Hell Hound

Devil Dog. A mutated, malformed, monstrosity of a mutt. A baleful, chthonic, gruesome freak straight from the Grand Guignol itself.

A nightmarish, grisly animal shooting its foul imagery straight into my terrified senses, while assualting the unarmed mind with ferocious malignancy:

Is this real?!?

Thank You Lord for America

In spite of the faults, foibles and sins besetting America, I am truly thankful for my covenant-keeping God for this nation.
Here, I can obtain material wealth unheard of in vast portions of the world: indoor-plumbing, housing, cars, phones and computers are only the tip of the iceburg.
Here, I can obtain political wealth beyond the wildest imaginations of many: voting rights at national, state, county and local levels; freedom of assembly; freedom of petition; freedom to bear arms.
Here, I have obtained spritual wealth that can turn this world upside-down: the vast spiritual treasures of the past are at our fingertips if we would but use them. Our heritage is Christian, especially Reformed, and we are living on that borrowed capital.

All of this is from the Lord, for every good gift is from above.

Thank you Lord for America.

SDG

Fourth of July, Apple Pie...and God's Law?

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled twice against the display of the Ten Commandments and once in its ‘favor’. What is more amazing than the labyrinth of a thought-process of this Court’s present decisions is the howling-for-blood uproar of the various self-appointed guardians of American Conservative Christendom, the Fourth of July and apple pie.

Now, this sounds harsh and judgmental. But I believe I can justify this strong language through demonstrable evidence.

It is clear over the years through the plethora of statistics and polls that a large percentage of Americans claim to be Christian (anywhere from 60-80%). It is also clear that many of these self-proclaimed Christians are red-blooded Americans who vigorously celebrate the Fourth of July, eat apple pie and enjoy “America’s favorite pastime”.

Juxtapose this data with the facts of American ignorance and immorality and one can readily attest to the truth of the old axiom: actions speak louder than words. Over a number of years, Michael Horton’s White Horse Inn would randomly sample the knowledge of various book-buyers, sellers and enthusiasts at local Christian book-seller conferences. The results are dismal: the majority could not name the Ten Commandments. Other statistics point to the same truth.

Should I spell out the irony? The vast majority of Christians—yes, even Evangelical Christians—do not know the Ten Commandments. And more importantly, ignore portions of it as well!

Yet, they are outraged that the Nine Commandments cannot be displayed in our courts (the Sabbath, obviously, is an old Jewish law that is passed away…).

They are livid that the Eight Commandments cannot be upheld in school classrooms (obviously, the Second Commandment does not refer to images of Christ but only crass pagan wooden idols that no one in America follows…).

Eventually, the rest of America will see the hollowness of this Evangelical ire.

But it is more than that—how could vast portions of Americans delude themselves into thinking that they are even Christians when Christ is no longer God, the Bible works with evolution and politics is only practical and not principled?

Americans—even Evangelicals—are proud of being American (as indeed I am), yet too many are boorish ingrates who violate the smallest law (witness the massive aerial displays in my own fireworks-are-illegal neighborhood) and justify it with a slurred drawl: “well *hiccup* everyone else is do’n it!”!?

Indeed, everyone else is “Christian”, so why not him?

Why should we defend that which we are not willing to defend with our own life of Spirit-wrought obedience?

Ignorance is bliss and the Ten Commandments are as American as the Fourth of July and apple pie.

Praise the Lord and pass me the cherry bomb.

Supreme Socialistic Sources

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of a major step toward socialism. Of course, anyone of a paleo-conservative persuasion (as over and against the Reagan Republicans, neo-conservatives, RINOs, etc.) recognizes the downward spiral for decades and even a century. Eminent domain was bad enough for the cause of private property, then they added mill levies—which if not paid (even if you paid off your house) will result in losing one’s house—and now this.

It is clear that righteousness exalts a nation while wickedness devours her soul. Yet, this is simply not another political tirade against the insufferable onslaught of postmodern inanities (witness also the various Donkey Deans of the Democratic Party), but a concise analysis of the spiritual roots of this issue.

