From the Mailbag — Question On Obama-care

Pastor Bret,

My mother-in-law went to Sam’s Club yesterday to get some prescriptions. Her co-pay has gone up $30 for some prescriptions. She was flustered and asked the pharmacist what was going on. They had a long chat about the matter. From the pharmacist’s perspective, the co-pay difference was due to Obamacare. From his perspective, also, the govt, via Obamacare, is trying to “wipe out old people,” by increasing costs of prescriptions, by making some medications rare and unavailable, etc. He said that the effect this is having (as he sees it) on the elderly and the middle class is going to be huge.

What is your take on this?

Dear Kirsten,

I’d say your Mother-in-law’s Pharmacist is correct.

What is going on is that the FEDS have these HUGE entitlement obligations to Senior Citizens (Social Security) and to sick (Medicare / Medicaid). There is one of two ways you can get out of those obligations. You can either increase the money supply to fund the programs or you can decrease the recipients to make funding un-necessary.

Now the FEDS could bankrupt the country by raising taxes on younger generations. But that will inevitably lead to generational warfare as younger generations eventually refuse to impoverish themselves in order to enrich the generation or two ahead of them. At some point people realize that there is little use in working if the majority of your income is being taken. The FEDS could also just print more money but in the end that debases the currency and the purchasing power declines precipitously, with the same sure result of social unrest.

Or alternately, you can kill off the people who are the beneficiaries of the entitlement programs. I believe this is the route that the FEDS are taking.

Promises were made that could never be kept. The whole entitlement leveraging by the FEDS was a giant Ponzi scheme. The grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the voters who originally created Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid etc. are going to pay for “the greatest generations” sins in creating this monster. The Greatest Generation created the Monster and now their descendants are about to be eaten by the monster they created.

Obamacare has always been about killing people. The very title tells you that if you are familiar with how Government Euphemisms always work. Obamacare is not about health. Obamacare is about death management. It will very soon, once implemented, be deciding if the contribution of the ill to society is equal to the value of the procedure that the ill person needs to regain their health.

Plus of course Obamacare may be the final piece in totalitarian collectivist government. Now the State can control the cattle (people) it owns every step of the way. From Birth, to school (school to work programs), to the food we eat (The FEDS are in bed with the GMO Creators), to the medicines we take, to the media we imbibe. What Obama-care is, is the final piece in a “Brave New World” social order that the NWO has been working on for decades.

Some of us tried to warn people. But they were to busy with their bread and circuses.

Perhaps the worst part of all this is that the Church is largely asleep on these issues, or where it is not asleep, it is actively fighting for the NWO agenda. Really, we have come to the point where the visible Church is largely the problem.

The Academic Chatterati … Take 2

“Human institutions are really to be molded, not by Christian principles accepted by the unsaved, but by Christian men; the true transformation of society will come by the influence of those who have themselves been redeemed … [I]t is not true that the Christian evangelist is interested in the salvation of individuals without being interested in the salvation of the race.”

J. Gresham Machen
Christianity & Liberalism — pg. 158-159

Carl Trueman looks to be attempting to walk back, somewhat, his latest adventure in letting his ideological slip show in this piece,

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2013/08/i-hope-to-be-proved-wrong-real.php

CT writes,

First, a clarification: I have no problem with the term ‘worldview’. I do have a problem with the term ‘Christian worldview’ because it is vague to the point of being philosophically useless even as it has proved rhetorically and politically useful. For example, it is surely the case that if you believe the bread and wine actually become the real body and real blood of Christ at communion, that profoundly affects your view of the world. If you believe God elects based on foreseen merits rather than by mere grace, that profoundly affects your view of the world. If you believe that believers’ children are part of the visible church, that profoundly affects your view of the world. If you believe that disco music is a little taste of heaven on earth, that will affect (possibly profoundly) your view of the world. The list could go on but the point is clear: professing Christians disagree on all of these things and yet convictions on all of these things shape our view of the world. In short, there is really no such thing as ‘the Christian worldview’ in the singular; there is rather a variety of Christian worldviews. There may be a small core of beliefs that bind all Christians together; but that core is surely too small to provide anything approaching a comprehensive view of the world; and none of those few beliefs stand in ultimate isolation from the bigger doctrinal complex that is Christianity as we are taught it and believe it as individuals and as members of specific communions.

