You are currently browsing the monthly archive for December 2007.
On November 29th, 2007, this website was viewed 626 times. This is double our previous record of 303. Thanks to all who view this site and have linked to it in these past 4 years.
In his interview of the honorable Pat Buchanan, Glenn Beck asserts that Ron Paul is the “closest to the founding fathers.” So, are Ron Paul supporters, who Beck equates with terrorists also supporters of the Founding Fathers? If so, are the Founding Fathers terrorists?
My friend opines rightly about Sean Hannity’s delirious support for the Republican Neo-Cons, no matter if the tables are turned. Steve Wolters writes:
I found it interesting that Mr. Hannity was attempting to legitimize the practice of flip-flopping in the political arena. Of course, this is due to the fact that the majority of the Republican candidates, with one or two exceptions, has been changing positions and talking out of every side of their mouth. And his only apologetic for these men running for president in 2008 was that at least they haven’t flipped and flopped as much as Hillary Clinton.
Is that the measuring stick that we are going to have to use in the upcoming election? Are these really people we want leading our nation? Do we want people who only have a position for political gain, and then will flippantly change with the crowd? Don’t we want someone who is strong on principle, standing strong on the values of the founding of this nation? When did this behavior suddenly become legitimate? I am truly grieved.
Once again, integrity out, political expediency in.
Tonight’s debate was a despicable display of socialism and warmongering. Mike Huckabee wants to use our tax money to subsidize every project under the sun and Mars. Even Romney was shocked. He looked at Huckabee and said: “That is not your money to spend.” When asked about how long he would pledge to stay in Iraq, Thompson advocated staying in Iraq “as long as it takes to complete our mission.” This mission, of course, has been re-defined many times.
Ron Paul’s surge in the polls has given him a little more spotlight in debates. Paul spoke 4 times. McCain and Thompson also spoke 4 times; Romney and Giuliani spoke 9 times. In fact, the debate began with a discussion between Romney and Giuliani over illegal immigration. Each candidate accused one another of providing sanctuary cities. The discussion became so fruitless that even the audience began to despise the interaction.
On the other hand, Paul’s performance was clear and concise. It is always surprising to hear his cogent responses in the short time alloted to him. His knowledge of history and unwavering commitment to freedom and the Constitution places him on far higher level than all the other candidates (Tancredo is an exception to this criticism; though largely interventionist in his philosophy). In order to prove Ron Paul’s surge in the polls, McCain lashed out at him concerning Paul’s ardent opposition to the war. McCain accused Paul of being an isolationist. Paul corrected the ridiculous assertion from McCain and re-asserted the Founding Father’s commitment to trading with nations, but not seeking monsters over sea.
Paul’s most eloquent moment was when he corrected a candidate’s statement that Republicans go to Washington to change things, but end up being changed by Washington. Paul retorted that Washington never changed him: “I don’t think that applies to me… I never voted to raise taxes,” said Paul.
Once again, a large number of people have seen the unapologetic stance of a true patriot. The words of our future first lady describes this patriot:
So the American Dream came true for a boy who delivered newspapers, a teen-ager who mowed lawns, delivered milk, delivered furniture, delivered laundry, and delivered mail, and for a man who then delivered babies. Now that dream continues with a man who is trying to deliver the message that freedom works and that patriotism must not grow weak in the hearts of all Americans. And liberty reigns to help us hang on to our Republic for which the Founders gave their last measure of devotion.
Ron Paul’s Winning Ad
A Nation of Sheep…
Show #6: Huckabee’s Liberal Record and Paul’s Favoritism
This podcast lasts 3 minutes. For previous podcasts go to archives.
Program notes:
On this 6th podcast I would like to speak briefly about Mike Huckabee’s liberal economic policies. In a recent article by Robert Novak entitled: The False Conservative, Novak details Huckabee’s impressive and clear abilities to articulate a liberal economic policy of increasing taxes and “big-government advocate of a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans.”
Novak begins his article with the following words:
Who would respond to criticism from the Club for Growth by calling the conservative, free-market campaign organization the “Club for Greed”? That sounds like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards, all Democrats preaching the class struggle. In fact, the rejoinder comes from Mike Huckabee, who has broken out of the pack of second-tier Republican presidential candidates to become a serious contender — definitely in Iowa and perhaps nationally. Read the rest of this entry »
Editor’s note: This was originally posted on my blog in June of 2004.
