Filed under: Uncategorized
My family came to visit me at work today. My wife was bringing some books by for one of our paralegals to use with her son. Lots of smiles and hugs, and pride. Somewhere inside there is a lingering concern for their future, that has grown from a distant muted wail to a persistent hum.
We are all in God’s hands and Jesus wins in the end. But the question of how to best provide and prepare them for the future is a looming question in my mind. May God guide us down the right path.
Filed under: Uncategorized
My wife and daughter have both tagged me, which does not mean I am “it.” It means I am supposed to write 5 things noone knows about me. Of course, if noone knows them, there is probably a reason, and it’s probably a good one. Being the good sport I am, though, here goes:
1. Whether I know if anyone knows these things or not.
2. I’m an Arminian.
3. I lost a kitten named Anthony at a truck stop on the way to seminary in Kentucky.
4. I killed a man just to watch him die.
5. I love to make flower arrangements.
Filed under: Theology
Recently, Ergun Caner and sibling broke their word about debating James White and Tom Ascol at Liberty University in Lynchburg Virginia. I’ve been following it a little (not as much as some, more than others). A question I’ve had before, as a Calvinist, but have not had the opportunity to ask of an Arminian is this:
If, when the Bible says “election,” it really means that God looks into the crystal ball and sees who is going to choose him (God) of his/her own free will, and when he sees this happy event, determines to let that person choose him (an odd understanding of “election,” if you ask me, but assuming it for the sake of argument), why then does God go ahead and create the people he sees will not choose him of their own free will?
The typical argument against Calvinism and the plethora of biblical passages that prove it is that it makes God a big meany (although really that simply grossly underestimates the holiness of God and the wickedness of man’s sin).
But, I don’t see how the Arminian escapes this with his very unnatural definition of “election.”
If no one responds within 48 hours, I will assume I have finally and decisively won the debate over Calvinism once and for all.
Filed under: Law & Gubmint
Perhaps I missed something in all of the reports about North Korea testing missiles. No doubt I did. With which law does missile-testing by a sovereign nation run afoul? And upon which law are some nations excused therefrom?
It seems to me one approach to the “missile crisis” would be to remove the reason for another aiming missiles at oneself, insofar as that is possible. Certainly, there are some who are merely hell-bent on brandishing, regardless of the absence or presence of reasonable provocation.
I wonder if another nation took on a posture toward us as we take toward so many others whether we would not consider ourselves reasonably provoked. Would we not think ourselves justified in testing weapons as a means of potentially avoiding infringements on our sovereignty? Is it okay for us because we’re America, and we’re real nice?
Make no mistake, Sic semper tyrannis is a motto I live by.
But the essence of what constitutes tyranny is usurpation of lawful authority. It is the wielding of power without the requisite authority to so act. I have a concern about fighting tyranny with tyranny. I think we are in danger of doing just that.
I'm in the Deep South now, and knee deep in political campaigning, Southern Style. I don't really enjoy politicking, which may sound strange to some who know me. I do enjoy figuring out issues of law and government, but politicking is more about who knows who, and who has done what for whom.
Yesterday, I drove the candidate around the state for an interview and a county party cook-out at which he spoke. I am perhaps one of the two or three worst people in the world at walking up cold and striking up a conversation. I have a hard time assuming that someone wants me to talk to them. Still, the people I talked to were receptive, and I enjoyed trying to persuade them of the importance of the issues and the election of our candidate.
The experience of working on a campaign for one of the highest state offices is exciting. If you believe in the issues and the person you are working for, it seems more like witnessing than politicking. Godly government is a means of grace, in a broad sense, and seeking fidelity to God and His requirements for lawful civil government is a part of His good news for the redemption of man. We need godly men to govern in accordance with God's law, and it is an honor to roll up my sleeves and plow a few rows.
People joke a lot about southern politics, and some politicians' antics definitely lend themselves well to the lampoon. I don't think this is the real cause of the scorn, though. I think there are two things that most people (unfortunately even Southerners) consider contemptible: Accountability to human authority and accountability to divine authority.
At the core of the popularly contemptible caricature of a Southern politician is the politician's submission to the reality that his authority derives from God with the consent of the governed requisite to achievement and maintenance of his position. Those ideas, at their base, are honorable and right, not merely populist demagoguery.
I appreciate the Southern politicians' deferential nod towards (if not genuine belief in) two fundamental principles upon which a stable constitutional republic must rest: God is the source of all authority, and God has delegated to the governed the authority to select their rulers. As a result, those rulers must give an account to God and their people. This humility before both God and man leaves a bad taste in the mouth of arrogant modern man who believes he is himself the measure of all things.
The rest of the country seems to follow a different way of politicking: The politician preens and waxes eloquent about his innate superiority in order to demonstrate to peon voters his godlike properties, thereby convincing them that he is the deity to whom they owe allegiance.
The Southern politician may view himself and his task in exactly the same way. I am not trying to glorify the bufoonish Southern politicians. It may be no great virtue to just do what works, but the fact that it won't work otherwise is significant.
Generally, a politician in the South must show deference to the Christian God and a willingness to "get dirty" in answering to even the poorest, most benighted of his constituents for his decisions. That simple fact is a sign that the crashing waves of humanistic religion have failed to erase the cultural etchings of a Christian culture from the Southern psyche. I like that. I am happy to be a part of an effort not merely to continue preserving the etchings, but to be a part of an effort to rebuild the walls of which those etchings are a sadly ephemeral reminder.
I think I need some fried chicken and tea, it's hot.