I do not claim to know the niceties of the case (reading the long opinions is left to other experts on my side [but who are not in my pocket!])—although I did watch a local PBS Reggie Rivers show wherein two experts agreed that a nuance was accomplished: a nuance that shifted the eminent domain usage of “public use and control” to (the nebulous) “public benefit”, which includes condemning houses for a Megamart which could woo the local city with fantastic—and unproven—predictions of large revenue for the city—but when given certain basic Biblical principles of government and private property, one can a priori determine the illegitimacy of this ruling.

What was the true underlining reason? Could this have been avoided? The answer to the first question depends upon one’s worldview. Mine is rooted deeply in the Reformation doctrine of sphere sovereignty (the demarcation of family, church & state), God’s sovereignty and ecclesiastical and political Republicanism. Yet, part of the root of this problem lies further underground in that first and truly American philosophy: Pragmatism. If it works, do it!

Apparently, part of the rational was that many cities (such as Chicago) were already using eminent domain within this matrix of “what’s good for the greatest is good for all”. (And it seemed to work.) Ironically, this matrix simply expresses the nineteenth century defunct philosophy of Utilitarianism, the cousin of Pragmatism. So: do the greatest good and do the workable. Double whammy.

We so easily forget that these rationales are tools used by postmodern Communists and Socialists. The latter has progressed easily through America by combining both rationales: taxing the rich helps the greatest number; limited land distribution works as well.

Yet, this is not the end of the story: Christians are just as much at fault. The ethics of too many Evangelicals has been that of Utilitarianism or Pragmatism. Laws are passed by the populace because it will “help more people”; politicians are voted in office (again and again) because “they seem to work”. Men are voted into positions of authority because “voting for the right candidate is a losing proposition (not workable), so we vote for the lesser evil (for the greatest good)”. And Christians vote right along with them.

As for the second question (Could this have been avoided?), frankly, given the climate of America in the last thirty years, this could not have been avoided. When the churches spout theological nonsense, it will surely poison the culture associated with it: remember Clinton, Kerry, Jesse and other political and cultural leaders all claim to be Christians!

So, is this blog simply stating a sad state of affairs? No, there is a long-term solution: Principled Politics. Christians need to stand upon the Word and vote the truth—even if it hurts. The American Revolution was accomplished against two-thirds of the populace who were Royalist or indifferent. What’s our excuse? We ought to recognize the sources of the Supreme Court Socialism and act accordingly. We ought to know the Gospel and the power of justification by faith alone in Christ alone instead of justifying our governmental thievery with “well, it works for the greatest number.”

Email-List Withdrawals

Random, sporadic conversations are only the beginning. Eventually after particularly funny jokes, I simply smile or even shape my mouth into an 'o'. Sometimes, I suddenly stop intense discussions and withdrawal to another group of conversationalists. At other times, someone turns to me and asks me a direct question...and I never answer.

I believe these are the classical symptoms of Email-List Withdrawals. That pscyhological condition wherein one carries over the habits of email conversations into everyday life. It even extends into imitating emoticons. It was bound to happen.

At one time I was on four email-lists simultaneously as well as various and sundry personal email conversations. Over time, I dropped these lists. I had to. The blithe emails were becoming repetitive and boring. Engaging in inane and unconducive dialogue (or were they monologues?) was consuming too much time and creating too much frustration. After dropping all the lists and maintaining a short repertoire of private emails, I felt I had the issue under control.

But I like to talk. I like to meet new Christians and engage in real dialogue. (plus, I'm a geek, so I have to do something high-tech all the time). So, I discovered my mind began to imitate email conversations. It was not pretty. It's not a good way to maintain relationships.

I had to do something. The Blog was the answer. Writing this blog is the answer. Hearing from you is the other answer (but I don't remember the question...)

Hopefully, this blog will alleviate some of these symptoms. You know all that random--hey, did you hear the one about the pope and the three presidents, well....


SDG

The Day is Done

It is done.

The Assembly's motions, perfections, amendments, and substitutions are resolved.
The Assembly's communications, overtures and appeals are finished.
The Assembly's prayer, devotion and worship are complete.
The Assembly's fellowship, joy and rest are fulfilled.

