Faith & Politics and Other Normal Subjects

Index to the Works and Sermons of Jonathan Edwards

2009-11-08T15:05:00.001-06:00

Here is a link to the an index of the works, sermons, and miscellanies of Jonathan Edwards:

INDEX of WORKS & SERMONS

Simply Exposit Truthfully: A Review of Gordon Clark’s "The Johannine Logos"

2008-05-04T17:15:00.003-05:00

An erudite and rhetorically eloquent man often astonishes with his intellectually rigorous arguments meticulously pieced together with immaculately technical vocabulary. However, when such a man presents a simple, straightforward, commonsensical and yet comprehensive treatise on the nature of truth and saving faith, one feels rather benumbed by the simplistic majesty of it all. Gordon H. Clark, a man I hold in high regard particularly for his ability to exhaustively and accurately dissect weighty philosophical matters from a biblical perspective, in his monograph entitled The Johannine Logos brings a recaptured and simply clear orthodoxy to the field of New Testament exposition. The book would by no means meet the scholarly demands of modern exegetical commentaries, but that is not its purpose. Clark’s main task is the exposition of the Prologue of John’s Gospel (1:1-14) which necessarily leads Clark to the establishment of a right understanding of truth and the subsequent demands upon our understanding of a biblically saving faith.

Chapter 1 commences with the normal preliminary analyses of the Gospel’s authorship, accuracy, and historicity. Yet, Clark explicitly abandons any higher criticism. Questions over the integrity of any of these basic preliminary matters are of only recent, that is approximately from the mid-nineteenth century on, so-called scholarly investigation.[1] Thus, in a matter of only several well-reasoned pages he faithfully sums up that a rather well-informed, Aramaic speaking man who lived in first century Palestine, and who implicitly testifies to being the Apostle John is the author; that the Gospel was probably written toward the end of the first century; and that it correctly portrays Jesus Christ as the Messianic Son of God.

Yet, this raises the question of the nature of revelation. Does revelation communicate the truth? If so, what is the truth? Clark begins his examination of these topics with John’s purpose of his Gospel, particularly in light of the three Synoptic Gospels. John explicitly provides us with his purpose, "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (20:30-31). Since John’s purpose differed from each of the Synoptics, then his extent, method, and content would also. John narrows his extent to primarily focus on approximately the 20 days leading up to and immediately following Christ’s crucifixion. Such a narrow time frame is coupled with a methodologically detailed eye-witness account that portrays the more private and intimate events in the closing of Christ’s earthly ministry. While these specifics are all guided by John’s purpose, Clark notes that it is John’s explicit statement of purpose that begins to shed light on the nature of truth and salvation.

Thus, Chapter 2 hones in on the exposition of John’s prologue, verses 1-14. Clark states the importance of these opening verses, “There is no compelling reason why a person should not begin with chapter 3 or 4, or 5 or 6; but he must return, if he wishes to understand the Gospel, for the first five verses are as important as they are difficult.”[2] Again, Clark follows the typical approach to verse by verse examination and word study that entails analyzing the secular history, Old Testament history, and the immediate historical context of words and ideas in the verse(s) at hand.

One of the essential aspects to understanding John’s prologue and even John’s entire Gospel is the meaning of Logos: “In the beginning was the Logos.”[3] While these opening verses harken back to Genesis 1, the typical translation of Logos as “word” hardly enlightens the reader as to the term’s significance. Ancient Greek scholar’s contributed to logos’ technical, philosophical meaning. Heraclitus and the Stoics held that the entire world was in constant flux, yet there was one overarching or undergirding law that did not change. This unchanging law they called the Logos. Philo took Plato’s basic idea of logos, simply meaning a verbal proposition, along with Plato’s eternal Ideas, and synthesized them with Old Testament monotheism. Thus, Philo defined the Logos as “the world of Ideas as ideas in the mind of God.” He even called the Logos the Son of God.[4] While the reader can begin to see commonalities between these contextual definitions and John’s use, Clark is clear on a fundamental difference: John’s teaching of the genuinely historical incarnation of the Logos, the Son of God, as a man.

However, Gnostics utilized the idea of the Logos for their own ends. So, it is highly likely that John specifically defines the Logos in an attempt to equip and protect his readers from the circulating pagan logos doctrines. Clark, thus, summarizes the definition of Logos. First, the most straightforward lexical definition is “the idea of thinking, or expression of thought.” Second, “the English cognate is Logic, the science of valid reasoning.” Further, the Greeks saw the Logos as the “supreme intelligence controlling the universe” while the Old Testament “tautologically” provides the Scriptural meaning. Thus, John 1:1 can be translated, “In the beginning was the divine Logic” or “Wisdom,” whichever you prefer.[5]

Clark scrutinizes the significance of this meaning in light of two modern themes: German Romanticism and the Arianism of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Clark, in a simple yet sophisticated display of acumen, hamstrings both themes with the logic and grammar of John’s prologue. All of this to say that Clark’s main emphasis is that John could not be any clearer about the divinity of Christ. John holds forth the divine Son of God: the One that was in the beginning and through whom all things came (vv.1-3), the One who is the intellectual and moral life of all men (v.4), and is not just the manifestation of but actually is the “Logic” of God.[6] This necessarily demands that “reason is the source of life,” thus annihilating any Romantic, existential, or relative handling of the truth.[7]

Clark further focuses on the grammatical aspect of 1:4, and 9. Evidently, John’s implication is that “Christ enlightens every man ever born by having created him with an intellectual and moral endowment” and communicates to man an innate knowledge by virtue of his creation in the image of God. This is juxtaposed with the Jewish rejection and disbelief of Christ in verse 12. Belief in Christ is necessary in order to have “the power, the right, or the authority to become children of God.” The emphasis here is on the belief in the proposition that informs as to the person and work of Christ. Further, Christ, the Logos of God, was in eternity and brought forth creation. Yet, He also and will always enlighten all, both Jew and Gentile, for Christ as the Wisdom of God is the fountain of all knowledge. And lastly, that Christ’s becoming flesh and dwelling among us speaks to John’s broader evangelistic purpose as Christ holds forth the Father’s divine plan in saving a people for Himself.