“And I am afraid there are Calvinists, who, while they account it a proof of their humility that they are willing in words to debase the creature, and to give all the glory of salvation to the Lord, yet know not what manner of spirit they are of. Whatever it be that makes us trust in ourselves that we are comparatively wise or good, so as to treat those with contempt who do not subscribe to our doctrines, or follow our party, is a proof and fruit of a self-righteous spirit. Self-righteousness can feed upon doctrines, as well as upon works; and the man may have a heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with unorthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature and the riches of free grace.”*
Perhaps this rebuke should cause most of us who unashamedly call ourselves “Calvinists” to tremble. We have at times ( and I guilty of it) elevated ourselves so high, that instead of exalting the doctrines of God’s Grace we have made it a stepping stone for the enhancement of our intellect, pride, and even, our self-righteousness.
We lose the beauty and majesty of grace when we reduce it to mere abstract theological
jargon used to bring glory to ourselves. Remember Paul says that we are the “weak vessels” that bring a great message, not a great vessel that brings a weak message. The message of Grace is lost when presented by one who shows no grace. Sadly, most of us Calvinists have done just that. We have turned our focus on ourselves, our logic, and our abilities instead of stooping low to reveal the giver of Grace.
It is our highest aim to proclaim a doctrine that so diminishes us, as to make us look insignificant to the rest of humanity. And it is our highest aim to make God look so significant and glorious so as to make him the desire of nations. Let us not turn the purpose of Calvinism on its head by missing the goal.
* The Works of John Newton (quoted on pg. 30 of “Reformed is not Enough” by Douglas Wilson.
Bishop Wright’s lecture on God and Politics are worth quoting. Lee Irons–who strongly opposes Wright’s view of the Kingdom–posted these quotes on his blog.
Wright’s lecture on God and Politics
Though, I find myself in constant disagreement with Wright’s perplexing view of governmental intervention in civil affairs, overwhelming taxation–which resembles Jim Wallis’ leftist socialistic approach–nevertheless, I too share Wright’s concerns with America’s imperialistic enterprise.
Some Reformed interpreters like to postulate that Psalm 2 is only an eschatological promise never to be seen or experienced by God’s people. What hope does the Psalmist provide then for God’s people? Wright corrects this absurd claim and restores the unmistakable Biblical claim that the earth is the Lord’s. As a result, Psalm 2 provides a response to the gnostic tendency of some reformed scholars who are more and more imitating their dispensational brothers in their “escapist” theology.
Jesus did indeed launch God’s saving sovereignty on earth as in heaven, but this couldn’t be accomplished without his death and resurrection. In other words, the problem for which God’s kingdom project was and is the answer was deeper than could be addressed by a social program alone. Equally too, yes, Jesus did die for our sins, but his whole agenda of dealing with sin and its effects and consequences was never about rescuing individual souls from the world but about saving humans so that they could become part of his project of saving the world.
Jesus was hailed as already Lord of heaven and earth, and in particular as the one through whom the Creator God will restore and unite all things. And this gives a sharp focus to the present task of earthly rulers … Now, since Jesus’ death and resurrection … they are to look forward … to the ultimate eschaton. One day God will right all wrongs through Jesus, and earthly rulers – whether or not they acknowledge this Jesus and his coming kingdom – in fact are entrusted with the task of anticipating in a measure that final judgment and final mercy … They are to enact in a measure, in advance, the time when God will make all things new and will once again declare that it’s very good.
Along with this vision of God working through earthly rulers there goes a vocation to the church to be the people through whom the rulers are to be reminded of their task and called to account … Part of the way in which the church will do this is by getting on with and setting forward those works of justice and mercy, of beauty and relationship, which the rulers know in their bones ought to be flourishing but which they seem powerless to bring about … Thus, the church in its biblical commitment to doing ‘God in public’ is called to learn how to collaborate without compromise (hence the importance of the common good theory) and to critique without dualism … The aim of this lecture, then, is to encourage readings of the Bible which by highlighting the public-ness of God and the gospel set forward such reforms as will enable the church to play its part in holding the powers to account and thus advancing God’s restorative justice.