Thanks be to God our Father, our Savior and the work of the Holy Spirit for empowering, gifting and moving the elders and ministers of this Assembly to sacrifice their time for Kingdom work.

Thanks be to God for bringing many volunteers to dedicate their gifts for the relief of the physical needs of the Assembly in accordance with 1 Corinthians 12 & 13.

Thanks be to God for achieving His will in us (in spite of our frailties and sins) and completing the good work which was begun by Him.

By His grace, that work will be continued until the full perfection of heaven.
Meanwhile, the Assembly was dissolved and the work accomplished.

By God's power,
our work here is done.

SDG

hot & heavy

Actually, it has not been that hot. But the humidity has been heavy.
That's right: I'm in Grand Rapids, Michigan. And compared to Denver, it's humid.
But, I can live with that. I'm here for the OPC General Assembly as a commissioner.
Administrative issue come before the body, motions are moved, debates ensue and votes are casted. Disciplinary appeals may also come before us.
All of this is for the work of the Church. Heavy work.
And work that may get heated at times as well (for are we not human and frail?).

As it stands, my room-mate (John the Doctor) and I just found an open computer room after wandering around outside in the cool night (I use that in a relative sense). I'm writing this piece to talk to the world, to complain about humidity and to thank the Lord that this Church takes her work seriously--whether the topics or the environment are hot and heavy.

SDG

A Short Review 3: The Mystery of Godliness

A Short Book Review 3

This collection of sermons is based upon the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) and expounds a wide variety of doctrine and practices. From the truth of election and salvation to the requirement of godliness and prayer, Calvin’s addresses clearly express a pastor’s heart while articulating a scholar’s grasp of the Bible. With fourteen sermons at about fifteen pages apiece, this book becomes good food for meditation and contemplation.

Being a translation from 1580 and transported to America in 1830, it is written in the style of the King James Bible, but without much of the grammatical oddities. Calvin’s sermons are also more direct than our sensitive ears may be accustomed to hear (as even the original preface of this book points out). He spoke and wrote during a time of great upheaval and direct confrontation with heresies and lies; thus, he was very zealous to comfort and guard the flock, “Let us therefore endeavor to bring back those that have strayed…but when [some]…make confusion in the church…we must not spare them, because the whole salvation of the people of God is in danger.” (p.172). He also has no problems calling public enemies of the gospel “mad beasts” (p.40).

For those without a fear of older writing styles and plain speech, this little treasure will encourage the reader to take the biblical commands of truth and obedience to heart.

Subtle Socialism

A few days ago, the Today Show presented the coveted "Profile in Courage Award"--combing the country for those rare souls that will stand upon conviction with a fortitude that would shame the Congress. These men and women, endowed with strength of character and singular drive, hailed as paladins of American ideals and guardians of the precious institutions undergirding our nation.

And both of them were socialist.

The first gentlemen displayed great boldness and tenacity in trimming the budget at the local state school. Rescuing one of the cheif planks of Karl Marx himself, this lion-heart rescued schools within his purvue from certain financial ruin.

The second person, a veritable Joan of Arc, was the coveted Mayor of Atlanta. Her great deed involved raising city taxes by 50% to eradicate the financial buggabear, unbalanced budgets. She courageously protected the important city services (all of them) by reducing the workers by 12%.

These are tomorrow's heroes today.

Velcome to Amerika.

the man who really should have been Pope

Hans Grapje was raised in a Catholic school in The Hague and as a young man aspired to become a priest. However, he was drafted into the Army during WWII and spent two years co-piloting B17s until his aircraft was shot down in 1943, resulting in the loss of his left arm. Captain Grapje spent the rest of the war as a military chaplain, giving spiritual aid to soldiers, both Allied and enemy. After the war, he became a priest, serving as a missionary in Africa, piloting his own plane (in spite of his handicap) to villages across the continent.