The reader conversant in the basics of Biblical Greek will certainly recognize there is more than one term that can be translated in the Greek as “word.” Thus, Clark devotes Chapter 3 to examining the differences and commonalities of the two Greek words most often translated “word:” logos and rheema. Logos most foundationally means “a sentence, a proposition, a doctrine, an object of intellectual apprehension.”[8] This comprises the preaching, argumentation, wisdom, etc. that are spoken forth by Christ. While much of these same ideas are manifested in rheema and how it is translated, the most significant difference is the instrument of the communication. Rheema can refer more to the individual words spoken than to the entire proposition. However, this establishes no discrepancies. For propositions, or logos, are both the terms themselves and also the broader, more comprehensive idea represented by the concatenation of terms. It can be proclaimed verbally or inscribed in parchment. Thus, both terms speak to intelligible propositions that reveal the very mind of Christ.

The groundwork has thus been laid for Clark to scrutinize the idea of truth in Chapter 4. Emil Brunner is the unlucky target of Clark’s scrutiny of the popular modern ideas of truth. Specifically, Clark target’s Brunner’s statements that revelation from God has no information – it is devoid of intellectual content. Brunner sees revelation as an event and thus sincerity of belief preeminent. Yet, John 1:17-18 clearly delineates that “the truth that came into being by Jesus Christ is, at least partly, his explanation, interpretation, or exegesis of the unseen Father.”[9] Further, John 3 and 4 demand that moral principles necessarily have propositional content and, as such, proper worship necessitates worshipping in spirit and truth.

Yet, what does the Greek word for truth, aleethes, mean? Clark notes that John, particularly in chapter 5 utilizes aleethes as if in a law court. Several places testify to Jesus’ manifold witnesses: “John the Baptist, the witness of Jesus’ works, the Father himself, the Scriptures, and in the Scriptures especially Moses.”[10] These witnesses make statements about Christ that are either true or false. Truth is the propositional testimony of witnesses. These propositions include statements like “Jesus was the Messiah.”[11] Clark is clear here, “Beyond these statements of intellectual or cognitive content, there is no meaning to the word truth.” Falsehood is thus not found in emotions but in not thinking true propositions. As such, John 14:6 states that truth is the proper object of knowledge. This entails the truth of 17:17 and that sanctification only comes through truth, specifically the propositional truth of God’s revealed word. Thus, truth brings forth life and falsehood ends only in death. Clark closes this chapter with an analysis of the disappointing anti-intellectualism of A.W. Tozer and the muddleheaded paradoxes of Kierkegaard.

The closing chapter entails Clark’s application of what he is exposited thus far to the idea of saving faith. His application centers on the understanding of the biblical term heart and its multifaceted meanings presented by theologians throughout the ages. Clark clearly holds forth heart to mean only mind or intellect. Thus, it is necessary for the heart to believe aright, for “the proper object of belief or faith is a truth (or falsehood).”[12] Yet, what is faith? Clark takes up this matter of the heart by utilizing the typical distinctions of notitia, “the intellectual content known;” assensus, “one’s voluntary acceptance of a proposition;” and fiducia. Calvin’s and Turretin’s teachings on saving faith contain much to be praised, but are not necessarily clear as to the function of fiducia or perhaps the affections. This is particularly seen in Thomas Manton’s statements of fiducia. It is correct, according to Clark, to state that faith entails intellectual understanding and acceptance of the proposition and only God can achieve this through regenerating a man. However, he takes issue with Manton’s additional idea that it is primarily the heart that needs to consent, or affectionately embrace the truth with full conviction. Yet, Manton fails to define consent and fails to carefully exposit the term heart. Scripture most frequently refers to the intellect or the will when using the term heart. Clark states, “The Scripture is so clear that believing is volitional assent to an understood proposition.”[13] Thus, to add an additional passive element of affection is illogical. Is full conviction even stated as necessary, or is this a confusion of assurance with salvation? Clark beautifully simplifies salvific faith so that it succinctly comprises believing the truth about Christ – it is this that saves and sanctifies. However, I hold this to be the weakest chapter in this majestically strong book. First, while men like Calvin, Turretin, and Manton are eminent divines that set the tone of theological debate for centuries, it is primarily the theologian of the soul’s psychology, Jonathan Edwards, who has most significantly defined the current Evangelical understanding of man’s soul. Thus, can one really and comprehensively topple the modern idea of fiducia or affection without engaging the intellect and immense writings of Edwards’ on this subject? Second, if Clark holds that saving faith is comprised of a proper understanding and belief in true propositions of Scripture, how does the soul operate in choosing this belief? Essentially, how does the will operate? Edwards held that the heart is comprised of the affections and the will. Thus, the mind and heart work together in that the former provides a right understanding and the latter is both the seat of the affections and thus also the means and motivation of choosing according to the understanding. Thus, is this more a matter of equivocating over terms than it is a substantial repudiation? That is, has Clark simply summarized in the two terms of mind and will the operations that Edwards describes as the mind and the heart, with heart both containing affections and will?

Nonetheless, this is an excellent book. Clark’s preeminent strength is his use of both logic and the original languages in his exposition. Thus, he approaches the text with a hermeneutic that faithfully draws out the meaning of the text but in such a way that is spurred on and controlled by logic and the proper implications of grammar, syntax, and context. Most of all, Clark provides our modern generation with a proper hermeneutical and expositional approach to the Scriptures. In fact, dare I say that if all preachers of Scriptural truth committed themselves to this rigorous approach of Clark, then perhaps we would have a land filled with sanctified congregants who have no need to be ashamed when called to given an account of the hope that lies within them. Soli Deo Gloria.

[1] Gordon Clark, The Johannine Logos (Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1989), 2.

[2] Ibid. 13

[3] Ibid., 13

[4] Ibid., 16

[5] Ibid., 19

[6] Ibid., 25

[7] Ibid., 26

[8] Ibid., 46

[9] Ibid., 61

[10] Ibid., 64

[11] Ibid., 64

[12] Ibid., 95

[13] Ibid., 115.

