I’m a Peter Schiff Fan! Saturday, Oct 29 2011 

In the past few years I have been riding the fence as to what Economic Theory I should believe because many of the Puritans held to a more Socialistic view of Economics as many of the Early Fathers did as well. I was into the Libertarian thing for many years following Alex Jones and Ron Paul etc. but I got away from it after reading early Puritan literature. However, after examining this gentleman Peter Schiff, I cannot deny that this gentleman is most likely the most knowledgeable person in the world on these issues of economics and watching his exchanges with Socialistic opponents demonstrates clearly that he’s a man among boys . The point that fully convinced me was that he understood exactly what was wrong with our economy a couple years before the recession happened despite many other economists in America who were ridiculing and insulting him for his precise diagnosis. This is the video that pushed me over into the Peter Schiff fan club:

Scripturalist Christology in Neon Genesis Evangelion Saturday, Oct 29 2011 

I was thinking through the implications of understanding person as consciousness and at the same time seeing only one person in Christ who has two minds wondering if I could ever present a good example of what I’m talking about when I remembered back in my teen years my obsession with Japanese Anime.  The one that came to my mind was the well known Anime Neon Genesis Evangelion. In this multi-episode series mankind is being attacked by Angels who seek Adam, a proto-Angel at the center of the Earth that is now protected by the man-made underground military base Nerv. As their defense, mankind utilizes Angels of their own who are clones of this proto-Angel Adam. Armed with bio- mechanical armour and weaponry, human pilots control these angels through hypostatization of the Angel’s rational faculty. As the Angels exist in an impersonal comatose state they present for us a perfect example of a single agent who has hypostatized their impersonal/generic rational faculty and becomes now the sole agent of action and operation. Two natures, one person but two minds-one concrete; the other generic. As a side note let the reader observe how Shinji the primary Eva Pilot experiences the pain of the Eva nature even though his own nature is not being harmed at all. In this same way the Lord Jesus Christ, Eternal Son of God, Eternally Begotten of the Father with no capability of suffering in his divine nature suffered in and through a human nature. It was not as if only an abstract nature suffered but a divine person suffered in and through human nature. I found this example helpful after reading other examples using the Avatar movie. The Avatar movie is a poor example because it presents only a body with no rational faculty. The Avatar body has no rational faculty of its own through which man must synchronize or hypostatize. In this wise Neon Genesis Evangelion improves:

Video 1-See last 5 minutes:

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v36981312fpJ7P2W?h1=Neon+Genesis+Evangelion+Ep+1+Eng+Sub

Video 2  See first few minutes:

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v3706174KcpPJbxN?h1=Neon+Genesis+Evangelion+Ep+2+Eng+Sub

Video 3

Start at 17:00

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v37061717Tf3W7eS?h1=Neon+Genesis+Evangelion+Ep+7+Eng+Sub

My Book Monday, Oct 24 2011 

I have been downloading my book piece by piece on the pages of my website and I don’t find it very convenient to myself or the reader so I just downloaded it on a pdf file.  If you want access to the book in its entirety go to this link:http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/apologetics-vs-atheism

It is downloaded under the file name confessio10-6 (1) (9).pdf – on Oct 24, 2011 3:19 PM by Drake Shelton (version 1)

Keep in my mind that this is a first draft. I do not plan on trying to publish this until I finish seminary. I am going to remove the previous pages and replace them with this single page.

Was the American View of Separation of Church and State Influenced by The Calvinist View of Human Nature? Monday, Oct 24 2011 

Was the American View of Separation of Church and State Influenced by The Calvinist View of Human Nature?

Growing up in America, I have had so many erroneous opinions shoved down my throat it’s hard to keep track but this one I remember all too well. In American Evangelical Wanna-Be Reformed -Wanna-Be Protestant Churches, they tell you that the American Revolution and the American view of Separation of Church and State flowed out of the Calvinist conception of Total Depravity which demanded accountability to government. Actually the opposite is the case. InScotland, this is true. However, the depravity of man required the Establishment of God’s Revealed Religion as the highest authority over the Government.  In the following quotation Scotland and America are great case example of the consequences following from either a Revealed Epistemology or an Empirical Epistemology.