In 1997, Father Grapje (now an Archbishop) was serving in Zimbabwe when an explosion in a silver mine caused a massive cave-in trapping scores of miners deep in the earth.
Archbishop Grapje went down into the mine to administer comfort and last rites to those too
severely injured to be moved. While underground another shaft collapsed and he was buried for three days, suffering multiple injuries, including the loss of his right eye. Some time after being rescued, he developed a severe (but rare) condition known as purpura. This condition is the result of extensive underground time and exposure to the high silver content in the mine's air. It is characterized by purplish skin blotches and is found in many life-long silver miners. For his heroism and selfless service to others, the church elevated him to Cardinal.

With the passing of Pope John Paul II, he joined the other Cardinals in Rome for the funeral and the conclave to select a new Pope from their ranks. Although Cardinal Grapje
devoted his life to the service of God as a scholar, mentor and holy man; church leaders agree he will never ascend to the Papacy.

After all, no one wants a one-eyed, one-armed, flying purple Papal leader.

Philosopher-Kings & Court Jesters

Plato thought the best form of rule over people would be through wise, intelligent and informed leaders who excelled not only in all things worth knowing, but especially in the “love of wisdom”—philosophy. They would debate in a rational and calm manner to find the truth; and they would rule accordingly. Hence, philosopher-kings. Now, fast-forward several thousand years later, where in a land that prides itself in information and knowledge of “all things”, the expert reigns supreme—sociologists, psychologist, etc.; in this land, America, it has one particular expert who is the grandfather of all, an ideal philosopher-king: the “Scientist”. However, these philosopher-kings live in ivory towers in utter contempt of the common man and utter hatred of Christianity….And many cannot argue their way out of a paper-bag. …they are more like court jesters than kings. Is this a simple name-calling from a “radical-right winger”—is this the dreaded “ad hominem”? No; I have hard evidence to back up my claim:

Locale: Nightline, May 9, 2005. Topic: Intelligent Design.

Watching the first three rounds showed an interesting trend: the Darwinian materialist (the one with the disdainful smirk) virtually opened every rebuttal with snide comments against his opponent and the “unnamed” cabal that pulls his strings. The Darwinian materialist virtually never answered the questions raised by the opponent, but accused him of being part of the well-known society (with matching jackets and all) of the “right-wing fundamentalist” creationist—all of whom any one with half a brain would know to be full-blown Pre-millennial, Fundamentalist. The Darwinian materialist virtually opened every rebuttal with a snide…wait, I already said this! He was basically name-calling; this is called an “ad hominem” and is totally irresponsible in any college-educated man—especially one with a Ph.D in philosophy!! (in contrast, the Intelligent Design proponent (not a believer) tried to answer in a somber serious manner—the moderator's cajoling didn’t help much).

Not only was this philosopher more of a laughing court jester--he laughed many a time amidst his repeated declamations (of one form or another): “You can’t really believe that…”—he appeared to be an uneducated boob or a straight-faced liar as well! Why? The fact that the claimed (in point two above) that all creationist were “Premillennial, Apocalyptic Fundamentalist” waiting for the “Rapture” probably showed his historical, theological and philosophical ignorance of the well-known event called the Reformation which was originated by Luther and continued and cemented by Calvin.

Calvinism or Reformed Theology is known in philosophical circles (my philosophy college professor knew—and she did not have a Ph.D (piled higher and deeper?)! Calvinist/Reformed are not “Premillennial, Apocalyptic Fundamentalist”. It was not a debate; there was no direct answer to direct question in a calm and dignified manner--it was a joke! He was a joke! Most television formats (expect maybe PBS) are not conducive to deep debates. This was no exception. The court jester received kudos for thirty-second in-your-face sound-bytes, but his opponent won the debate. Unfortunately, many Americans don’t know that. Many Americans would rather laugh with the jester instead of laughing at his deplorable manners during this so-called “debate.” The kingdom of Darwin, with the Universe-of-Chance God sitting on a throne was well served by their court-jester this day. And neither one had any clothes.

SDG

But We Need More Medicine

From a fellow blogger:
Today was part two (see part I here) of the local health care saga. At 4:00 today I met with about 10 other area citizens to consolidate notes and discuss priorities for reporting our feedback to the Illinois state task force on health care.

I left the meeting accomplishing one of my two goals for participating in this. I didn’t tick anyone off or say something that got me publicly labeled as an extremist. At some point speaking the truth will require me to give up on that goal but for right now I want to continue to participate and that means remaining peaceful.

My second goal? To stop socialized medicine from taking over the system in Illinois and the United States....The rest...

24 is da' bomb!

24--no, this is not a blog about the infamous Genesis debate (goto the OPC report on that!).
This blog is a little about my favorite t.v. series: 24

I stopped watching television in '82. My father threw out our small, white European-made t.v. that fateful day after unsuccessfully trying to break our visual addiction (both my sister and I would stare at the boobtube instead of cleaning the house).

20 years later we have a t.v. (that is another story--all I can say is we got it for free; and I'm all about free). I regulated its watching to a small set of evening shows. It is mainly used for movies (1$ at Redbox-McDonalds [I said I was cheap!]).

The point is that even without a t.v. I knew most the shows were junk. In the military the dayrooms had televisions which I would watch periodically (usually I would play Nintendo)--usually for the movies. Some shows were boring. Others had language. Still others had sexual innuendoes.

All three of these categories have increased ten-fold since then.

But not with 24! This show has it all: action, suspense, plot and *gasp* even character development (no, really!!).

It is intelligently written and directed. It keeps my attention. It is riveting.

Of the cable shows that I know about from others, 24 ranks above them hands-down. There are two reasons: it has no sexual innuendoes and it has a plot.

Many of the famous cable shows (and, of course, t.v. shows) are dependent on cursing or sex. This show is dependent on plot (mostly action) and subplots. Continuing, cross-seasonal subplots. Some characters even die. It is so packed with plot-twists, mystery and characters, it's like watching a movie! I've already forgotten much of the details from the last three seasons.

As I get older, I grow more intolerant of filthy shows and movies. Comedies have too much sex, movies have too much cursing and life is too short. I stick with action flicks and an occasional "slow" movie. But as for t.v. shows--24 is it!!

I told my wife that when I'm 50 she can buy me the complete set.

And I'm sure when I'm 50 the entire industry will be the Hollyweird Filth Show. So, I'm stocking up on good shows right now.

SDG.

Antichrist: Focus on the Family

Antichrist! Don't look at me! This is not one of my eye-catching titles--this is what Colorado Senator Ken Salazar declared!
Not too 'PC' is it?
This is what happens when we send mature men to represent us in the US Congress; they are to stand tall and speak to the issues of the day. Way to go Salazar--show 'em the stuff your made of! (tongue firmly planted in cheek).

On the other hand, the freedom of speech has moved from "hate speech" (why is no one throwing the book at this Democratic Senator?) to "love speech". A local Middle School teacher (as reported this Friday night on 9news) was under fire for changing the pledge of allegiance in his class from "under God" to "under your own private belief-system" (or some such language). He was under fire from the school, but some of the students decided to defend them (isn't that special--teach anti-God politics when they're young!).

What do these two events have in common? They both display the further balkanization and collapse of American Culture. From a theological and philosophical viewpoint, any given culture by definition cannot stay viable if differences become greater than the commonality that is the 'glue' of culture. The radical political view on the left and the conservative religious views of Protestantism are incompatible. Both are fermenting in the "American Experiment". This melting pot will boil over.

The commonality of these two speech events is further expressed in the idea of unacceptable language. One wishes to drag Christians into the mud of unspeakable evil while the other wishes to collapse all religious distinctions and marginalize Christianity in the process. In either case, the traditional (in both Classical Protestantism and Modernism) idea that the limits of free speech express the cultural limits of truth and falsehood are being twisted into a new mold of postmodernism. There is no truth; truth is a "social construct"; thus, truth is reduced to power. And power is best expressed in the greatest and furthest expression it can accomplish: in the machinery of the public government: politics.

Truth becomes political.
It is a tool.

And Salazar used it to attack his "enemies"--he "apologized" (or rather "regretted" the use of the word), of course, but with a wink and nod he has fed more ire and anger to those who actually believe these setiments (just tune into Sean Hennity to hear some of 'em!).
The school teacher used it to attack his "enemies" as well--by marginalizing Christianity in the "marketplace of ideas" and indoctrinating (as all teachers must--for good or ill) his students to think in these terms.

If there is no absolute truth or that truth is unknowable to man (a philosophical impossibility--but that's another story!), then free-speech means the ability to describe reality in any way desired.

And the pope is not catholic.

And not the antichrist...but Focus on the Family is, if you believe Salazar.

SDG

A Short Review 2: Christian Balance

Maintaining the Delecate Christian Balance, Jay Adams
A Short Book Review 2

From explaining biblical love and hate to balancing community and individual, this small book contains twenty-three useful chapters on a host of important issues found in every Christian’s life. The premise of the book is that a healthy and mature life is based on the proper proportion—or balance—of various doctrines and practices of our faith. For instance, Adams points out that Christ calls believers to be shrewd as serpents and harmless as doves; an unbalanced life would follow one at the expense of the other (p. 2). Or some Christians expound a heartless truth while others extol a lying love—neither is biblically balanced. Many believers today take one truth or practice and pit it against its biblically paired truth.

There are two beneficial aspects to this book. It presents a simple model to help look at various problems in the Christian life. Many Scriptural doctrines are exaggerated in America and they affect how we live. True to the book’s focus, at the conclusion Adams does admit there are issues which are not balanced but are in complete antithesis, such as the role of faith and works in justification. Also, the great numbers of topics covered are sure to give the reader plenty to chew on. Although the chapters are short, the thoughtful reader will find many valuable gems and engaging examples for thinking and acting in a balanced manner.

This little book will be useful for brief readings to challenge our inconsistencies and imbalances or for Christian friends who need encouragement to accept all the doctrines of the bible instead of exalting one truth at the expense of the other.

"I smell a Rat"zinger

That's right--just like the surpised utterance of Patrick Henry when he discovered that the creation of the Constitution was accomplished behind closed doors, I, too, after discovering some newer information on the new pope, proclaim: I smell a rat--Ratzinger the Rat!

Sound harsh? In light of the Roman Catholic dogma, utterances, councels and actions, this language is mild! Read the Reformers like Luther, Calvin and Knox--they called the pope the AntiChrist!--A man who decieves the Church and mocks God Almighty with a works-"gospel"!
(A whole other post can be written about American queasiness over calling a "spade a spade").

My language is not used in a puerile manner, but as an accurate description! Here is why (translation couresy of a German Calvinistic Conservative friend):

"[M]uch [of] democratic socialism stood and stands close to the social ethics of catholicism, in any case it [Socialism] considerably has contributed to the development of a social conscience" --Ratzinger (pope Benedict XVI)

What more need I say? Will this be published in the American Press? Will Hewitt, Hannity, Ingraham and Medved quote this or analyze his political works?

If the Roman Catholic history is known, this will not be surprising. This world-organization has been attracted to totalitarianism for centuries (there are theological reasons for this). Professor Nichols of the University of Chicago wrote in his chapter on "Catholicism And the Totalitarian":

"Being contemptuous of democracy anyway, he [Pius XI] developed a policy of supporting militarist authoritarian governments which could be counted on to fight Communism...having thus paved the way for Mussolini's rise to power [by eradicating any political opposition to the Fascist party] by breaking Catholic democracy, the Vatican proceeded from 1926-1929 to draft a series of agreements with the dictator"

(History of Christianity: 1650-1950, p.365ff.)

What more need I say??
Perhaps one more thing: "For most of the war, the Vatican Secretariate of State apparently expected and desired the victory of the Central Powers. Benedict [XV !!] never would speak out in condemnation of the German violations of Belgian neutrality..." (p.365)

So, Ratzinger wants to name himself after that pope?

Long ago, Patrick said "I smell a rat" in Philadelphia--well, I smell a rat in Italy. With the mid-90s Evangelical fawning over the Roman church, will we have learned our lesson? The American Churches better wake up.

SDG
______________________________________
[Reference for the Ratzinger quote: Die Seele Europas" (The soul of Europe) quotes from a book written by the new pope which came out of the printing press last Wednesday: "Werte in Zeiten des Umbruchs" (Values in a time of change); (the leading daily of Munich, Süddeutsche Zeitung, page 8, issue of Wednesday, 8th, headline) Original text: "In vielem stand und steht der demokratische Sozialismus der katholischen Soziallehre nahe, jedenfalls hat er zur sozialen bewußtseinsbildung erheblich beigetragen"]

Know Thyself (Institues I.1.1)

This is part 1 of a monthly series looking at Calvin's Institutes (I.1.1)

In Calvin’s Institutes (book I, chapter 1, section 1, McNeil ed.) he opens his massive tome with epistemology (a very relevant topic today)-the study of how and what we know. Calvin contends that knowledge is two-fold: of ourselves and of God. However, Calvin does not plunge the murky depths of human philosophy nor does he bedazzle the reader with fancy words (like I just did!), he simply points out the common-sense understanding that anyone who honestly thinks of himself will be lead to see God.

Why? How does this follow? For Calvin, from the “feeling of our own ignorance, vanity, poverty, infirmity, and-what is more-depravity and corruption, we recognize” that all goodness, righteousness and light reside in Him alone. That is, recognition of our sins requires recognition of God. For the unbeliever this is not saving knowledge, but for the believer it illumines our minds, blinding our eyes by the majesty of His Holiness. The Spirit through the Law shows us our depravity and rebellion that only make sense in reference to God-Romans 1 argues that all men know God from his handiwork.

But this is not all: without knowledge of God there is no knowledge of self. Again why? How? Calvin asserts that “we always seem to ourselves righteous and upright and wise and holy-this pride is innate in all of us-unless…we stand convinced of our unrighteousness and foulness…” So, he reinforces his first point that an honest examination of ourselves (by the Spirit) will show that we live in rebellion against the King of the universe. Calvin is not saying that we find God in ourselves because we possess a self-sufficient standard of judgment, rather: “we are not thus convinced if we look merely to ourselves and not also to the Lord, who is the sole standard by which this judgment must be measured” (37).

In other words, by seeing our own sin and misery we will be displeased with ourselves and seek God. And we would never even see our true miserable selves without God, the sole standard by which judgment is measured. If you want to know the glories of God’s perfection, pray the Spirit, through the Word, to illumine your eyes and know thy self.

Econ 101

I have a confession to make: I never liked economics. (that is why I am an aspiring polymath).

My one and only class consisted of a half-semester blur of vague terminologies and amorphous ideas. I never had ‘econ’ (as everyone in college called it) in college—I avoided it like the plague.

Now, I signed up for cultural anthropology (i.e. social studies), math, science, English, speech, philosophy and even logic. But no econ. Wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole.

In retrospect, I can understand why. There was no simple model used to explain our complex system called Capitalism (probably because most of the writers were closer to Socialists). However, my thoughts were wooed back to the area of econ through a short essay in Imprimis (highly recommended and free).

This particular month’s speech digest (March) featured Walter Williams of George Mason University. He pointed out that many modern (postmodern?) theorists describe our system as though it were controlled by a small cadre of bigots who grudgingly handed out cash. Many talk as though a large money pile existed somewhere and only the rich know where it is.

In contrast, Wiliams’ model put a positive light on Capitalism: “serving one’s fellow man.” How? He uses a performance model: dollars are “certificates of performance.” I mow your lawn; you give me money; I take the money to the store; I buy something that someone else produced. The cashier takes the money as a claim of performance: “in effect the grocer says: ‘you’re making a claim on something your fellow man produced. You’re asking him to serve you—but did you serve him?’ I say ‘Yes I did.” The grocer responds, “Prove it!” That’s when I show him my certificate of performance”—money.

In opposition to the “man-is-selfish-let-us-monopolize-upon-it” view of Capitalism, Williams’ take seems to have a Christian twist. It is definitely a clear paradigm—easy to digest. I wish I had this in school.

The rest of the speech flushes out the implications and proofs for this approach. But that is for another posting.

I just might start liking econ.
SDG

Blogg'n & Being a Presbyterian

Someone just recently asked " so did you give up on bloggin already?"
The answer is: yes & no.

Yes, because I will not keep the schedule I desired.
No, because I will still write something about twice a week.
Now, of course, you will ask why nothing was sent for almost a week--and I have a ready excuse: Presbytery.

What this means is that twice a year (three times if I go to General Assemby during the summer--which I will), representatives of the churches in Colorado, Utah, and North and South Dakota, meet to consider issues of discipline, doctrine and practice in all our churches. As a Presbyterian, I believe that mutual accountability is best expressed through connectiveness (not independency) and enforceable accountability (as opposed to the not-too-practical accountability of most independent Evangelical churches where if one does not like the discipline he runs off to another church).

Nothing very exciting happened during our meeting. We heard and presented the praises and prayers of the churches. We split off into committees to consider any petitions, concerns and church minutes. Votes were taken. Arguments were made. Overall, we conducted the business of Christ's Church through her ministers and ruling elders working in concert, exercising the rule of government and discipline.

I have another excuse: I have increased my class load to graduate on time. This includes a 75-page M. Div thesis paper on weekly communion.

Yes, I'll be busy. But, then, blogs are supposed to be short.
SDG

Hannity, Hewitt, Ingraham, Medved & the AntiChrist

AntiChrist?! Why would I write Sean Hannity and antichrist in the same sentence, let alone all four of these popular radio talk show hosts? Because Sean and Laura are self-avowed Roman Catholics, Hugh (the Presbyterian!) pays verbal homage to the pope and Micheal talks about the great strides toward common understanding between Jews and Roman Catholics (all in one days worth of listening!).

While driving around searching for yard supplies with my beautiful wife, I was recently reminded of this fact when I heard Sean on the radio pontificating about the Pope. He spent a number of minutes explaining the "fact" that the pope hails from "Saint Peter himself"; he further explained in detail how the Roman Catholic Church chooses a new pope, with the head of the Cardinal Council verifying the death of the pope through uttering his baptismal name three times while striking him with a silver hammer (I won't go there....).

As a dedicated Classical Protestant, I was quite nauseated. My wife was having a conniption (well, not literally). This was free advertisement for the Roman Catholic heresy. Even though many of my spiritual ancestors (especially on the Continent) believed the pope to be the Antichrist, I believe he is an antichirst--one among a history of many within the church.

Of course, it went from bad to worse. He invited a Rabbi on to further bolster the reputation of the pope. Medved also had a Rabbi utter the same spiel. (Maybe its a "vast right-wing conspiracy?).

Naturally, someone with a liberal or postmodern bent will read this and think that I'm "anti-Semitic and anti-Roman Catholic". Of course! That is why I used the word 'antichrist'! However, my "anti-" is not rooted in some irrational fear or morbid hatred; it is based squarily on my religious convictions that modern Jews (whatever brand) and Roman Catholics believe soul-damning doctrines. It's only fair: they, too, believe that there are soul-damning doctrines they should oppose (think: Nazi). Yet, this conviction does not necessitate taking their lives; rather it behooves us to bring the Gospel.

Because they live in an America that was created out of the fires of the post-Reformation era Puritans, both Jews and Roman Catholics are allowed to air their views. My only wish is that there were more Calvinists (the arch-nemesis of the Roman Church) with money to voice a contrary opinion--not just religiously (which would have a small radio audience indeed!)--but also politically! However, to at least even to begin to think in this direction requires a commitment to Calvinism and commitment against antichrist theology.

Alas, many of the modern Presbyterians (I cannot speak for our Reformed Baptist brothers) probably could not even sign on with our forefathers who declared in 1835 that the "Papacy [is] apostate from Christ, and no true Church." (p.248, notes from Dr. Bogue's class on WCF [from Assembly's Digest, 1886, p.789ff.).

I pray for a Reformation; our church prays for a Reformation. But God uses means and the first thing is to realize and know antichrist doctrine no matter who endorses it--be it our neighbor or our popular talk show hosts.