By now it is obvious that Fox News has completely abandoned any dimension of neutrality concerning the Republican candidates. Last week, Rush Limbaugh answered a question concerning who he would endorse in the Republican Party by stating that it is not his role to endorse any one before the general elections. Unlike, others in the Northeast, who have a “geographical bias,”Limbaugh argued, (referring to Sean Hannity and Fox News) he does not think it wise to use his powers to campaign for any particular candidate. It is their role to make a name for themselves, said the EIB network talk-show star.
Some months ago after a Republican debate, Senator John McCain subtly confronted Sean Hannity in his conspicuous defense of Rudy Giuliani. Hannity replied unconvincingly that he does not support any particular candidate…I imagine Alan Colmes simply smiled.
In a Fox News interview on Sunday morning, Thompson scolded Christ Wallace and Fox News for their continual attack on his campaign:
In an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace pressed Thompson on how some conservatives have lambasted Thompson’s campaign and showed clips of Fox conservative commentators Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes criticizing the former senator.
Thompson said, “This has been a constant mantra of Fox, to tell you the truth.” He noted that other conservatives have praised his bid for the GOP nomination and took issue with a Fox promo that focused on polling in New Hampshire, where Thompson is registering in the single digits.
Fox News has continually made clear their commitment to the establishment candidate: Rudolph Giuliani. He has been their candidate from the start. He is New York’s former mayor and Fox’s poster boy. Hannity cannot wait to see his career catapult into glorious cocktail parties at the White House.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.–Ron Paul
A young ministerial candidate was asked whether his sacramental views comported with those of the Westminster Standards. This line of questioning was a novelty to him, and so he asked for a copy. One was quickly produced, but when it became apparent that he was not going to swear on it, but on the contrary, intended to open and read it, the moderator rebuked him sternly. “We have asked if your views are consistent with the Standards, young man, and did not ask you to intrude yourself upon them by considering what they may appear to say.” Abashed by his error, the young man apologized and was quickly forgiven. –Effectual Means of Salvation by Doug Wilson
Here are some great quotes from my study of Kuyper’s first lecture entitled: Calvinism A Life System.
11 -Two life systems are wrestling with one another, in mortal combat. Modernism is bound to build a world of its own from the data of the natural man, and to construct man himself from the data of nature; while on the other hand, all those who reverently bend the knee to Christ and worship Him as the Son of the Living God, and God himself, are bent upon saving the ‘Christian Heritage.’ (Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1931. pg. 11) Read the rest of this entry »
O God, who are great and to be praised, who have brought us from corruption to incorruption by the life-giving death of your Christ, free all our senses from the death of the passions, setting over them as a good leader the thought that comes from within. Let the eye abstain from every evil sight, the hearing give no entrance to idle words, the tongue be cleansed of unfitting speech. Purify our lips, Lord, that praise you. Make our hands keep from base actions, to perform only such things as are well-pleasing to you, making all our limbs and our mind secure by your grace. –From the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts
Continuing interview…
Apologus:
Your definitions seem quite clear in light of the current political dilemma of the Christian community. Particularly, the Christian conservative movement seems to undermine the Biblical message of Christ’s Lordship by denying the authoritative Word to determine how we are to operate as Christians. In your opinion, what have been some practical failures of our modern church and the conservative movement in the last 20 years?
Pastor Paul Michael Raymond:
The way I see it Uri is that the Modern and Postmodern church of our day have a number of distinct problems.
Firstly, they have failed to understand what Christianity is, and to what vocation they are called to. Christianity is not “adding” Christ to secularism nor is it simply adding Him to an individual’s personal self fulfilling agenda. Christianity is an abandonment of self for the express purpose of advancing the Kingdom of God on earth. As Dr. greg Bahnsen rightly stated, “Christianity is not Christ against culture or is it the Christ of Culture, but rather Christ above Culture.” In other words, Biblical Christianity seeks to Transform Culture by the Preaching of the Gospel, the education of the people and the implementation of Biblical Law, Principles and Public policy. Too many professing Christians believe in a dualism Christianity where they refuse to engage the world since it is so evil. This elitist view is typical of Phariseeism and has no place in the realm of True Regeneration. To be sure Christianity is not to be OF the world. Nevertheless, the Christians ought to be doing battle IN the world and not retreating out of the world. Christ has made that abundantly clear. in John 17. To retreat from the battle the saints face daily in the world is to fall snare to a Manicheanism dualistic heresy.