In The Dictates of Conscience: The Debate Over Religious Liberty In Revolutionary Virginia, Deborah O’Malley says,

“Jefferson’s strong belief in our ability to know God’s goodness [Without Grace and Special Revelation-DS] in particular  will be essential for his understanding of  religious liberty.  He was blatantly critical of  any doctrine which he believed undermined God’s goodness.  In  the same letter to Adams,Jefferson explicitly stated his aversion to the doctrines of Calvinism.

‘I can never join Calvin in addressing  his god…If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.  The being  described in his 5 points is not the God whom you and I acknowledge  and adore; the Creator and benevolent governor of the world;  but a demon of malignant spirit.  It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of  Calvin.’ [Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823 inJefferson: Writings, pg. 1466-DS]…

The emphasis which Calvin puts on sin is clearly absent from Jefferson’s writings.  Calvin’s view of human nature is that it is soaked in sin; therefore, certain ideas which we have may be a result of sin rather than God, including the idea of liberty.  We need the grace of God before we can determine which ideas are a result of sin and which ones are notThis understanding of sin was present in the arguments of many of Jefferson’s  opponents.  In fact, many of his opponents were critical of his idea of the “state of nature” in which all men have an innate right to liberty.  In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson speaks of this idea as “self-evident,” but the Calvinist would argue that something which seems to be self-evident may be a result of sin. Jefferson, however, believes that liberty is a gift of God:

‘The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.” [Rights of British America, 1774 in The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia: A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson.  John P. Foley, ed.  (New York: Funk & Wagnells Co., 1990) on the Universityof Virginia Libraryonline: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/foley/.-DS]

Therefore, the idea of liberty could not possibly be a result of sin.” (Pg. 18-20)

This is quite devastating to the entire enterprise of the Constitutionalist Theonomic Poser-Protestant. The entire view of humanity in this system is the superiority of the individual human will and its inherent inclination and desire to seek the truth. This is the exact opposite of what Calvinism teaches.  

 

Did Thomas Jefferson Understand the Protestant Establishment Principle? I Deny. By this Demonstration the United States is Left Without Excuse When it Rejects the Crown Rights of Christ Monday, Oct 24 2011 

Did Thomas Jefferson Understand the Protestant Establishment Principle? I Deny. By this Demonstration the United States is Left Without Excuse When it Rejects the Crown Rights of Christ

The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom

Drafted By Thomas Jefferson In 1777 And Adopted By The General Assembly In 1786

“Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical; [As the Pluralistic American Government has done everyday of its existence and continues to do as does every Government does; this is juvenile nonsense. My mandatory tax money is used to perform abortions and other insane and murderous institutions to this day that I despise-DS] that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry, that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right, that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.”

Hold on. Does the Protestant Establishment principle compel man to believe a certain religion, or compel the mind of man by temporal punishments? Does the Protestant Establishment Principle compel men by force to attend public worship services?Rutherforddenies them all! RepeatRutherforddenies them all! You silly Americans need to re-read Protestant History before you start your atheistic Revolutions and this goes double for the Baptists who should know better. It goes triple for the Presbyterian who have fallen for the same lies. John Robbins’ lectures about government/economics and religion have serious anabaptist elements. Robbins frequently used Roger Williams’ arguments against the Establishment Principle with 2 Cor 10:3-5 The weapons of our warfare are not carnal. The following quotation from Rutherford cleans things up nicely.

Rutherford says in his book Free Disputation Chapter 4. The state of the question of compulsion of conscience, and toleration,

“5. The question is not whether religion can be enforced upon men by the Magistrate by the dint and violence of the sword, or only persuaded by the power of the word. We hold with Lactantius that religion cannot be compelled, nor can mercy and justice and love to our neighbour commaned in the second table, be more compelled then faith in Christ. Hence give me leave to prove two things. 1. That Religion and faith cannot be forced on men. 2. That this is a vain consequence, Religion cannot be forced but must be persuaded by the word and Spirit, Ergo the Magistrate can use no coercive power in punishing heretics and false teachers.

