

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.

Homeschooling: Classical Education and Curricula

2008-08-23T23:28:00.016-04:00

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 (*****).

Questions for Pelagians or Semi-Pelagians

2008-08-23T12:35:00.005-04:00

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.

BBL 101 Lecture 1

2008-08-22T23:42:00.000-04:00

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.

Is sex evil?

2008-08-22T18:50:00.005-04:00

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

Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism & Augustinianism

2008-08-22T16:52:00.010-04:00

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.

God's Work in Creation is Direct

2008-08-17T15:23:00.004-04:00

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.

Sin is Ethical not Metaphysical

2008-08-17T01:46:00.005-04:00

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.

Greenhouse Gas, Coal and more Gas

2008-08-16T03:26:00.008-04:00

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?

Interesting Read [Updated...And Beyond]

2008-08-16T00:26:00.013-04:00

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.

Looking for a Biblical Defense of the American War for Independence

2008-08-15T22:53:00.009-04:00

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.

South Carolina Traffic Cameras

2008-08-14T00:12:00.001-04:00

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/

Discriminatory Tax Cuts

2008-08-12T19:40:00.003-04:00

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.

The Covenant in the Sermon

2008-08-12T17:06:00.005-04:00

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.

Classic Liberalism

2008-08-11T02:48:00.002-04:00

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.

God Ordained Institutions

2008-08-10T22:36:00.005-04:00

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.

Quaestiones and Rhetoric

2008-08-05T16:05:00.003-04:00

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.

Privacy is Sovereignty

2008-08-04T09:46:00.002-04:00

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.

Excerpt from Constitution Party Email Update

2008-08-04T01:03:00.003-04:00

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.

It is so easy to be a Politician

2008-08-03T00:33:00.002-04:00

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

Anthrax, Vaccines and Terrorists

2008-08-01T10:45:00.003-04:00

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.

Evangelism the Reformed Way

2008-07-30T10:36:00.003-04:00

What is evangelism? To many Christians evangelism is what they support through missions. Others feel it is more tangible and must be themselves preaching on a street corner. Still others believe that their lives as lived is another form of evangelism.

Which one is right? Are any right or wrong? Paul says in 2Ti 4:5, "But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry." and Peter says in 1Pe 3:15, "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

So we are all required to do the work of evangelist because that is what the Bible says, right? Lifting one verse out of the Bible and using it in such a manner is called proof-texting (I think). And in this case we would be wrong to proof-text in this way. What is the context in which this verse is given?

2 Timothy 4

1I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus
Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove,
rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3For the time
will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts
shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4And they
shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an
evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

Paul is giving direction to Pastors not laymen, we should take note of this and then draw out the principle that we are to follow. What is the context that Peter speaks in?

1 Peter 3

8Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as
brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:
9Not rendering evil for evil, or
railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto
called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
10For he that will love
life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that
they speak no guile:
11Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek
peace, and ensue it.
12For the eyes of the Lord are over the
righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is
against them that do evil.
13And who is he that will harm you, if ye
be followers of that which is good?
14But and if ye suffer for
righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be
troubled;
15But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready
always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that
is in you with meekness and fear:
16Having a good conscience; that,
whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that
falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

This is addressed to all Christians. It appears to me that a cursory view here of these two passages show slight differences in the roles of differing parts of the body. Pastors are called directly, in the tradition of the Apostles, to do the work of an Evangelist and that laymen not neglect this when the opportunity arises. If that is what is being taught in Scripture, then it is wrong for the radical proponents of personal evangelism to condemn those who are not as vocal about their faith.

Here is a good analysis of the modern trend in evangelism: Highly Questionable Methods by Robert Reymond

For more information on Dr. Robert Reymond, see his wiki-bio. He currently shares a Pastoral Ministry at the OPC mission Church plant of Holy Trinity Presbyterian Church.

Calling a Cripple a Cripple

2008-07-29T16:50:00.003-04:00

Do you? No. It is acknowledged, but your mother told you not to stare or point. So you don't do it. But what do you do when a non-cripple vies for attention claiming to be crippled and is somehow entitled to special treatment because of it? You heartily dismiss it or give in ushering in a reign of terror. Not an authoritarian night mare mind you, but a psychological and social nightmare. Why do I say that? What happens when you give a mouse a cookie?

Keep this in mind when you read this: House poised to apologize for slavery, Jim Crow

Let the accusations roll. "If you don't support this then you support slavery." I prefer the third option...There are no living freed slaves today to make reparations to, thus no one is deserving of "cash payments" to make themselves feel better about what happened to someone else.