John Calvin on Submission and Novelties

2008-03-18T17:31:00.000-05:00

Taken from Calvin's Commentary on Acts 15, verses 1 and 2:

"Those content to blend into the long narrative of church history cause no doctrinal controversy; even if they stray, they accept correction easily. But those who want to stand out must erect some new doctrine to do so, and must not accept correction. Accordingly, let us take careful note of this narrative, so that we may know that it is not something without precedent, if controversies over doctrine still arise among those who profess the same Gospel, when conceited men cannot get the name, which they madly desire, in any other way than by introducing their own fancies. It is certain, indeed, that as God is one, so is His truth one. Therefore when Paul wishes to urge believers to mutual agreement, he makes use of this argument, 'One God, one faith, one baptism' etc. (Eph. 4.5f.). But when we see ungodly men emerge, trying to rend the Church with their factions, and either corrupting the very Gospel with their spurious fabrications or bringing it under suspicion, we ought to be aware of the trickery of Satan. For that reason Paul elsewhere speaks of heresies emerging into the open that those 'who are approved may be made manifest' (I Cor. 11.19). And the Lord certainly frustrates the subtlety of Satan for a wonderful purpose, because He tests the faith of His own people by such trials, He honors His Word with a glorious victory, and He makes the truth, which the wicked have tried to obscure, shine out all the more brightly."

Reformed Protestantism vs. Roman Catholicism

2007-09-04T23:23:00.001-05:00

Side Note: Throughout the article I will refer to Roman Catholicism as RC and Reformed Protestantism as PB (for Presbyterian).

Protestantism and RC agree on many fundamentals. They both believe in the triune-God of the Bible and in the only-begotten, divine Son: Jesus Christ. They both embrace the Apostles Creed; and the declarations of the other early church councils through the 5th century A.D. The divergence in beliefs emerges from the authorities and sources each use for their statements of truth. So, to the subject of authoritative sources (i.e. epistemological foundations) we shall now turn.

RC and PB both hold that the Bible is the divine revelation of God. However, RC adds to its foundation of doctrine the Tradition of the church. The RC Catechism reads, “This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it.”[1] So, the Bible and Tradition combine to establish RC’s authority for life, practice, and teaching. The Catechism goes on, “The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit…. As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, ‘does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.’”[2] Tradition is “the process and content of the transmission of beliefs, doctrines, rituals, Scriptures, and life of the Church…. As content, tradition comprises the whole life of the Church, … all that the Church is and believes.”[3] The interpretation of Scripture and Tradition is the sole duty of the Church’s Magisterium (leadership): “the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.”[4] Since the RC believes that the Pope has the same divine authority, via apostolic succession, as the original Apostles appointed by Christ, then the interpretation or Tradition of the church is thus tantamount to Scripture.

PB, on the other hand, believes that Scripture alone is the sole authority for life, practice, doctrine, and teaching. The Westminster Confession states, “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”[5] It is the Church’s responsibility to ensure correct doctrine is taught from one generation to the next. However, any doctrinal statement or confession of faith is not equal to Scripture, but is secondary and subordinate to Scripture and must be formulated directly from Scripture. The Scriptures can be interpreted by any believing Christian who is guided and enlightened by the Author of the Scriptures: the Holy Spirit, cf. 1 Corinthians 2:10-16 and Romans 8:13-15.[6] Remember, Christ states clearly in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Me.” Christ is the standard for truth, thus it is ONLY what He has spoken and the 1st century Apostles that He pre-authenticated[7] that have the authority to speak forth divine revelation that is both authoritatively binding on all and is also the final standard for all things pertaining to life and godliness (i.e. salvation, sanctification, and society).

Unfortunately, RC allows supposed[8] human reasoning collected over the years, calling it tradition, to be equal to the wisdom and reasoning of God contained in the Bible. Isaiah 55:9 clearly debunks this reasoning when God states, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.” The Bible alone is the only epistemologically authoritative sum of truth for everything and anything pertaining to life, society, godliness, salvation, theology proper, church worship, church structure, and church doctrine – as detailed in 2 Timothy 3:16 and Hebrews 4:12. RC utilizes absolutely NO Scripture to justify its reliance on Tradition as authoritative. I believe this is telling enough that it is thus not a valid approach to truth. Hence, the use of Tradition as a source for authoritative truth is the root of most of the remaining doctrines that RC and PB disagree on.

2. Second, RC and PB severely differ on salvation. Under this doctrine we will cover the rest of the broad differences between the two concerning God, man, and salvation. RC and PB both have a significantly similar Theology Proper.[9] God is understood to be an omniscient, omnipresence, omnipotent, holy, righteous, just, merciful, and gracious Being who is pure Spirit. In Genesis 1, the Bible states that man was created in the image and likeness of God (1:26). RC believes that “image” refers to man’s cognitive and intellectual abilities while “likeness” refers to man’s original righteousness.[10] This view was first explicated in detail by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. RC maintains that when man sinned and fell in the Garden of Eden, he only lost his original righteousness, or “likeness.” Yet, he completely maintained his “image of God” in his thinking, reasoning, and relational faculties. Thus, Adam passes on to his progeny a corrupted nature that is only devoid of its original holiness. The Catechism of the Catholic Church reads,

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.[11]

The fall’s impact on Adam’s progeny, all of mankind, is that they have only relapsed back into their states of pure nature and are only inclined towards sin. They do not have a sinful nature as such, only a leaning or proclivity towards unrighteousness. An interesting note, the Catechism’s reasoning for formulating the above language was to reflect the Council of Trent’s 16th century response to the Protestant Reformation and the Reformers teaching that sin is both a humanly-insurmountable reality and that “original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom.”[12] Catholicism essentially teaches that man is not completely affected by sin. This reflects Aquinas’s and the Roman Catholic Church’s exaltation of man and human reason.[13] Thus, if man is not really bad, then he also plays a significant if not primary role in his salvation.