For the first, we lay hold on all the arguments that prove the word preached to be the only means of converting the soul, begetting of faith and that carnal weapons are not able, yea nor were they ever appointed of God, to ding down strong holds, nor can they make a willing people: and Lactantuis said well, What is left to us, if another’s lust extort that by force, which we must do willingly? And that of Tertullian. It is of the law or right of man and of his natural power what every man worships, what he thinks he should worship, nor doth the religion of one either do good or do evil to another man, nor is it religion to compel religion, which ought To be received by will not by force: since sacrifices (of worship) are required of a willing mind. In which I observe. 1. Tertullian speaks not of the true Christian religion which is now in question: but of religion in general as it is comprehensive of both true and false religion. Because he speaks of that religion which by the law of nature a man chooseth, and is humani juris and naturalis potestatis: but it is not of the law of man or natural power, nor in flesh and blood’s power to choose the true Christian religion, that election is Supernatural faith Tertullian there and else where often, as also the Scripture. John 6.44. Math. 16.17. Math. 11. 25, 26, 27. 2. Religion is taken two ways 1. for the inward and outward acts of religion as seen both to God and man as Lactantius, Tertullian and others say, so it is most true. Christians ought not with force of sword, compel Jews, nor Jews or pagans compel Christians to be of their religion, because religion is not begotten in any, by persuasion of the mind, nor by forcing of the man. Again religion is taken for the external profession and acting and performances of true religion within the church or by such as profess the truth, that are obvious to the eyes of Magistrates and pastors, and thus the sword is no means of God to force men positively to external worship or performances. But the sword is a means negatively to punish acts of false worship in those that are under the Christian Magistrate and profess Christian society, in so far as these acts come out to the eyes of men and are destructive to the souls of these in a Christian religion, Tis even so (and not otherwise punishable by the Magistrate;) for he may punish omissions of hearing the Doctrine of the Gospel and other external performances of worship,  as these omissions by ill example or otherwise are offensive to the souls of these that are to lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty; nor does it follow that the sword is a kindly means to force outward performances, for the Magistrate as the Magistrate does not command these outward performances as service to God, but rather forbids the omissions of them as destructing to man… These are of a wide difference, to kill blasphemers, and false teachers for spreading heresies and blasphemies; and to compel them by war, and fire and sword to be of our Christian religion. As I hope to prove, for the former is lawful, the later unlawful. Its true Lactantius speaks of all religion true and false, that we are to compel none with the sword to any religion, but he no where saith that the Magistrates may not kill open and pernicious seducers and false teachers who pervert others, for the Magistrate is not to compel yea not to intend the conversion of a pernicious seducer, but to intend to take his head from him, for his destroying of souls. And Lactantius denies religion after it is begotten, can be defended, that is nourished and conserved in the hearts of people by the sword, but by the word and spirit. Those are far different tormenting and piety (saith he) nor can violence be conjoined with verity, nor justice with cruelty… I. Because the Magistrate cannot, nor ought not to compel evil doers , murderers, adulterers, robbers, liars, to be internally peaceably, chaste, content with their own as well as they must be such externally, no more than he can compel them to inward fear, love, faith in God, and to the external performances thereof. But it doth not follow that therefore the Magistrate cannot command external acts of mercy, chastity, self-contentedness, and should not punish murder, adultery, theft, robbery, perjury, for to punish these makes many hypocritically peaceable, chaste, content with their own, true in their word, as well as punishing false teachers and heretics maketh many hypocritically sound in the faith so Augustine contra Petilian.1.3. c. 83.”

The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli Strong in Dispelling the Myth that the Founding Fathers Were Christian or Designed a Christian Nation Sunday, Oct 23 2011 

“The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816
Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796

Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796 (3 Ramada I, A. H. 1211), and at Algiers January 3, 1797 (4 Rajab, A. H. 1211). Original in Arabic. Submitted to the Senate May 29, 1797. (Message of May 26, 1797.) Resolution of advice and consent June 7, 1797. Ratified by the United States June 10, 1797. As to the ratification generally, see the notes. Proclaimed Jane 10, 1797.