Cash payments? What? The money I work hard for taken from me to give to someone whom I have not wronged. Does this make sense? Why (if they ever make these cash payments) would I be punished for someone else's sins? Public funds should not be spent in such a manner. It is fiscally irresponsible to do so. I am in support of an official apology but making reparations to people only possibly, indirectly affected is a stretch.

The point of the title:

"African-Americans continue to suffer from the consequences of slavery and Jim Crow -- long after both systems were formally abolished -- through enormous damage and loss, both tangible and intangible, including the loss of human dignity and liberty, the frustration of careers and professional lives, and the long-term loss of income and opportunity," the resolution states.

This suggests that black Americans descended of slaves are incompetent so they need a crutch (even if it is only an emotional one). As an American I am offended in this being suggested of any of my fellow Americans. The black community should be offended too. I am not black or descended of any slaves that I know of...But if I was, for some reason I think that I would not let that get in the way of my ambitions.

What is Safe to Believe?

2008-07-26T19:48:00.003-04:00

I have been reading far too much on the Federal Vision Controversy.

Who should I believe? Well, that is an easy question to answer. Of course, where I am unlearned I should rely on my authorities in the Church at which I am a member. But where my faculties are mature enough I ought to be unmovable, viz. basic Bible teachings.

If what is stated in the blog post "For Those Just Tuning In" is true, then I side against the FV. I will have to go back and re-read my Bible, but I am still convinced of the Reformation Solas. The next thing I need to do is to verify if the FV position obliterates the three covenants (pre-temporal, works, and grace) and if justification (in their understanding) includes "faithfulness." Then I'll need to study the traditional view of justification.

For more information, start here:
For Those Just Tuning in: What is the Federal Vision? (Critical)
Federal Vision (Proponent)
Disputing the Federal Vision

The Real Jesus

2008-07-26T00:10:00.004-04:00

If you want to see skepticism in all of its irrational glory check out this forum thread. This is a good starting place for anyone interested in combating the modern revival of Gnostic "Christianity." It is a long read and provides several external links leading to a detailed study (not by me by any means, no time for that right now).

Now I know better where some people are coming from. (Truly from irrationality, but I know the basis for their questions now.)

In another part of the website Jay Rogers presents his scholastic research on The Real Jesus (someday soon I will jump in).

Disbelief of Disbelief

2008-07-25T22:49:00.004-04:00

It won't get you there...

It is interesting to me that as we travel through life oftentimes the natural course we take turns out to be the right one. As we start to reason we end up going in the opposite direction. But after a thorough study we find ourselves back on the original course. A parlay with the oppositions of science (falsely so-called). God uses the foolish things to confound the wise (in their own eyes).

Example: Someone is raised a Christian (right course). But he accepts the religion w/o any rational basis for doing so. As he goes through Bible College he loses his faith; not implausible as it is anecdotally referenced. He uses his reason or becomes a skeptic (wrong path). Science and religion appear incompatible and so he rejects religion. But if he keeps honestly studying the issue there may be startling consequences. That genius scientist, Sir Isaac Newton, concluded that a God must exist (right course). Similarly many skeptics have come to a saving knowledge of the truth as a result of their honest study.

The Church is Like a Weed in My Lawn?

2008-07-25T15:38:00.005-04:00

I have been weeding my lawn for the last few days and have had some very interesting thoughts because of it. Weeds are resilient, replicative, adaptive, and tenacious amongst other things.

This enumerative list sounds a lot like a description of the Church: In Christ we can do all things (resilient), Make disciples of all nations (replicative), Be all things to all mean that we may win some (adaptive), and Not carried about by every wind of doctrine but holding fast (tenacious).

I have also noticed how that this one particular kind of weed takes on many slightly different appearances, depending on the environment and the stage of its growth. In times of excess watering the weed grows abundantly and yet survives the dry times. When it grows large it begins to divide making it very difficult to uproot. Instead of one weed to pull, in a small area there are more like five weeds to pull.

This got thinking about division in the Church. We are called to have unity but there is something to be said for "precision through division." The Christian faith has been able to aptly compromise within any setting and spread its message through the established order. We may say that this contributes to a "watered-down" Gospel, but God in His perfect understanding has allowed division in the Church. Can we not see how God has even used this to His glory?

The World as [t]he Church

2008-07-25T14:57:00.006-04:00

God is the father of us all. He created all men. The world is His footstool. His dominion is overall, but this has yet to be played out in history. And when all kingdoms submit to Him then will the end be.