Bret inquires,

The term ‘Christian worldview’ is vague to the point of being philosophically useless? Is it philosophically useless to say that all Christian Worldviews posit the Creator – Creature distinction? Is it philosophically useless to say that all Christian worldviews talk about man’s depravity and God’s Sovereignty? Is it philosophically useless to say that all Christian worldviews insist that man only knows via revelation and not via tradition, intuition, or reason? Is it philosophically useless to say that all Christian worldviews adhere to a supernatural ontology? Is it philosophically useless to say that all Christian worldviews posit that man exists to glorify God and not himself? Is it philosophically useless to say that all Christian worldviews see history as linear and so embrace that this world has a teleology and a purpose?

Really, Dr. Trueman’s statement above gets as close as I’d like to get, as a Christian, to Pilate’s skepticism that asked, “What is Truth.”

Does it prove that there is no such thing as a Christian worldview all because Christians disagree on matters? Are we soon to doubt that there is no such thing as a Christian worldview position on sodomy all because many Christians deem sodomy as acceptable? I’ll readily agree that no one person has God’s Worldview but all because I agree with that, that doesn’t mean I will agree that we can cease talking about a Christian Worldview. Where there are differences then it is a matter of “to the law and to the Testimonies,” in order to hash out the matter.

In point of fact Dr. Trueman’s Christian Worldview is indeed singular it seems. For Dr. Trueman the singular Christian Worldview is one of skepticism regarding other Christians understanding of a singular Christian worldview.

Dr. Trueman writes,

Second, the basic point in my post was, of course, not that Christianity has never made a difference to society. Kuyper did make a difference (which I never denied) as did others — e.g., Thomas Chalmers, William Wilberforce, George Muller, Thomas Guthrie; but even acknowledging that, the lack of proportion between the rhetoric of some of today’s transformationalists compared to what they are actually achieving is really rather embarrassing.

Bret responds,

In this paragraph Carl obfuscates what he said from his initial offering. In his initial offering he said,

And Kuyper failed to effect any lasting transformation of society. Just visit Amsterdam today, if you can bear the pornographic filth even in those areas where the lights are not all red.”

Carl used that statement to suggest that the thinking that Transformation is an inevitable consequence of Reformation thinking is misguided.

Second, the point isn’t our success. One plants, another waters, but God gives the increase. It is not to us who are planters and waterers to dictate to God how he gives or does not give “actual achievement.”

Third, is “actual achievement” really the standard here, as if it is the case that if Transformers are not a Chalmers, Kuyper, or Calvin that somehow therefore they are an embarrassment? Look, I’m all for blowhards being cut down to size but the lack of “actual achievement” can hardly be counted as embarrassment. If the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church then we have to allow that “actual achievement” is not always the gold standard of Transformation.

Carl writes,

The best way to prove me wrong, of course, is… to transform society. I would indeed love to be not only proved wrong but to be proved so wrong that I am shamed into never writing another word of cultural commentary (and I am sure many readers will join me in saying ‘Amen!’ to that). Living in a world where the worst that happens is that I receive critical pushback on a blog post is one thing; living in a world where Christians cannot rent space in order to worship on a Sunday, where millions of abortions take place every year, andmolesworth_reasonably_small.jpg where every ethical value I hold dear is routinely mocked or ignored or characterised as ‘hate’ is quite another. I know in which world I would rather live; thus, I look forward to the transformation of the latter into the former by my critics and truly wish them well in their endeavour.

Bret responds,

Once again Carl takes us on an adventure of missing the point. Carl is again confusing “is” with “ought.” He’s confusing God’s providence with our calling as Christians. It is not in my bailiwick that culture is actually transformed. That is God’s bailiwick. My bailiwick is being faithful to the task to being salt and light regardless of what God providentially ordains for the times and seasons of my life. I absolutely pray that God would be pleased to give Reformation, and so Transformation, but I can’t manipulate it into existence. However, if God would prefer the Church to be persecuted because of it’s faithful stand as opposed to preferring the Church to see Reformation that persecution does not deny that Transformation is the effect of the Gospel eventually where the Gospel takes root.

_________________

Sidenote — Here is a link to a piece that examines how Carl’s worldview has been shaped. I found it most helpful in understanding why the man writes what he writes.

http://www.unashamedofthegospel.org/reflections_carl_trueman.cfm

John Murray Was Not R2K

“God alone is sovereign. His authority alone is absolute and universal. All men and spheres are subject to God. The civil magistrate derives his authority from God. Apart from divine institution and sanction, civil government has no right to exist. ‘The powers that be are ordained of God’ (Rom. 13:1). Since civil government derives its authority from God, it is responsible to God and therefore obligated to conduct its affairs in accordance with God’s will. The infallible revelation of his will God has deposited in the Scriptures. It will surely be granted that there is much in the Scriptures that has to do with the conduct of civil government. And this simply means that the Word of God bears upon civil authority with all the stringency that belongs to God’s Word.