The following fourteen pages of Arabic are a reproduction of the text in the original treaty book, first the pages of the treaty in left-to-right order of pagination, and then the ” receipt ” and the ” note ” mentioned, according to the Barlow translation, in Article 10. Following the Arabic and in the same order, is the translation of Joel Barlow as written in the treaty book-the twelve articles of the treaty, the “receipt,” and the “note”; and after these is the approval of David Humphreys from the same document, which is fully described in the notes. Following those texts is the annotated translation of 1930…

ARTICLE 11

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

 

Refuting Thomas Jefferson’s Ignorant and Atheistic Rubbish Sunday, Oct 23 2011 

For some strange reason, many American Christians think that they have religious solidarity with the “Founding Fathers” of our nation. I would like to begin dispelling these myths beyond refutation, because I know even some Reformed people who will fight tooth and nail to preserve their constitutionalist fantasy land reality that they hold so dear. The following is a letter written by Thomas Jefferson where he fully demonstrates that he is an enemy of Jesus Christ and the Christian religion.

Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence and Miscellanies, ed. Randolph, Vol. IV 2nd Edition, (New York: Gray and Bowen, 1830), pg. 325-329.

“LETTER CLIII

TO WILLIAM SHORT.

Monticello, August 4, 1820.

Dear Sir,

I owe you a letter for your favor of June the 29th, which was received in due time; and there being no subject of the day, of particular interest, I will make this a supplement to mine of April the 13th. My aim in that was, to justify the character of Jesus against the fictions of his pseudo-followers, which have exposed him to the inference of being an impostor. For if we could believe that he really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods, and the charlatanisms which his biographers father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations, and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind, that he was an impostor. I give no credit to their falsifications of his actions and doctrines, and to rescue his character, the postulate in my letter asked only what is granted in reading every other historian. When Livy and Siculus, for example, tell us things which coincide with our experience of the order of nature, we credit them on their word, and place their narrations among the records of credible history. But when they tell us of calves speaking, of statues sweating blood, [Sounds like he knew some Roman Catholics who still claim to see these images. They are called weeping statues-DS] and other things against the course of nature, we reject these as fables not belonging to history. [As do Protestants-DS] In like manner, when an historian, speaking of a character well known and established on satisfactory testimony, imputes to it things incompatible with that character, we reject them without hesitation, and assent to that only of which we have better evidence. Had Plutarch informed us that Caesar and Cicero passed their whole lives in religious exercises, and abstinence from the affairs of the world, we should reject what was so inconsistent with their established characters, still crediting what he relates in conformity with our ideas of them. So again, the superlative wisdom of Socrates is testified by all antiquity, and placed on ground not to be questioned. When, therefore, Plato puts into his mouth such paralogisms, such quibbles on words, and sophisms, as a school-boy would be ashamed of, we conclude they were the whimsies of Plato’s own foggy brain, and acquit Socrates of puerilities so unlike his character. (Speaking of Plato, I will add, that no writer, ancient or modern, has bewildered the world with more ignes fatui, than this renowned philosopher, in Ethics, in Politics, and Physics. In the latter, to specify a single example, compare his views of the animal economy, in his Timaeus , with those of Mrs. Bryan in her Conversations on Chemistry, and weigh the science of the canonized philosopher against the good sense of the unassuming lady. But Plato’s visions have furnished a basis for endless systems of mystical theology, and he is therefore all but adopted as a Christian saint. It is surely time for men to think for themselves, and to throw off the authority of names so artificially magnified. But to return from this parenthesis.) I say, that this free exercise of reason is all I ask for the vindication of the character of Jesus. We find in the writings of his biographers matter of two distinct descriptions. First, a ground-work of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms, and fabrications. Intermixed with these, again, are sublime ideas of the Supreme Being, aphorisms, and precepts of the purest morality and benevolence, sanctioned by a life of humility, innocence, and simplicity of manners, neglect of riches, absence of worldly ambition and honors, with an eloquence and persuasiveness which have not been surpassed. These could not be inventions of the grovelling authors who relate them. They are far beyond the powers of their feeble minds. They show that there was a character, the subject of their history, whose splendid conceptions were above all suspicion of being interpolations from their hands. Can we be at a loss in separating such materials, and ascribing each to its genuine author? The difference is obvious to the eye and to the understanding, and we may read as we run to each his part; and I will venture to affirm, that he who, as I have done, will undertake to winnow this grain from its chaff, will find it not to require a moment’s consideration. The parts fall asunder of themselves, as would those of an image of metal and clay.