The vocation of every regenerate is to do the will of Him who sent him in the realm of society. Not just on an individual plane but on a social plane as well, which includes politics, economics, science, philosophy, ecology, law, education et al. He is to take dominion authority by engaging and overcoming the secularism through Biblical arguments casting down every lofty argument and secular philosophy that exalts itself against the knowledge of Biblical Truth. Thus, we are to take every thought captive to the Word of God obeying His precepts and going out into the world declaring the Sovereign Universal Authority of Christ in every realm. Read the rest of this entry »
Apologus Interviews is the title of these interviews with distinguished guests.[1] In this first interview-conducted largely via e-mail, I interviewed Reconstructionist Pastor Paul Michael Raymond. Pastor Raymond is the pastor of Reformed Bible Church in Appomattox, Virginia. This interview will be divided into two parts for your convenience.
Apologus:
Pastor Raymond, it is a delight to interview you. I have listened to many of your sermons on sermonaudio.com and have learned much from your zeal and passion for the reign of Christ in all areas of life.
Let me begin this discussion by pointing to a short article you wrote entitled: Law and Community: By What Standard? In this article you point out that the structure of a community must be based upon the Order of God’s Holy Standard, or upon Humanistic zeal? Explain what you mean by both terms.
Pastor Paul Michael Raymond:
Without exception, in every position taken by men, and in every theory held by men, whether it is a position or theory concerning politics, economics, education, science, society or religion, there is a basic and fundamental presupposition structuring that position or theory and all of its subsequent arguments and conclusions. Mankind views everything through a pre-set, pre-determined idea. This starting point is determined by man’s pre-established view of reality. Every living human being holds to some form of presupposition by which he views and seeks to understand the world around him. It is that particular presupposition, which must determine how, and to what end, that individual formulates his basic worldview, and it is that worldview that formulates his ideas. These ideas in turn determine his basic action. As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. Ideas must, and do, translate into action.
Of these presuppositions there are only two, Biblical and non-Biblical. In my 1999 article “Law and Community: By What Standard” I define these two positions as Theistic and Humanistic. To be more accurate however, we should actually divide the two positions into the Biblical Revelational Position and the Non-Biblical
Humanistic (or natural) Position.
Since all mankind is, in one form or another, theistic by nature[2], serving the god or gods of their own making, dividing these spheres into ‘Theistic and Humanistic’ needs to be refined so as to be more precise. Since there are only these two positions man can choose from, mankind must analyze, define and understand the world around him either through the lens of Scripture or the lens of secular humanistic reasoning. There is no neutral beginning point. If there is a synthesis or synergism of the two, and the Biblical position becomes watered down or compromised by the secular humanist position, many serious difficulties result. While many may disagree, the fact remains; the structure of life and society is built upon one or the other of these two fundamental presuppositions. In the realm of the individual, family and state either the Scriptures will reign supreme or non-Biblical humanistic reasoning will reign supreme. There is no middle ground. Read the rest of this entry »
Dear Glenn,
I write this short letter from Casselberry, Fl. Casselberry is fairly insignificant in light of the magnitude of this great Republic, nevertheless, I hope you will take my words seriously.
Some days ago, you did something that I consider perverse. In front of millions of Americans, you equated terrorists with Ron Paul supporters. I assume that by now you have realized how bad of an idea that was and I further assume that at a later date you shall retract your absurd comments and embrace decency and respect. Ron Paul is one of the few politicians left in this country that still believes in the Constitution and still fights for our civil liberties as Judge Andrew Napolitano testifies. Yet, you had the audacity to call us a “domestic threat” and you even classified some as part of the “fringe elements,” whatever that means. Beyond all this, you mystified the rational thinker by bringing to the show a former Marxist and a young British journalist, thus adding fuel to your bizarre conspiracies about Ron Paul supporters. I will let the words of another angry citizen summarize my present sentiments:
We are forced to digest the bizarre and abhorrent spectacle of a British elitist, “former” Marxist Horowitz and anti-American Neo-Con Glenn Beck infer that 1776, the founding fathers and the very birth of freedom in America is somehow evil and affiliated with terrorism and extremism.
