Homeschooling: Classical Education and Curricula

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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]

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

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.