There are, I acknowledge, passages not free from objection, which we may, with probability, ascribe to Jesus himself; but claiming indulgence from the circumstances under which he acted. His object was the reformation of some articles in the religion of the Jews, as taught by Moses. That sect had presented for the object of their worship, a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust. Jesus, taking for his type the best qualities of the human head and heart, wisdom, justice, goodness, and adding to them power, ascribed all of these, but in infinite perfection, to the Supreme Being, and formed him really worthy of their adoration. Moses had either not believed in a future state of existence, or had not thought it essential to be explicitly taught to his people. Jesus inculcated that doctrine with emphasis and precision. Moses had bound the Jews to many idle ceremonies, mummeries, and observances, of no effect towards producing the social utilities which constitute the essence of virtue; Jesus exposed their futility and insignificance. [This is inherently Baptistic-DS] The one instilled into his people the most anti-social spirit towards other nations; the other preached philanthropy and universal charity and benevolence. [Sure Tommy. Jesus said, Mat 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?-DS] The office of reformer of the superstitions of a nation, is ever dangerous. Jesus had to walk on the perilous confines of reason and religion: and a step to right or left might place him within the gripe of the priests of the superstition, a blood-thirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel. [Wrong again Tommy. John 7:   19 “Did not Moses give you the Law, and yet none of you carries out the Law?] They were constantly laying snares, too, to entangle him in the web of the law. He was justifiable, therefore, in avoiding these by evasions, by sophisms, by misconstructions, and misapplications of scraps of the prophets, and in defending himself with these their own weapons, as sufficient, ad homines, at least. That Jesus did not mean to  impose himself on mankind as the Son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore. [Wrong again Tommy-Jesus said John 10: 35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?-DS] But that he might conscientiously believe himself inspired from above, is very possible. The whole religion of the Jews, inculcated on him from his infancy, was founded in the belief of divine inspiration. The fumes of the most disordered imaginations were recorded in their religious code, as special communications of the Deity; and as it could not but happen that, in the course of ages, events would now and then turn up to which some of these vague rhapsodies might be accommodated by the aid of allegories, figures, types, and other tricks upon words, they have not only preserved their credit with the Jews of all subsequent times, but are the foundation of much of the religions of those who have schismatized from them. Elevated by the enthusiasm of a warm and pure heart, conscious of the high strains of an eloquence which had not been taught him, he might readily mistake the coruscations of his own fine genius for inspirations of an higher order. This belief, carried, therefore, no more personal imputation, than the belief of Socrates, that himself was under the care and admonitions of a guardian Daemon. And how many of our wisest men still believe in the reality of these inspirations, while perfectly sane on all other subjects. Excusing, therefore, on these considerations, those passages in the gospels which seem to bear marks of weakness in Jesus, ascribing to him what alone is consistent with the great and pure character of which the same writings furnish proofs, and to their proper authors their own trivialities and imbecilities, I think myself authorized to conclude the purity and distinction of his character, in opposition to the impostures which those authors would fix upon him; and that the postulate of my former letter is no more than is granted in all other historical works.

Mr. Correa is here, on his farewell visit to us. He has been much pleased with the plan and progress of our University, and has given some valuable hints to its botanical branch. He goes to do, I hope, much good in his new country; the public instruction there, as I  understand, being within the department destined for him. He is not without dissatisfaction, and reasonable dissatisfaction, too, with the piracies of Baltimore; but his justice and friendly dispositions will, I am sure, distinguish between the iniquities of a few plunderers, and the sound principles of our country at large, and of our government especially. From many conversations with him, I hope he sees, and will promote, in his new situation, the advantages of a cordial fraternization among all the American nations, and the importance of their coalescing in an American system of policy, totally independent of, and unconnected with that ofEurope. The day is not distant, when we may formally require a meridian of partition through the ocean which separates the two hemispheres, on the hither side of which no European gun shall ever be heard, nor an American on the other; and when, during the rage of the eternal wars of Europe, the lion and the lamb, within our regions, shall lie down together in peace. The excess of population inEurope, and want of room, render war, in their opinion, necessary to keep down that excess of numbers. Here, room is abundant, population scanty, and peace the necessary means for producing men, to whom the redundant soil is offering the means of life and happiness. The principles of society there and here, then, are radically different, and I hope no American patriot will ever lose sight of the essential policy of interdicting in the seas and territories of bothAmericas, the ferocious and sanguinary contests ofEurope. I wish to see this coalition begun. I am earnest for an agreement with the maritime powers of Europe, assigning them the task of keeping down the piracies of their seas and the cannibalisms of the African coasts, and, to us, the suppression of the same enormities within our seas: and for this purpose, I should rejoice to see the fleets of Brazil and the United States riding together as brethren of the same family, and pursuing the same object. And indeed it would be of happy augury to begin at once this concert of action here, on the invitation of either to the other government, while the way might be preparing for withdrawing our cruisers from Europe, and preventing naval collisions there which daily endanger our peace.”