I must say Glenn, that after hearing your immoral attempts to de-moralize an honest man and his loyal supporters, you have lost my respect. I am still hopeful that your integrity will humble you enough to make a public apology on your radio show and TV show. Until then, you will no longer enter my airwaves nor will you have any more opportunities to influence my thinking on any subject.
From Casselberry with love,
Uri Brito
Show #5: Non-Interference and change
This podcast lasts 5 minutes. For previous podcasts go to archives.
Program notes: Now that the phenomenal fourth quarter “money-bomb” of 4.2 million dollars in one twenty-four day is somewhat passe, we need to see if Paul’s numbers will go up in NH and other parts of the country. As of today, he is fourth in NH with 8%, ahead of Fred Thompson and Huckabee. Fortunately, we don’t have to be worried about the Paul campaign mismanaging the money of loyal supporters. You can’t have this same confidence with the Romney or Giuliani campaign. Read the rest of this entry »
From today’s Rolling Stone interview with Dr. Paul:
Tim Dickinson: Giuliani seems to be the warmonger in chief — leading the drumbeat for war with Iran. What would a Giuliani presidency mean for our national security?
Dr. Paul: If someone is unhappy with the Bush policy, they would find Giuliani’s would be even more extreme. But since Giuliani is so anxious to go to war, somebody ought to ask him why he didn’t go when he was called up instead of ducking it like some of those other chicken hawks — he took, what, four deferrals? The kids today are expected to go because Giuliani likes this stuff. But whether it’s Cheney or Giuliani, these guys think it’s quite proper to go to war when they feel like it. But they never had to expose themselves.
The late Milton Friedman (1912-2006), winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, was one of the best and the brightest of the twentieth century. He not only impacted scholars and academics but he also impacted the lives of ordinary people the world over, but not in ordinary ways. You would be hard pressed, if the truth is known, to name one economist in our lifetime who impacted so many lives for so much good as Milton Friedman. I am utterly serious in saying this. I am thus appalled at how few Christians know or care about the thought of this man and how much it contributed to the good of so many in this world. Read the rest of this entry »
Continuing our discussion of simplicity, it seems fruitful first to develop a theology of creation. This will give a better context to understand the nature of the simple Christian life.
I think evangelicals’ greatest misunderstanding of the Bible comes because they have never understood Genesis 1 and 2. When we open to Genesis 1 and 2, immediately we start thinking about: Is the earth created in a literal 24-hour period or was it created in 6 long periods of time? Are these questions important? Of course they are. But is this what the text screams when you read Genesis for the first time? For some of us it is because we have been trained to think in Greek terms and not like the Hebrews. They weren’t thinking: Wow, I wonder if evolutionary theory had a place in the development of early species.
The Hebrews read Genesis through the eyes of redeemed people, not through scientific eyes. They were not interested in the age of the universe; they were interested in how they were to live, now that they have been redeemed.
Let me offer you what they found when they read Genesis. This is just a synopsis. If you are interested in something more thorough I can give you something I wrote a few years ago on this topic.
1) The Hebrews read Genesis and noted that creation was an act of God. It was created ex nihilo-out of nothing. This means that the pagan gods had nothing to do with it. Remember the Ancient Near Eastern context they lived. They battled constantly with false gods.
2) They noticed that throughout the progression of Genesis 1 God unfolded His plan for creation. In Gen. 1 they were to find a model for how they were to live and what God required of them.
3) They saw that God took His time in preparing creation for His creatures. He could have simply breathed in one second and everything would have been in place. But he chose to separate day and night so they could serve as signs and seasons for the Israelites when they traveled through the desert.
4) Then they remembered that God was going to give them the stewardship of the garden.
5) When all was finished, the Hebrews noticed that God creates man and woman and says: HERE! I spent a lot of time preparing this and now it’s yours to care for and to have dominion over. Read the rest of this entry »
Editor’s Note: This is an introduction to the topic of simplicity. Simplicity has generally been known to those of the religious left persuasion (Ron Sider, Richard Foster), since they feel that simplicity goes hand in hand with their socialist agendas. Though strongly disagreeing with the economic and social implications of Sider and Foster, yet, I have found some of their thoughts to be helpful in this area (particularly Foster’s: Freedom of Simplicity). My goal here is to reclaim simplicity as a universal Christian mandate. However, my attempt to explain simplicity may differ with various expositions of it in the past years. This is only meant as a Sunday School introduction. It was delivered at New Life Presbyterian on November 11th.
There are many simple questions to consider when thinking about the topic of simplicity in the Christian life. But what may appear to be simple, may however, turn out to be a simplistic attempt to simplify the theology of simplicity. If simplicity is as simple as some simple-minded people say it is, they why aren’t there more simple people roaming around the church. Why do people live such complicated lives? Why is the Christian life so hectic and so filled with un-simplistic answers to life’s great dilemmas?
This is what I will try to tackle in the next 30 minutes or so and then open the floor to some of your insights. As a brief observation, when I speak of simplicity of Christian living, I am not speaking about the idea of simple-mindedness which Proverbs so often rebukes. Rather, simplicity is living in the sight of God in wisdom and in understanding.
Many of you here come from backgrounds where life was summarized in three words: eat, sleep and procreate. Sure, there was work, but work was only a sub-category under one of the three. Others here come from backgrounds where your parents had to work so hard to feed you, that there was never a time when you remember sitting with your family for dinner. There was no moment to pause and think about family life; there were other priorities.
Before we continue with this brief discourse, let me give you my definition of “simplicity.”
Simplicity is the ability to work and worship without exhaustion[1] or legalism.
By work, I refer to our daily jobs as businessman, lawyers, truck drivers, home-schooling moms, etc. and by worship; I refer to Sabbath worship, weekly meditation, nurturing our children in the law of the Lord and in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I am suggesting that there is something wrong with our work ethic if it leads us to constant exhaustion or being burnt out and that there is something wrong with our worship if it leads to legalism.
First, let me try to develop a little context to the discussion of simplicity. There are some fundamental questions that need to be answered before we can venture into a proper perspective on simplicity. This is what simplicity is NOT:
a) Simplicity is not abandoning the world or embracing the doctrine of “escapism.” The world is getting worse, so why not just move to the mountains. To live a simple life does not mean that we remove ourselves from society and politics and stop paying our taxes. We still have a dominion mandate that has never been abrogated.
b) Simplicity of life does not mean opposition to capitalism. We believe that “money” is the cause of all sorts of evil and that it is not evil in and of itself. Think of the benefits of rich Christians in donating to start hospitals, churches, helping the poor, etc. So our society needs wealthy Christians to uphold it. We need hard working Christians who know their role in God’s kingdom.
c) Simplicity does not mean a rejection of technology. Technology has served to produce radio stations in third world countries where the gospel can be heard, produce transportation, help communication between friends and family, etc. Read the rest of this entry »
Editor’s note: I have updated this post to add a few more thoughts on the debate (11-10-07).
I have just heard the debate between Baptist author/apologist James White vs. Presbyterian minister and writer Rev. Gregg Strawbridge. Throughout my theological life, I have been influenced in many ways by both men. Gregg’s passionate exposition of the Scriptures has been a source of theological maturity for me. On the other hand, Dr. White has also played a role in my thinking, though in the last few years I have distanced myself in many ways from his theology. Nevertheless, White’s commitment to offer a Biblical apologetic against Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons have been a helpful resource in my apologetic library.
Their debate a few nights ago demonstrates what the Van Tillian tradition of apologetics has so long proved: ideas have consequences. Presuppositions and notions about hermeneutics affect the beginning statement and closing statements of a debate. Interestingly, the debate ended just as it began: the nature of the covenant. White argued persistently that the New Covenant provided only blessings–since it was only for the elect; while Strawbridge’s commitment to covenantal thinking and continuation led him to conclude that the New Covenant is not different from the Old with regards to recipients and structure, but only in regards to efficacy and eschatological intervention through Christ.
Though presuppositions determine all things, I would like to affirm that Strawbridge’s presuppositions is more consistent and faithful to the Biblical text. I do not make that statement simply because of my predisposition towards paedobaptism. I should note that when Sproul debated John McArthur many years ago, he (Sproul) suffered greatly to present a coherent covenantal model, and thus failing to persuade us why Credo-Baptism is erroneous. Nevertheless, however one may think of these types of ideas/exchanges, my conclusion is that White failed to give credence to a fundamental Biblical component of hermeneutics–that is, Biblical typology. In Biblical typology, the author connects ideas which at first seem invisible. Indeed, this is the duty of the exegete: to bring together God’s revelation into one coherent message.
James White’s main point of contention in every discussion on baptism is that his Presbyterian brothers just did not separate themselves enough from Catholicism in the 16th century, and if Calvin would just have seen a little more light we would all be Credo-Baptists today. White threw out the “T” word to let everyone know that “Tradition” is the worst of all evils and he (White) has no heritage, no tradition influencing his interpretive scheme. White, however, appears unaware of just how much his tradition affects him. For instance, Strawbridge argues rightly that Hebrews establishes that the New Covenant includes believers and unbelievers. As an excellent reference he quotes Hebrews 10:29-30 which reads: How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” According to verse 29, “one” and “he” are two different people. Here is where White’s tradition enters the game. White argues, following John Owen (a historical figure; a respected man in White’s tradition) that the “he” in verse 29 refers to Christ and not to an individual. Grammatically however, notice that in verse 30 it is God’s people that is in mind in verse 29, not Christ. The text says that the Lord will judge “his” people. White never mentioned verse 30, which in my estimation confirms Strawbridge’s assertion about verse 29. If White would only abandon his tradition, he would see the simplicity of the text. In the end, the New Covenant maintains the structure of the Old Covenant, that is, a covenant made with believers and unbelievers. The radical change that White argues is non-existent. Once again, let us place the “radical” where radical belongs: in the person of Christ; that is what is radical about the New Covenant.
Strawbridge’s greatest strength is his ability to tie together New Covenantal language with its intended Old Covenant background. Reformed exegetes understand that New Testament writers did not write unaware of their Jewish context. They were not robots, rather their personalities and backgrounds played a deep role in writing what would become our New Testament canon. Their knowledge of Old Covenant language was always influencing their writing. This is the conspicuous reason there are so many Old Testament quotations in the New; there was an unspoken reliance on the Old Covenant canon because the Old Covenant was part of their identity as New Covenant writers.
White, on the other hand, unaware– or better yet,– unwilling to ever engage in this form of argumentation, lost sight of Gregg’s main point: the Children of Christian parents belong to the Lord because this was God’s purpose from the beginning. Of such is the kingdom of heaven; to such belong the kingdom. This is Biblical pattern–not merely a temporary pattern,– but one that would continue to all generations before and after Messiah would come.
Speaking to high schoolers in New Hampshire, Paul made an interesting observation. Concerning our taxes, Paul illustrated the unending taxation in war time when he said that our tax dollars go to buy bombs to destroy bridges in Iraq and our tax dollars go to Iraq to re-build them.
If the fate of the nation were left to the neo-conservatives, we would be economically and socially doomed. The neo-cons will fight wars everywhere. They could care less about our current economic status, our national defense, or the lives of the ones who cannot protect themselves in the womb. They will assert that these are their concerns, but in the end, they crave for war. Some, like Pat Robertson, will pray that we assassinate Hugo Chavez, while winning the war on terror. This is the neo-conservative agenda of the Kristol’s and the modern day republican: spread democracy by terrorizing as many as possible. In fact the same Pat Robertson, the leader of the right wing, has just endorsed one of the most despicable politicians in American history in the last fifty years–and we have had many. Giuliani’s foreign policy can be easily summed-up as committing the US to future wars in the Middle East and north Africa.
Robertson defends his endorsement of Rudolph Giuliani:
…Giuliani is the best candidate to handle the War on Terror… Giuliani understands the need for a conservative judiciary, and that he is a “true fiscal conservative” who is tough on crime.
The infamous war on terror; that which no one can properly define without sounding like a militaristic imperialist. I am still curious as to why he is the best candidate to handle this war. ‘Tis true that he had the fortune of being the mayor when those 19 thugs invaded our privacy and destroyed our lives; but is that all it takes? Wouldn’t Robertson be more comfortable endorsing someone who actually felt the pain of war–like McCain?
In the end, pragmatism wins the day. For Robertson (Dobson is a fortunate exception this time) “conservative” means hating Muslims more than your neighbor and “true fiscal conservatism” means killing Muslims for the sake of democracy, regardless if it affects our own economy at home.
Our nation is doomed at the hands of pseudo-prophets who will abandon principle for the sake of expediency.
Recent Comments