The salvation of man, in the RC view, is primarily an inward transformation of the soul back into its original righteousness as the individual actively partakes of the passive grace of the sacraments (this is called mediate salvation). Since this is a continual process and mankind still dies with sin, no one can ever really be sure he is saved – thus, in comes the doctrine of purgatory.[14] RC salvation is involved in the appropriation of and participation in the sacraments. As stated, salvation is mediate in the RC view, as opposed to immediate in the Protestant view. That means God deals with not-completely-fallen man mediately through means of salvation, i.e. the sacraments, which work ex opere operato.[15] The sacraments effectually merit the work of Christ to the sinner. Christ wrought salvific grace through His life and death and it is imparted to the sinner through the sacraments. That is, the Lord has appointed “supernaturally endowed instrumentalities” between Himself and the sinner by which saving power flows to the sinner as the sinner partakes of them. As systematic theologian Dr. Reymond notes, “The sacraments cause grace to flow to their recipients by the mere administration of them ‘without any act or movement of the soul in the recipients, accommodating themselves intelligently to the grace signified.” Note the words of the Catechism, “The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.”[16] The effectuality of the sacraments are dependent upon the character of the one partaking of them, as the Catechism notes, “The fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them” – side note: the Catechism provides NO BIBLICAL support for this view but only references the Council of Trent of 1547.[17] Note what this means – salvation is dependent upon the individual already having or faithfully cultivating a righteous and good soul that is made more righteous as he partakes in the sacraments of salvation administered by the RC Church. This is a salvation that is primarily works-based – i.e. eternal life comes through human action.

Baptism is the foundational sacrament that wipes the infant clean of all original sin (RC even refers to it as “spiritual rebirth” in paragraph 1140 of the Catechism). Through the subsequent sacraments, particularly penance and the Mass, the “liabilities of post-baptismal sins are removed.”[18] In fact, RC even believes that the entire Mass centers around the Eucharist in which they really believe that Christ is crucified afresh every time the Eucharist is celebrated.[19] As you can tell, since RC believes that man only lost original righteousness, then salvation is essentially a re-imparting of this lost holiness back into man – thus it is often called “infused righteousness.” Man is the dominate participant in salvation. Yes, the RC does believe God alone imparts grace through the sacrament. Yet, it is the individual who most faithfully and actively, on his own, partake of the sacraments to receive this grace – in turn contributing to and appropriating more and more his salvation.

On the contrary, PB, in line with the orthodox and traditional position of the Protestant Reformation, believes that man was created in the image of God morally and naturally. The natural characteristics refer to that part of man that is natural: ability to think, reason, the possession of strength and agility, etc. The moral characteristics refer to man’s desire for righteousness and holiness. In the Garden, when Adam sinned, he only lost the moral image of God, not the natural. However, the moral nature of man was the primary nature that kept all things working in harmony and correctly as God intended. When Adam lost his moral purity his entire soul fell into a depraved and perverted state, corrupting even the natural image: his mind no longer reasoned clearly, his heart desired evil, and his will only brought forth the fruit of wickedness. Further, God held all of Adam’s progeny as guilty of committing Adam’s original sin and thus worthy of punishment. Romans 5 declares, “Just as sin came into the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…. One trespass led to condemnation for all men” (5:12, 18). This brings about a severely corrupted nature in all of mankind that does not desire goodness, but only evil continually. Listen to these verses of Scripture, beginning in Adam’s time and moving all the way up to our present day:

Genesis 6:5 – “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”

Genesis 8:21 – “The intent of man's heart is evil from his youth.”

Psalm 14:1-3 – “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good. 2 The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. 3 They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.”

Proverbs 6: 18 – “A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil.”

Jeremiah 17:9-10 – “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? 10 “I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.”

The words of Christ directly, Matthew 5:19 – “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.”

Romans 1:28-32 – “Since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”

In Romans 3:23, Paul states – “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” and provides this as evidence in Romans 3:10-18 – “As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” 13 “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” 14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 in their paths are ruin and misery, 17 and the way of peace they have not known.” 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”[20]

I could go on with passages, but I think you get the point. Scripture clearly teaches that man is not just inclined toward sin and has simply lost his original righteousness. No, mankind is completely opposed to God and only desires evil continually.[21] So, what does this mean for mankind? If man has an evil nature and only desires that which is contrary to God, what does PB teach about salvation?

Since every part of man is depraved, then salvation must come from something outside of him. PB believes that before the foundation of the world, God choose certain sinners from every tribe and nation of the world that He would save – these people the Bible calls the “elect” and the “true church.” In Ephesians 1, St. Paul states that God “chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which He has blessed us in the Beloved” (Eph 1:4-6). Purely according to His will and not the works of the individual, God choose unworthy sinners to be saved. In the fullness of time, God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, into the world to both effect the salvific righteousness that the elect could not achieve on their own and also to pay for the debt of sins, upon the cross, that the elect merited through their disobedience. Again, St. Paul states in Colossians 1, “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins….21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him” (Col. 1:13-14, 21-22). Salvation is immediate as God reckons the sinner legally righteous in Christ, free from the tyranny and bondage of sin, and in communion with the Holy Spirit. Thus, salvation is not seen as an infused righteousness, but a declaration by God that the sinner IS ACTUALLY and COMPLETELY righteous in Christ – Romans 3,

"But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith."
-- Romans 3:21-25

God saves sinners by enlightening the mind of the individual to truly believe Scripture, changing their hearts to desire Christ, which in turn, as the heart and mind work in harmony the individual’s will moves to place his entire faith in Jesus Christ. In short, PB understands that salvation is dependent upon God changing souls and the individual to correspondingly reply in faith. This is clearly noted in Titus,

"For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life."
-- Titus 3:4-7

This is why Protestantism believes that salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9) – that is, grace is God’s unmerited gift of eternal life that is communicated to the person via faith as the individual believes God at His word and believes in His promises in Christ. Note, the PB view of salvation is completely contrary to the RC view. It is not of works or human action, instead salvation is by God’s gracious action and man’s reciprocating response of faith – and that’s it – no works, no action, only belief and repentance. RC cannot get around this fundamental verse, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8-9).[22] RC tries to respond that James states, “So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead” and they think this means that salvation is by works and faith (James 2:14-26). However, this must be taken in context of all Scripture and Philippians 2 explains it, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (Phil. 2:12-13). That is, initial salvation and God’s declaration of complete forgiveness of all sins and pronouncement of righteousness is only by faith. We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. Thus, proof of saving faith is a life that brings forth good works that honor Christ and is after and follows God’s gracious, salvific gift that itself completely saves. These works do not merit any acceptance before God; they simply testify to the reality that God has already worked savingly in a heart and soul. The reason this is such an important distinction is because either RC is wrong or PB is wrong or both are wrong – but both cannot be right. And when we are talking about the salvation of the soul, you have better be right! I leave you to the testimony of Scripture to decide for yourself.

Footnotes:
[1] Catholic Catechism, Paragraph # 78. Online at: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm.
[2] Catholic Catechism, Paragraph #’s 82-83. Ibid.
[3] Ed. by Richard P. McBrien. The HaperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism. Page 1261. The editor teaches theology at the University of Norte Dame.
[4] Catholic Catechism, Paragraph #’s 85. Ibid.
[5] Westminster Confession, Chapter 1, Paragraph 6. Online at http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html.
[6] Paragraph 7 of the Westminster Confession reads, “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” A Church official is not needed to understand Scripture unto salvation.
[7] Christ pre-authenticated the apostolic witness that became the New Testament in John 14-16.
[8] I say “supposed” reason because true human reason would lead a person to the most reasonable choice given the facts: i.e. subordinate all to divine revelation.
[9] Theology Proper is the study of the character and attributes of God.
[10] Catholic Catechism, Paragraph #’s 375. Ibid.
[11] Catholic Catechism, Paragraph # 405. Ibid.
[12] Catholic Catechism, Paragraph # 406. Ibid.
[13] As an aside, this is a product of Aquinas’ development of the “analogy of being.”
[14] The Christian Church since its inception in the 1st century A.D. has always recognized the 66 books of the Bible that today comprise the Protestant Bible as the only books that are divinely inspired by God. However, in response to the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century and a desire to justify doctrine that is contrary to the orthodox Christian faith, the RC Church added several books to the Bible that are commonly referred to as the apocrypha. It is out of these non-divinely inspired books that RC derives such aberrant doctrine as purgatory. There is NO BIBLICAL evidence within the canon that the church has always recognized for the doctrine of purgatory. Besides, if Christ died for sin once and for all, then there is no reason to “work-off” any additional sin in purgatory – Christ’s sacrifice was enough.
[15] Cf. Catholic Catechism, Paragraph #’s 1127-1129. Ibid.
[16] Catholic Catechism, Paragraph # 1129. Ibid.
[17] Catholic Catechism, Paragraph # 1129. Ibid.
[18] Dr. Robert L. Reymond, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, pg. 470.
[19] Catholic Catechism, Paragraph #’s 1328-1336. Ibid.
[20] The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001.
[21] It is often argued at this point that mankind is not inherently evil, but is really good. Just look at a mother giving gifts to her child or saving another man’s life, etc. Can these acts really be evil? The answer is yes. Every action is judged at the level of motive. Scripture is clear that if any motive does not completely reflect God’s motive, then it is sin. So, in giving a gift to anyone, is it done to first give glory to God, and second to completely and unconditionally love and serve the individual? No human is capable of either of these. We give gifts often to earn the love or respect of the individual, thus we desire to build up ourselves or the other person instead of giving honor to God. Second, some degree of selfishness perverts every act of man as opposed to God’s demand of selfless and sacrificial love. Christ stated that the entire moral law is summed in completely loving God and your fellow man (Matt. 22:37). Any failure to do this completely in any act or thought is sin. Thus, mankind always sins in everything it does. Human history really reflects this as it is one marked by war, blood, conquering, intrigue and the like – all the major empires of the world, from Babylon, to Rome, to the Third Reich have been marked by a desire to rule the world by force and not by Christ-like humility and service. The only two nations that are an exception are the two that were founded upon Christian principles: Britian and America. These two countries have done more good for the world, yes it has been mixed with some bad, but really they have done more good for the world than all other great empires combined (just note the invention of hospitals, modern medicine, feeding and defending the poor and needy of the world, etc.).
[22] Note, the Roman Catholic Church, like any natural man, does not want to hear that there is absolutely nothing you can do for salvation and that it is purely a gift of God received by the sinner through faith. Since the Fall in the Garden, mankind has been trying to “DO” things to justify himself and make himself what he once was prior to Adam’s sin. This is not a humanly possible action, neither in part or in whole. Mankind is desperately hopeless if we contribute anything to our salvation, for we cannot really do it – cf. Jer. 17:9-10 and Psalm 14.

From Pew to Pit

2007-08-23T21:25:00.001-05:00

Christian approached the gate of heaven and was promptly asked from the grand tower-gate for his entrance credentials. Christian reached into his jacket breast and brought forth his credentials: Faith in Christ alone. And he promptly entered into the eternal rest.

Yet, Christian turned as the gate closed behind him and saw Rev. Ignorant approach the grand tower-gate. They called down for his credentials to which Ignorant searched all his possessions, yet could produce not a one. Servants were dispatched posthaste and tossed Ignorant into the abysmal pit of outter-darkness, just a stones throw from the very gates of heaven itself.

Christian pondered over the tumultous attempt at entry - for Ignorant had made it through all the external necessities and even possessed a degree of saintliness. Ah, but then Christian cried out, "Now I see! There is a way to hell even at the gates of heaven."

He who has ears to hear, let him hear and take heed, for God declares,
“On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness'” (Matt. 7:22-23).

-- Adapted from the last chapter of J. Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress

Nuff said.......

2007-08-13T12:18:00.000-05:00

Semper Fidelis!

Double Standard Among America's Elite Educational System?

2007-08-02T13:28:00.000-05:00

"Christian Law Firm: Muslims Benefiting from Double Standard

OneNewsNow.com reports that the chief counsel of a Christian law firm says it is becoming increasingly apparent that there is a double standard when it comes to accommodating religious practices at public schools and universities. While USA Today reports that some public schools are granting Muslims' requests for prayer times, prayer rooms, and ritual footbaths, Richard Thompson, chief counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, says, "The Supreme Court of the United States -- in case after case [communist] the last 50 years -- has forbidden those kinds of activities for Christians."

Thompson says at San Diego's Carver Elementary School officials created an extra recess to accommodate Islamic prayers. And yet, in a different San Diego district, a veteran teacher of 30 years was ordered last May to remove from his classroom walls banners that promoted a 'Judeo-Christian' viewpoint."

Taken from OneNewsNow.com

Islam, A Religion of Peace?