How about we begin the process of waking up the Christian Churches as to exactly what we are involved with here? This is a system that is purposefully and knowledgeably setting itself AGAINST the Messiah.

Where is the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone Before Luther? Saturday, Oct 22 2011 

Where is the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone Before Luther?

1 Cor 11:19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.

Anchoretic Christians often complain that Protestants have no historical basis (Outside of the New Testament) for their principles of justification by faith alone, that is, forensic imputed righteousness. First, they fail to remember that God already settled this issue very clearly in Romans and Galatians. Second, they fail to remember that God perfects his Church through allowing erroneous teachers to come in so the true flock may be perfected through theological controversy as Paul makes clear in 1 Corinthians 11. Remember, much of the New Testament was written in response to theological error and practical error that needed to be corrected. With the doctrine of Justification by faith alone, the Papist errors were the very things that God used to bring Christians back to the original apostolic teaching on this issue.

James R.Willson, says in his Prince Messiah’s Claims To Dominion Over All Governments,

“To the doctrine of his priestly office, his servants bore witness in the 16th century, when justification through faith, without the works of the law, was taught and illustrated. The conflict then was between the heresies of the Papists respecting pardon by indulgences, penances, pilgrimages and purity, on the one side; and the meritorious offering of the son of God for sinners on the other. Then was the second great article of the church’s creed settled. For the truth of the priesthood of Christ, many thousand of saints laid down their lives, not counting them dear.”

Reg Barrow Gives Modern Theonomy The Karelin Lift Saturday, Oct 22 2011 

Alexander Karelin was one of the most devastating wrestlers to ever live. His most impressive display of power was when he would lift 300+  pound opponents from flat off the the ground and reintroduce their necks and collar bones to the mat with crushing force. The move was nicknamed “The Karelin Lift”. With parallel might, Reg Barrow’s writings, which IMO are the best available writings anywhere representing true historical Presbyterian Principles regarding issues of authority, the church, and the state, have ripped the Americanist Pseudo-Reformed systems of Theology to shreds.  In his work Pornography, The Anabaptists And Doug Wilson’s Civil Antinomianism he clearly shows the primary fallacy of the Modern Theonomist movement and in so doing gives an exposition of the historical Puritan Theonomy which is nothing short of the ancient Patriarchal Establishmentarianism so common with human societies in the history of the world.

Barrow places his finger on the primary error of this system,

“To begin with, on the pornography question Wilson (and other *modern* Theonomists) apply a *form* of “regulativism” (really “hyper-regulativism”; see below) where it does not belong — i.e. in the case of negative civil sanctions. Ironically, many of these same people also deny (if only by their practice; James 1:22; Titus 1:16) the true regulativism where Scripture teaches it does belong — i.e. in the public worship of God.”

The rest of his work is an exposition of this very mistake and at the end of his work he lists some devastating questions that the Modern Theonomist cannot answer:

“¥ Is the magistrate to punish a neighbor who inconsiderately and obstinately plays his stereo (from his front porch) at 120 decibels (every night of the week) from 3 to 5 A.M.? What if “Mr. Rock and Roll” decides to do the same thing outside of an old folks home? A hospital? A church meeting house” on the Lord’s day (at 11 A.M.)?

¥ Should those in favor of abortion be allowed to speak publicly in favor of their views, or to print pro-abortion literature, or make pro-abortion videos and music? Should they be punished for seeking to win others to their view?

¥ Should medical establishments be free from civil punishment for training abortionists?