In a very obtuse way I am going to say that the whole world is [t]he Church. By this I mean that God created all men and that He has called all men unto Himself. This calling all men unto Himself is not some weak desire for all to be saved nor does God feel a consternation that His will shall not be done. On the contrary, His will is already established and declared end to beginning.

I do not deny that there are two different kingdoms at war. But for the sake of discussion I am going to say rather that there is one Church with two different factions. In the one group we have the covenant-keepers and in the other the covenant-breakers.

The covenant-keepers strive always to retain the relationship with God as it was once for all delivered and revealed. The covenant-breakers want nothing to do with God and want to replace Him with another god or even with themselves. They deny Him and by some even His existence. They observe the lives of the covenant-keepers and are convicted (they know that the covenant-keepers follow the way of truth).

In response to having to confront the truth, the covenant-breaking faction fights against the covenant-keepers. They may preach the message of "tolerance" to the covenant-keeper, "don't force your religion down my throat;"but they seek nothing more than the conversion of all covenant-keepers to the covenant-breaking faction's point of view. They do not want to see division in the "Church" any more than we do. Fundamentally the struggle is one of dominion (it is a comforting thing to know that we can rely on His promises).

Conclusion: The preaching of toleration is a tactic. Their strategy is to replace God at every point possible. The goal is dominion. Christian, you now know your enemy. Love thy enemy. And convert him, because he is trying to convert you. Our goal is dominion. Our strategy is to infuse God into every area of life. Our tactic is to preach the whole counsel of God.

Check out a good article by Schlissel.

Thoughts on Liberty

2008-07-25T14:31:00.004-04:00

What is freedom? Is there anyone truly free? It is a question of perspective really. I am not talking about determinism and human free will; I am referring instead to ascription of sovereignty.

Sovereignty is an inescapable concept. It is not a question of "sovereignty or no sovereignty?" but of "who is sovereign?". To the religious, God (or a god) is sovereign. To the atheist, man is sovereign. And in turn, in the modern state, the state is sovereign.

So according to this, there is no freedom. Choices may be made however. You may choose to serve God, man, the state or anything else vying for control over you. I prefer to serve a benevolent dictator. Man and the state rarely prove themselves as such therefore I find myself in service to God. Man and the state will not show benevolence. They are extreme, intolerant, and have the insatiable craving to run other men's lives.

Check out the this article. Great Britain will destroy itself due to destroying freedoms...That is, unless heavy intervention takes place to prevent the natural course of society, tampering with men's freedoms to serve God will remove incentive to build a lasting civilization.

Read 1984 and Brave New World. These books show two very different (though not unlike) conceptions of where the ruthlessness of man will lead him when ascribes all sovereignty to himself (or the state by extension).

Conclusion: If you want to be free to serve God you must resist evil in all its forms. Evil in personal piety, evil in public society, evil in the church (the fabric of society) and evil in office over society all must equally be dealt with.

The Role of Family in Society

2008-07-23T16:19:00.004-04:00

The church is the institution of positive sanctions while the state beareth the sword. In a child's youth the parents do both. The family functions as a type of church and state until such a time as the child has matured spiritually/religiously and civically.

The church is not a family of families and the state is not either. But to both family is necessary and integral. But this does not make family as such preeminent. That is like saying elementary education is more important than a college education. Both have their place.

Family precedes these two other institutions but there will come a day when a child is liberated, becomes an individual and joins the church and state representing himself. A family represents him when he is young and also administers the sanctions to him. The church nor the state are required by God to raise and train the children He has put here.

Families need to regain the proper role of the family and to not overstep its bounds. Everything written here are simply thoughts not dogma, but these thoughts do merit a place in your contemplations.

Authority

2008-07-23T16:10:00.005-04:00

Christ is head of the church.

A man has been instituted by God as head of the household.

Hierarchy is inescapable.

As such superiority is inescapable. Superiority refers not to quality but to hierarchy. As humans we do not like God's hierarchy. We rebel against Him. We do not like human hierarchy either. We rebel against our earthly authorities as well. But God has given to everyone differing roles.

How do we react to superiority?

When an individual acts and thinks himself superior, we call him an egoist. When someone transfers superiority to a corporate entity such as an ethnicity or a political state, we call him a racist or nationalist, respectively. On the other hand, rarely do we experience truly superior people. That is, a truly superior person would not boast in himself but would present himself as meek and unassuming; oftentimes we call this kind of person weak. Little do we know...