“Furthermore, the Word of God reveals that Christ is head over all things, that he has been given all authority in heaven and in earth. The civil magistrate is under obligation to acknowledge this headship and therefore to conduct his affairs, not only in subjection to the sovereignty of God, but also in subjection to the mediatorial sovereignty of Christ, and must therefore obey his will as it is revealed for the discharge of that authority which the civil magistrate exercises in subjection to Christ. . . . To recede from this position or to abandon it, either as conception or as goal, is to reject in principle the sovereignty of God and of his Christ”

John Murray
Collected Writings of John Murray, Volume One: The Claims of Truth,
The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976 Valerie Murray, pp. 364-365.

Reefer Smoke and Fun House Mirrors and the Transformationalism of the Anti-Transformationalists

At this link,

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2013/08/cigar-smoke-and-mirrors-and-tr.php

Dr. Carl Trueman (fan of the Cultural Marxist Edward Said) steps in it … again. For previous Trueman “stepping in it” see

https://ironink.org/2008/07/a_brief_look_at_trueman_s_look_at_a_refo/

and note the links in the comments.

In Trueman’s most recent offering he aligns himself with the burgeoning R2K movement and seeks to land a left, right combination to the mid-section and jaw of Abraham Kuyper, Kuyperians, and Transformationalist theology in general. I must admit from the outset that I’ve never been a big fan of Dr. Trueman and his recent offering reminds me again why. If he spent as much time lambasting the idolatry of Statism as he does routinely bashing other Christians we might get on better but alas his efforts at Transformationalism are only pointed towards his fellow Christians.

The main problem I have with Dr. Trueman’s article is that it is inherently contradictory and self defeating. Here we have a prominent Christian in the Church exerting all his effort in his column to transform the believers in transformationalism into admitting that transformationalism is not a biblical position. Carl seeks to transform other Christians who believe in transformation to quit believing in transformation. Reading his article is like reading a Cattle Rancher write on the evils of eating steak, or listening to a lecture by a Libertarian on the dangers of individualism. One wonders why Carl is even writing about this subject? Doesn’t the insistence to be done with transformationalism require him to cease with trying to transform the transformationalists into no longer being transformationalist? Dr. Trueman’s article is a classic example of the author hoisting his own petard. One almost next expects Dr. Trueman to create a curriculum for a new Seminary course entitled, “Transforming the Transformationalists as Pursued by the Anti-transformationalist Transformationlists.”

Of course there is more to be disillusioned by then just this in Carl’s piece, though admittedly the above paragraph alone destroys any necessity to take Dr. Trueman seriously. There is also the curiously derisive statement about concerns of the singular ‘Christian Worldview.’ Now, I’m glad to admit that I may not be understanding something here but that sure sounds like it could be a swipe at the idea that there is such a thing as singular truth claims. After all a Christian Worldview is only concerned with teasing out truth claims. Is Dr. Trueman suggesting here that truth is poly-chromatic? Is it possible, according to the good Doctor, that there are many different Christian worldviews that are all equally valid? We used to call that relativism. I’m sure there is some new academic term for it now. Maybe “poly-symphonic Theology?”

Another howler in Carl’s piece is his attack on Abraham Kuyper. Kuyper, like all men, had feet of clay, but the very point that Carl attacks Abraham at is Abraham’s success in effecting Dutch culture in a wholesome direction. According to Dr. Carl, Abraham was a failure in the early 20th century precisely because he is not a success in the early 21st century. Now that is the kind of reasoning that only a Doctor of the Church can arrive at. Maybe this is just as case of Professor envy? But really folks … are we to actually believe that Amsterdam’s harlotry today is proof of the failure of Kuyper’s theology? That’s like saying that the harlotry of the PCUSA today is proof of the failure of B. B. Warfield’s theology. And this chap teaches Seminary students?

Next up is Carl’s bemoaning that a PCA Pastor can’t find rental space because of the PCA’s stand on sodomite marriage. This complaint is akin to some “learned pundit” writing in the 1st century about the obvious problems of St. Paul because he keeps getting thrown out of synagogues. Why if the PCA and St. Paul would just be more reasonable regarding their teaching they wouldn’t have any problem at all at finding rental space or in constantly getting thrown out of synagogues.

Next we have to endure Carl’s pronouncement that there is not one place in the whole country where culture is being transformed at any point where it really counts. That is a statement crafted in and with hubris. How could our good Doctor know such a thing to be true? As he traversed every nook and cranny of the whole country to catalog this as truth? Secondly, even if Carl’s observation were true would it mean that because we are failing we shouldn’t even try? Is current failure proof that future success is hopeless. Mercy … I’m glad that Edison or the Wright Brothers didn’t live by that insightful little proverb, never mind a Calvin or a Machen. Finally, on this score we might ask whether or not we are to take the providence of God into account on these matters. God, in His wisdom, gives and withholds Reformation and so transformation as He sees fit. That God may withhold Reformation for a generation or for several generations doesn’t disprove the reality of Reformation or transformation when God see’s fit to grant it. Could it be that we’ve been living so long without Reformation that suddenly we are concluding that God is never going to give it again so we just need to get used to living with the moral sewage of Amsterdams, Londons and Philadelphias?

Carl then informs us that Tim Keller is the “transformationists’ best shot today.” I don’t know whether to cry in my beer or laugh up my sleeve.

However, I must agree with Carl at one point. I agree that much which passes as transformation is only so much folly. Much of what Keller accomplishes is not transformation in the slightest but just accomplishment of giving a Christian patina to endeavors that are not particularly Christian. (Consider Keller’s recent book “Generous Justice,” to see a Christian overlay put on top of soft Marxist presuppositions.) On this point I give Carl kudos. Much of that which passes as Christian transformation needs desperately transformed in a Christian direction.

Carl ends his manifesto against transformation with an amillennial flourish. In his final paragraph he gives us a Christian Hee Haw version of,

Gloom, despair, and agony on me
Deep, dark depression, excessive misery
If it weren’t for bad luck, I’d have no luck at all
Gloom, despair, and agony on me

It needs to be said in ending that there really is no surprise in Carl finally casting his lot with the R2K boys, since R2K is nothing but militant and “consistent” amillennialism. Carl is amill so what should we expect from an amill except an attempt to transform the transformationalists in an “anti-transformationist” direction?

Elective Course In Seminary Education — Economics

Reformed Weltanschauung; Economics

This course of study is intended to get the Seminary student to begin thinking about Biblical understandings of Money.

The purpose of this course is to allow Reformed presuppositions and a Reformed Christian Worldview to mold how we think about money and economics. The emphasis will fall on some of the various paradigms that have been offered concerning Economics focusing especially on the Austrian School, the Ropke Third way and the Distributionist schools. Keynesianism will not be considered except to critique it, as Keynesianism is to Economics what Rap is to Music. The Student will be learning the Macro approach to Economics.

Note — This is a course to familiarize the Seminary Student in Basic Economic theory. It is not intended as a Masters level course for one who is receiving their Masters in Economics.

Main Texts

1.) Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy – Thomas Sowell
2.) Economics In One Lesson — Henry Hazlitt

Required Reading

1.) Applied Economics; Thinking Beyond Stage One — Thomas Sowell
2.) The Social Crisis of Our Time — Wlhelm Ropke
3.) The Law — Frederic Bastiat
4.) What Has Government Done to Our Money? — Murray N. Rothbard
5.) Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis — Ludwig Von Mises
6.) Cliches of Socialism — Anonymous
7.) The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve — Em Griffin
8.) Road To Serfdom — F. A. Hayek
9.) Baptized Inflation — Ian Hodge
10.) Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators: A Biblical Response to Ronald J. Sider
David Chilton

11.) Three Works on Distributism — G. K. Chesterton
12.) The Servile State — Hilaire Belloc
13.) A Humane Economy: The Social Framework of the Free Market — Wilhelm Ropke

Supplementary Reading

1.) The Secrets of the Federal Reserve — Eustace Mullins
2.) The Federal Reserve Conspiracy — Anthony Sutton

1.) Read the main Text books and write chapter summaries.

2.) Read the rest of the Required Reading and write a paper on the following Subject Matter

A.) Distinguish Between The Austrian School, the Distributists school, and the Ropke School
B.) Fifteen Page Paper Highlighting the Problem With Centralized Banking (Consider Supplementary books)
C.) A Interactive Media Presentation On The Dangers Of Libertarianism Gone To Seed
D.) Looking At Books #1, #5, #9, and #10 write a ten page paper on the problems with Keynesianism
E.) What are the potential pitfalls of Distributism in books #11, #12 — Ten page paper
F.) Twenty page paper explaining the danger of understanding man as a primarily Economic being

4.) Interact 1 hour weekly with the Instructor regarding points of interest in the book that you are currently reading.

5.) Be prepared for pop quizzes or short essay requirements.

_________________
Were I to recommend books for the High Schooler from this list I would go with the Required reading list and then add book #6, #10 and Supplementary book #2