¥ Should the civil magistrate allow triple X videos to be intermingled in the children’s section of the local video store? Should those who do such things be liable to negative civil sanctions? What would you think of a father who said that he doesn’t agree that civil sanctions are lawful in such a case, and though he would boycott such a store *personally*, and have his church pray against them, he would also defend (in his magazine?) the *civil right* of the store owner to pervert others who do not find (in their reprobate minds) such public perversion to be offensive to them or their children? This is an interesting question, as *modern* Theonomists often denounce those who focus on *only* individual (or family) piety, to the exclusion of civil matters — and yet some of them exempt pornographers from criminal penalties (which in effect makes them less reconstructionists than some of the pietists who understand by “the law of nature and nations” [as the old divines would say] that public pornography should be suppressed by the civil magistrate).

¥ Should heroin, LSD, PCP, MDA, mescaline, peyote, pot, or other mind (and spirit) altering drugs be legal and available at your local corner store? Does the Bible explicitly mandate any civil restrictions on the *age of buyers* of such poisons? Does the Bible explicitly mandate any civil restrictions on the age of buyers of alcohol? Tobacco? Pornography?

¥ If a group of university students takes it upon themselves to block a major interstate as some sort of protest (as happened a few years ago in San Diego), should the magistrate use his coercive force to intervene, and later punish these offenders in some way? Given Wilson’s published principles civilly defending pornographers, could there even be a law making such behavior criminal?

¥ Can the police, as police (and not as private men) stop a crime at its beginning, or even before it begins, or do they need to wait until it’s been committed to apply negative sanctions (even death to the criminal) against the perpetrator (or would-be perpetrator)?

¥ Should terrorists be apprehended and proceeded against with sanctions *before* they have detonated the bombs they are found to be manufacturing? Which *explicit* biblical negative civil sanction deals with bomb *making* (in and of itself)? Is there not much which a lawful civil magistrate must determine, that is not explicitly stated in Scripture, in order to rightly apply the *spirit of the law of God* in a case such as this?

¥ Should a teacher (in a public, private or home school) be punished for positively *promoting* (not just exposing) homosexuality, atheism, communism, Romanism, Islam, occultism, or even bestiality in the classroom? What about for providing recipes for home-made hallucinogenics (as one of my high school teachers did many years ago)? For teaching evolution as a fact?

¥ Should a drunk driver be punished by the civil magistrate before he actually hurts anyone?

¥ Should those flagrantly violating traffic laws be punished, though they may not yet have hurt anyone or damaged property? Should there even be traffic laws (or other safety standards applied to vehicles)?

¥ Should those wearing flagrantly immodest clothing in public (e.g. bikinis) be prevented from doing so by the magistrate, and punished if they persist in this sin? Should those running naked in public (“streaking”) be subject to civil sanctions?

¥ Should those making movies, songs or books promoting blatant error be subject to civil sanctions?

¥ Should the civil government ever repress godless (and blasphemous) art or music, and punish those producing and promoting such filth?

¥ Is the U.S. law mandating civil punishments for “conspiracy to violate an international treaty” biblically legitimate (apart from the question of whether or not the US in a duly constituted nation)? Does this depend on which treaty is being violated (i.e. whether it is lawful or unlawful to begin with)?

¥ Is it a crime in Scripture for one person to commit adultery, while, on the other hand, promoting, counselling and encouraging millions to do so (as pornographers do) is free from civil punishment?

¥ Is the public toleration of pornography, Romanism, abortion, Islam, homosexuality, idolatry, the occult, atheism, etc. (all parts of the complex moral person of Antichrist) one of the causes of God’s wrath upon our nations? Should all publicly know national or provincial causes of God’s wrath be dealt with by the civil magistrate?

¥ Are patent laws legitimate?

¥ Should cigarette companies, who knowingly deceived the public about the health hazards of smoking, be liable to civil penalties?

¥ Are there explicit penal sanctions revealed in Scripture (without the use lawful inferences) regarding medical malpractice (which does not result in death)? For example, if the undisputed negligence of a doctor causes a person to become a paraplegic, is the negligent doctor free from civil liability?

¥ Would it be a crime for a company to produce a food containing traces of peanut extract, and not alert their customers as to this ingredient, if they knew that severe allergic reactions would seriously harm a small portion of those who consume this product? What *explicit* Scripture deals with this from the civil standpoint? Do we again have to rely on necessary and lawful inferences, based on Scripture, to determine this case?

¥ Should avowed Satanists be allowed to homeschool their children? Unitarians? Romanists?”