2006-06-25T00:09:00.000-05:00

Our modern culture is so terrified with either offending or with appearing non-pluralistic that we don't call a janitor a janitor. Instead, he's a sanitation engineer. This political correctness even leads President Bush to make the perverse statement that Islam is a religion of peace. Well, I suppose Pres. Bush should seek the guidance of a man he looks up to: Winston Churchill. In Churchill's The River War, he writes:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine‹must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled‹the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome" (The River War, 1st Ed., Vol. II, pages 248-50; London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

As usual, nuff said.....

Rejoicing in the Death of the Wicked

2006-06-17T22:19:00.000-05:00

Well, I must say I am rejoicing with Isaiah in the fall of the wicked (Isaiah 44), with David in the destruction of God’s enemies (Imprecatory Psalms), and with Solomon in the severest rebuke of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (Proverbs 24:25). As you know, the long, fierce sword of American justice (Rom. 13:4) cut down Senor Zarqawi with two of my alma mater’s 500 lbs. bombs at one of his hide-outs at 33°48′02.83″N, 44°30′48.58″E. The extermination of Zarqawi is a major blow to both the insurgency in Iraq and Al-Qaeda internationally (and yes, Iraq is linked with Islamic terrorism & Al-Qaida – check out the documents that reveal so --> Saddam & Al-Qaeda). There are some in this country (liberals) who only see this as a political event – Rep. John Murtha is a perfect example. I fear that there are even many Christians who ignorantly look at the celebration over Zarqawi’s death as a bad thing. This is more disturbing than the liberal’s response, for Christians should know better. The only human actions that God delights in are those that are righteous. As such, when the God-ordained ministry of government executes justice against law breakers God is glorified. God delights in His own glory. Thus, God took delight in the death of Zarqawi. Woooo, wait a minute…. Is that possible? Is that heretical? No. Consider Zarqawi’s litany of godlessness:

May 2004 – wearing a burlap sack, he was videoed cutting off the head of American businessman Nicholas Berg with a sword - video was posted on the Internet for the world to see. Zarqawi went on to take credit for numerous additional beheadings and mutilations of both Iraqis and Westerners. (You can watch the beheading here, but it is extremely graphic.)
March 11, 2004 – Zarqawi was the mastermind behind the Madrid train bombing. (Source: World Magazine, June 17, 2006)
April 2004 - Sentenced to death in absentia for planning the assassination of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley in the Jordanian capital Amman in 2002. (Source: World Magazine, June 17, 2006)
Conspired in Iraq to spawn a Shiite-Sunni civil war by bombing mosques and other landmarks, killing hundreds of Iraqis. (Source: India Times Online)
November 2005 - Claimed responsibility for the triple suicide bomb attacks that killed 60 people at luxury hotels in Amman. (Source: Foxnews.com)
Jordanian police uncovered one of Zarqawi’s plots that could have killed an estimated 80,000 people and destroyed both the U.S. embassy and Jordan’s intelligence headquarters. (Source: Financial Sense Online)

Would the U.S. be just if they allowed Zarqawi to exist? He has waged an unprovoked, unjust, and ungodly war on civilization – against all Westerns and Muslims who differ. God’s command to Noah in Genesis to enforce capital punishment for murder is still legitimate today. Thus, in Romans 13 Paul warns the criminals, murders, and Zarqawi’s of the world that they ought to fear the government, especially a righteous one. They do not yield the sword unto death for nothing!!! So, as a believer in Jesus Christ you are obligated to look at Zarqawi’s death in two ways. First, with joy in that a man who blasphemed God in his religion and destruction of this world was rendered completely incapable of any further evil. Second, with sorrow in that Zarqawi neglected so great a salvation found only in Jesus Christ. Amen and amen….

Before Trogdor After Trogdor

Marriage Amendment Voting Record

2006-06-07T11:13:00.000-05:00

Vote Summary

Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to the Consideration of S. J. Res. 1 )
Vote Number:	163	Vote Date:	June 7, 2006, 10:02 AM
Required For Majority:	3/5	Vote Result:	Cloture Motion Rejected

Vote Counts:	YEAs	49
	NAYs	48
	Not Voting	3

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Not Voting
Dole (R-NC), Yea

Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hagel (R-NE), Not Voting
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Nay

McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Not Voting
Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Available at: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109^th Congress - 2^nd Session

But by the grace of God.....

2006-05-30T23:29:00.000-05:00

Just reflecting upon my place in life I am left only with the words of John Newton, "I am not what I ought to be; I am not what I wish to be; I am not what I hope to be: but by the grace of God I am not what I was."

....
...
..
.

Veterans, THANK YOU!!!

2006-05-29T22:43:00.000-05:00

On this Memorial Day, 2006 I would like to say thank you to all veterans who faithfully served our country in the U.S. Military - the most honorable, professional, valiant, and courageous of all organizations throughout human history. A most vivid portrayal of this truth is the story of Lance Corporal Grable. The following is his story as told by Gen. Charles C. Krulak, former Commandant of the Marine Corps:

"I will tell the story of an American whose true character was tested and exposed in the crucible of war. I will then draw some conclusions that are applicable to how the rest of us should live our lives ... lives where combat will hopefully never play a role. He was a 19 year old Marine-about the same age as most of you in the audience this morning. His name was LCPL Grable. He was a man of courage ...a man of character ... and this is his story ... Vietnam ... It was 0600, the third of June, 1966. I was in command of "G" Company, Second Battalion, First Marine Regiment. I was a First Lieutenant at the time, and had been given this command because the previous commander had been killed about one week earlier. My Company had been given a simple mission that began with a helicopter assault. We would land in a series of dried-up rice paddies about 6 football fields in length, and three football fields in width. These paddies were surrounded by jungle-covered mountains, with a dry stream bed running along one side. We were supposed to land, put on our packs, and do what all Marines do: find the largest mountain, and climb to the top. There we would put ourselves in a defensive perimeter to act as the blocking force for an offensive sweep conducted by two battalions.

The helicopters landed, unloaded my company of Marines, and had just started to leave when the world collapsed. Automatic weapons, mortar fire, artillery--it was hell on earth. Fortunately, a good portion of my Company had managed to move into the dry stream bed where they were protected from most of the fire. However, one platoon had landed too far west to move immediately to the cover of the stream bed. As they tried to move in that direction, the fires on them became so heavy they had no alternative but to hit the deck. One particular squad found itself directly in the line of fire of a North Vietnamese 12.7mm heavy machine gun. In a matter of seconds, two Marines were killed and three were seriously wounded.

As I watched what was happening from my position in the stream bed, I knew that it was just a matter of time before that machine gun would systematically "take out" that whole platoon--squad by squad. If I didn't act immediately, they would be lost in just a matter of minutes. I made a call to the commander of the first platoon that had made its way into the stream bed, directing him to move up the stream bed so he could attack across the flank of the gun position--not having to assault it directly from the front. At the same time, I directed another platoon to provide suppressive fire that might diminish the volume of fire coming from the machine gun position. All this was happening in the midst of smoke, multiple explosions, heavy small arms fire, and people yelling to be heard over the din of battle.

Suddenly, my radio operator grabbed me by the sleeve and pointed toward the middle of the rice paddy where a black Marine--a Lance Corporal by the name of Grable--had gotten to his feet, placed his M-14 rifle on his hip, and charged the machine gun--firing as fast as he could possibly fire. He ran about 40 meters directly toward the machine gun and then cut to the side, much like a running back might do during a football game. Sure enough, the machine gun, which had been delivering heavy fire on his squad, picked up off of the squad and began firing at Grable. Seeing the fire shift away from them, the squad moved immediately to the cover of a small rice paddy dike--thick ground, about a foot high separating each paddy from the other. Both they, and the other two squads were able to drag their casualties and gear to the position of safety behind this dike.

Grable didn't look back. He didn't see what happened. He kept on fighting. He dodged back and forth across these paddies, firing continuously. He would run out of ammunition, reload on the run, and continue forward--dodging back and forth as he ran. BAM! Suddenly he was picked up like a dishrag and thrown backward--hit by at least one round.

The rest of the platoon charged. My radio operator grabbed me again, but saying nothing, he just pointed to the middle of the rice paddy. That young Marine--Lance Corporal Grable--had gotten to his feet. As he stood, he didn't put the rifle to his hip; he locked the weapon into his shoulder...took steady aim--good sight picture, good sight alignment--and walked straight down the line of fire into that machine gun.

About four minutes later, my command group and the rest of the unit finally arrived at the now-silent machine gun position. There were nine dead enemy soldiers around the gun... Lance Corporal Grable was draped over the gun itself. As only Marines can do, these battle-hardened young men tenderly picked up Grable and laid him on the ground. When they opened his "flak jacket" he had five massive wounds from that machine gun. FIVE...
About seven months later, I traveled back to Headquarters Marine Corps in Washington and watched the Commandant of the Marine Corps present Lance Corporal Grable's widow with the nation's second highest decoration for valor--the Navy Cross. In this woman's arms was the baby boy that Grable had only seen in a Polaroid picture.

Grable displayed great physical courage. Somewhere in his character was another kind of courage as well--moral courage--the courage to do the right thing. When he had the chance to do something else, he chose to do the right thing. His squad was in mortal danger. He had a choice to make, and he did what was right, at the cost of his life. Let me remind you, this was 1966. Grable was a black Marine from Tennessee, who couldn't even buy a hamburger at the McDonald's in his hometown."

Semper Fidelis

Cop Out?

2006-05-28T21:03:00.000-05:00

Sorry, it has been several weeks – family was under the weather. Anyway, I have wanted to throw an observation or two out here about the replacement of Porter J. Goss with General Michael V. Hayden as head of the C.I.A. Needless to say that Goss’ oust was unexpected. Frankly, I am absolutely shocked. Let me explain why. You see, I lived and breathed amongst bureaucrats for 18 years in D.C. (think liberal infested). As such, you come to understand that the CIA, like most organizations, is split into two groups – operations (guys on the street) and analysts (pointy-headed desk jockeys). Operations is composed of the spies, para-military operations, etc. Essentially, they are the brass tacks of the agency. Analysts, on the other hand, are educated political scientists, engineers, psychologists and sociologists who scrutinize security concerns from a 30,000 foot view. Clinton decimated operations, it was too “sticky” and politically “tough”, he figured, to maintain people of the ground gathering intelligence in other sovereign, “Lincoln Bedroom donating” countries. So, the agency revamped how it operated. They swelled their analyst departments and attempted to provide intelligence 10,000 miles away from the nearest threat. Needless to say, it didn’t work. Can anyone say 9/11? We didn’t have anyone on the ground; no one infiltrated the infamous “Arab Street.” We attempted to “connect the dots,” but it just didn’t pan out. So, Bush has been attempting to realign the agency so that it reflects its glory days of the Reagan Administration – when operations ruled and the Iron Curtain was brought down in large part by an awesome foreign intelligence capability. Clinton, the coward, destroyed it. Bush, an honorable man but no ideologue, is trying to build it back. Yet, it has been slow going. You see, analysts are bureaucrats. Bureaucrats love big government. Bureaucrats are mostly flaming liberals – I mean flamin’!!! Thus, 50+% of the CIA loathes Bush. As such, Bush has gotten nothing but resistance. In fact, in response he often gets “leaks” from the agency to the media about secret programs his administration is running. In steps Porter Goss. He is an operations man and he was causing heads to roll within the analysts dominated CIA. But, for some reason the Bush Administration took a Clintonesque policy and fired him. Even worse, they are replacing him with an analyst: Gen. Hayden. We don’t need more pointy-headed, pocket-protector wearing, computer lovin’, not-in-touch-with-reality desk jockeys to lead any part of this government!!! We need real men with the moral courage and managerial fortitude to get rid of the still implemented Clintonian bureaucracies and lead this country according to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. I fear all we shall get out of Senor Analyst Hayden is more of the same lame, middle of the road, get-no-where, do-nothing placatations (not a real word)!

The Modern Liberal

2006-05-08T16:18:00.001-05:00

It is intriguing how a liberal and conservative can look at the same events, facts, realities, experiences, etc. and arrive at diametric conclusions. To the modern liberal, America is awful: the economy is tanking, we are losing the war, raping the environment, holding down the poor, persecuting minorities, and bringing the entire world under U.S. colonial domination. G.K. Chesterton made quite an astute observation about liberals, their presuppositions, and manner of thought. Concerning the modern liberal, he writes,

“The new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy [1] because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes hi hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything” (Orthodoxy 53).

Chesterton wrote this almost one hundred years ago. It is amazing how perceptible the illogical and ignorant positions of the liberal are. Like I said, libs, please keep preachin’ your treasonous doctrines, PLEASE!!! For truth will always triumphant over treason…..

[1] A person who is too much concerned with being proper, modest, or righteous: bluenose, prude, puritan, Victorian.

--- Great Link for Guilty White Men ----

2006-05-03T08:13:00.000-05:00

Great op-ed link:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008318

Great Immigration Laws

2006-04-26T20:31:00.002-05:00

If you immigrate to the United States of America, you must speak the native language.
You have to be a professional or an investor.
We are not going to take unskilled workers. You will not be allowed.
There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, no government business will be conducted in your native language.
Foreigners will not have the right to vote nor will they ever be allowed to hold political office.
If you're in our country, you cannot be a burden to taxpayers.
You are not entitled, ever, to welfare, to food stamps, or other government goodies.
You can come if you invest here, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage. If you don't have that amount of money you have to stay home.
If you do come and you want to buy land you will not be allowed to buy waterfront property in the United States. That will be reserved for citizens naturally born in this country.
As a foreigner, you must relinquish individual rights to property.
You don't have the right to protest when you come here.
You're allowed no demonstrations, you cannot wave a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies or you get sent home.
And most of all - You're a foreigner. You shut your mouth or you get out, and if you come here illegally, you go straight to jail and we're going to hunt you down 'til we find you.

Oh, and by the way, these are all actual laws of Mexico. Yes, it's official Mexican Immgration law. WOW!!!! Those Mexicans know what their doing!!!

Recent History Quiz

2006-04-14T12:18:00.000-05:00

Who said this?

What if Saddam fails to comply (with UN sanctions), or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more time to develop this (WMD) program? He will conclude that the international community has lost its will… [that] he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, I guarantee you, he’ll use this arsenal.

Answer: President Bill Clinton in February 1998.

Okay then, who said this?

The United Nations believes that Saddam Hussein may have produced as much as 200 tons of VX (nerve gas)… we face a clear and present danger… terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in New York City had in mind the destruction and deaths of 250,000 people….

Answer: Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen on November 15, 1997.

Who said this?

The world hasn’t seen, except maybe since Hitler, somebody quite as evil as Saddam Hussein. If you don’t stop a horrific dictator before he gets started too far, he can do untold damage….

Answer Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright on February 20, 1998.

Taken from: The Hidden History of the Iraq War Critics
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liberal Strategy for Iraq

2006-04-01T10:51:00.000-06:00

"Opponents of the war in Iraq, both original critics and the mea culpa recent converts, have made eight assumptions. The first six are wrong, the last two still unsettled.

1. Saddam was never connected to al Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11.

2. There was no real threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

3. The United Nations and our allies were justifiably opposed on principle to the invasion.

4. A small cabal of neoconservative (and mostly Jewish) intellectuals bullied the administration into a war that served Israel’s interest more than our own.

5. Saddam could not be easily deposed, or at least he could not be successfully replaced with a democratic government.

6. The architects of this war and the subsequent occupation are mostly inept (“dangerously incompetent”) — and are exposed daily as clueless by a professional cadre of disinterested journalists.

7. In realist terms, the benefits to be gained from the war will never justify the costs incurred.

8. We cannot win."

FINISH the article here:
When Cynicism Meets Fanaticism

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presbyterian Church (USA), Straying Church?

2006-03-28T18:45:00.000-06:00

For all those considering the PC-USA, you may find this quote indicative of certain convictions:

"His acceptance of the Mohicans of the time is similar to my inclusion of gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgendered people now."
--Janet Edwards, Presbyterian Church (USA) minister and sixth-great-granddaughter of Jonathan Edwards, likening performing gay marriage to her forefather's evangelism of Native Americans. (Source: World Magazine, Apr. 2006)

Dr. Volf I Presume.....

2006-02-05T00:07:00.000-06:00

I just read an interesting and worldview provoking article titled "PUBLIC FAITH IN A PLURALISTIC WORLD" by Dr. Miroslav Volf, the Henry B. Wright Professor of Theology at Yale Divinity. The question, how do you maintain a democratic polity with religious freedom while also maintaining dogmatic and exclusive claims to truth? Good question! And I think there is an answer, at least our Founding Fathers thought there was....

Marines Serving Faithfully

2005-11-20T08:57:00.000-06:00

All, please pray for my brother Travis who is faithfully serving his country as a Marine in Iraq.

Christus Semper Fidelis!!!!!

Inspiration

2005-10-19T21:18:00.000-05:00

Divine inspiration came about by the writer first encountering God and then communicating the message received from God. The writer’s communion with God is primary. The writer was not a secretary receiving verbatim dictation. Instead, the writer was in a participating communion with God in which the writer, with joyous affections, was communing with the Communicator. Within the context of this relationship, the writer’s mind was quickened and enlightened with divine truth. Almost as if God and the writer were speaking face to face. Knowledge communicated in this fashion is known with certainty by the writer. He is sure that it is God’s communication. This makes the knowledge almost intuitive. Thus, the writer is sure that it is God’s word yet God has enabled him to articulate this truth naturally (within his own mind and experiences) and supernaturally (via the communion with God). So, the Holy Spirit utilizes the characteristics and expressions attributed to the human author to communicate divine writ.

Foundations - the Bible.....

2005-10-13T18:22:00.000-05:00

Foundations:

1. The Bible is the inerrant, infallible, divinely inspired, humanly written/recorded word of God that is the only rule for salvation and life.

2. The Bible is not an exhaustive revelation – it is not possible for a 66 part book to contain ALL the knowledge of God. Yet, the Bible is a comprehensive revelation about God – it is a complete and sufficient disclosure about God to man, revealing everything man needs to know about sin, life, and godliness. Even more so, it is the ONLY revelation that reveals particular (as compared to general) salvific (past, present, & future) realities. Or, as the Westminster Confession puts it:
"The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men."

3. As for inspiration, every jot and stroke of the original manuscripts are completely without error, being directly inspired down to the very letter. These letters form words, which form sentences that are divinely constructed syntactically, grammatically, and contextually - all revealed intentionally within specific historical, social, and cultural context.