Against Anarchism and Secular Theories of Government; The Atheists and the Baptists Shown to Be Kissin’ Cousins Wednesday, Oct 19 2011 

Against Anarchism and Secular Theories of Government; The Atheists and the Baptists Shown to Be Kissin’ Cousins

The Occupy Wall Street movement has trickled down to my hometown in Louisville,KY.I have attended two of their meetings and tonight I attended a general assembly. The first night I attended a very polite organizer among the group admitted to me that she was an anarchist and that the movement was designed along those lines. I clarified with her what she meant. I asked her, “Are you saying that sovereignty terminates, not just upon a body politic but upon the individual? ” She said “yes”. I replied, “So you guys are atheist anarchists?” “Yes” she replied. “So why doesn’t your movement just come out and say that” I asked. She smiled and said, “If we did that we would be alienated”.  From the attention I have given to these people a bit of philosophy needs to be answered by the anarchist and secularist theories in general.

First, it must be understood that I reject the entire Enlightenment enterprise which rode the back of the Scientific “Revolution” in the 16th and 17thCenturies. Some fundamental tenants of the  Scientific Revolution were mere re-assertions of previously refuted material, in specific Democritus’ atomism which Zeno of Elea ripped to shreds some 2400 years ago. (See Systematic Theology; Chapter 1 Epistemology; Section 1 Knowledge Falsely So Called Introduction to Philosophy Part 2 and Philosophy of Science By Drake Shelton)  Western Society has left the idea that the end of human society is a people with an identity and a culture flowing out of their religion and their God to adopt the theory that the end of human society is business. They want to tolerate all religions and make the state secular because that is good business. Currently,America has no human identity, no culture and now the businessmen have all the power and they are using it to destroy the middle class. Didn’t see that one coming did we? God has turned our devices on ourselves and used the very things that we replaced him with to destroy us. Sound familiar? Just read your Old Testament.  Here are some key items to embarrass your local neighborhood Secularist and Anarchist group whose cousins, the Baptists, will also see fit to enjoy.

*Coersion: Where does a government or anyone get the authority to coerce someone else? By what right does a majority coerce a minority? Every time I have asked this of Secularists they just look real funny at me, like they never even thought of that before. This is why social contract demands a unanimous agreement in a body politic. Good luck with that one.  No such government exists or ever has existed. If you hold to this theory you must admit that no ACTUAL government rules by right.  By what right does a social contract coerce the children of the body politic to contract and surrender their rights? How will the government continue? This is why Christians have historically Baptized their infants because they understand the Patriarchal nature of humanity (Baptists reject infant baptism as they reject the inherent Patriarchalism of Religion); Covenant obligations are passed down to the children through the Patriarch or head of the house.

Here we see the inherent atheism ingrained in Baptist Theology. This is why Baptistic and Atheistic views of society are such a fringe in the history of the world. They are inhuman and cannot begin to address rudimentary issues of human society.

Is the majority decision distinct from common good? If so what is the distinction?

*Body Politic: Social Contract theorists talk about how individual citizens surrender their rights over to a group contract wherein a moral person is created among them. How can the abstract concept of a moral person be produced from sensation? That is, where can I see or touch a moral person?If I cannot then the atheistic theory of empiricism must be abandoned or the moral person theory abandoned, you cannot have it both ways.

*Source of Rights: Do rights derive from the social contract or are they alienated and surrendered to the contract? Rousseau said both. The French Revolution was adamant on inalienable rights so how this works is anyone’s best guess. How can someone surrender over what they only get after the contract has been made?

*The arbitrary nature of rights in social contract theory is exposed in such an example: If the socially contracted moral person added an amendment calling for the extermination of a certain ethnicity, this moral person would not just have the force, BUT THE RIGHT to do so. If not then we must have a different source of rights than a social contract.

*Natural law, universal ethical norms, cannot be deduced or induced from sensation. Sensation would tell us there are no norms for Heraclitus proved that all physical objects are in constant flux, so a fixed norm would ipso facto be impossible. Secondly, induction is a formal fallacy.

*How can America deny in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights establishment of religion and then assert the God of Nature and the Creator who bequeaths inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence? When you speak of God and his operations you are establishing a religion. This is contradictory.

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: