Ron Paul & Abortion

“To those who argue that we cannot allow the states to make decisions on abortion since some will make the wrong ones, I reply that that is an excellent argument for world government — for how can we allow individual countries to decide on abortion or other moral issues, if some may make the wrong decisions? Yet the dangers of world government speak for themselves.”

Congressman Dr. Ron Paul
The Revolution — pg. 61

This is my problem with Libertarianism. When it is given its head it turns into license for criminal behavior.

Paul, argues here for states rights on the issue of abortion but if he were to be consistent why wouldn’t we argue for states rights on the issue of first degree murder? Why wouldn’t we argue for the rights of individual states to sanction rape? Why wouldn’t we argue for states rights to turn their state into a Muslim Caliphate ruled by Sharia law? Why wouldn’t we argue for states rights to require burning widows upon the death pyre of their dead husbands?

I’m all for allowing maximum liberty but there is a point where liberty becomes criminal license. Allowing states to sanction first degree murder, in terms of abortion, when the Constitution guarantees due process for all citizens, as well as a speedy trial (where is the trial for the unborn child?), is simply not something that falls under states rights. States do not have the right to sanction first degree murder.

On the whole nonsense that Paul raises suggesting that insisting on a uniform policy outlawing abortion will lead to a world government forcing other countries not to preform abortions is simply answered by the word “jurisdiction.” These united States have no jurisdiction on abortion in other sovereign nations.

Congressman Paul is completely wrong on abortion and his stance suggests that he doesn’t really believe that abortion is murder.

In Memoriam … Dr. Glenn Martin — In Defiance … Dr. Ken Schenck

The greatest man in my life was Dr. Glenn Martin. Dr. Martin was chair of the Political Science Department at the college I attended and the college Dr. Ken Schenck now teaches at. Dr. Martin set me on the path of Presuppositionalism and Worldview thinking and introduced me to presuppositionalist authors such as Dr. C. Gregg Singer and Dr. Francis Schaeffer. Two of my majors at Marion (Political Science and History) found me sitting under almost every class that Martin offered.

Even before Cultural Marxism, Political Correctness and multiculturalism descended upon the West in full force, Dr. Martin was warning about these coming realities. Dr. Martin was pro-South, taught Austrian Economics, taught that the mainstream Media was captured by the Socialist left, exposed the leftist history of the Union movement in America, taught about the communist influence in the US Government and told the real story about Alger Hiss and Whitaker Chambers. Dr. Martin exposed the wickedness of Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Dr. Martin introduced me to Alexander Solzhenitsyn where I read Solzhenitsyn’s — to date unheeded warning to the West — in his Harvard address. From there I absorbed on my own Solzhenitsyn’s “Gulag Archipelago” and “A Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich,” as well as other writings by Russia’s Prophetic voice to the West. Dr. Martin introduced me to Dr. Fred Schwarz’s “You Can Trust The Communists To Be Communists.” This was a book written in 1960 that should be required reading even yet today for in that book one can learn a great deal about our current domestic enemies. From Martin I likewise learned Muggeridge, Kuhn, McLuhan, Efron, and a host of other authors.

At 18-22 I hardly understood these authors and their greatness as well as I one day would when I would circle back and re-read them as I aged. Likewise, at 18-22 I never appreciated Dr. Martin as much as I do now. I now realize I missed the bullet that most university students, who receive majors in the fields I received them in, take right between the eyes as their education is conditioned w/ Marxist poison of different varieties. Dr. Martin’s teaching was so exhaustive and so demanding that he always insisted that if you could earn an “A” in his class you could earn an “A” in any university in the country. The difference in those “A’s” though, was that most Universities in America were teaching history, political science, government, media, philosophy, from a pagan worldview while Martin was the Wesleyan version of R. J. Rushdoony.

Dr. Martin taught us the distinctions between different kinds of socialism (Fabianism, German National Socialism, Italian Fascism, etc.) and how it was, in most varieties, a political precursor to the same Utopian state that Communism was pursuing. Dr. Martin hated collectivistic and tyrannical government with every inch of his being. He hated them so much he loved telling a story about how he would speak in Churches and little old ladies would come up to him following his lecture and say, “What we need is a Christian dictator.” Dr. Martin would tell us in class that the very last thing we needed was a Christian dictator if only because such a thing is not possible. Dr. Martin believed in and taught Biblical government. Everything that Gary DeMar teaches in his “God and Government” book, Dr. Glenn Martin was teaching me in his 101 courses in 1977 at Marion College.

Further, as with all good presuppositionalists he taught the intellectual history of the philosophy of the West that was driving much of the cultural bankruptcy of the West. This included his course titled. “Western Intellectual and Social History.” In this course Dr. Martin traced the degradation of the Philosophy of the West starting w/ the attempt to synthesize Augustinianism w/ rationalism through Aquinas and the Scholastics. Martin’s premise was as long as the West kept trying to mix Biblical Christianity w/ pagan philosophy it would never have the strength to resist defeat. Martin spent a good deal of time covering existentialism covering Kierkegaard, Sartre, Camus, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and others. This training put me in good stead to understand postmodernism for what it was when it showed up on the scene.

As I grew older, I discovered other presuppositionalists (Bahnsen, Rushdoony, Clark, Os Guiness, Van Til, etc.) and by learning them I learned at the same time that Dr. Martin would have been well served if had been a little more conversant in Reformed Theology. Dr. Martin tried to avoid the Reformed vs. Arminian conflict his whole teaching career. I think his teaching would have been even more powerful if he had had some background in Reformed systematic and historical theology. As it was, since he taught at a Arminian college, he was forever trying to avoid the Arminian vs. Reformed debate, choosing to always only refer to himself as a “Biblical Christian.” As I became more conversant in Reformed Theology and later re-read his works I noticed some glaring inconsistencies in some of his lectures. I think though I can say that Dr. Glenn Martin, though he may have never intended to, planted some Reformed seeds in me that years later came to maturation. (I was still quite the rabid Arminian when I graduated Marion College.)

When I began college I was a personal mess. To this day I can’t believe I made it through my first year. (I even actually “quit” for a week, but went back because I had nowhere else to go.) I was failing exams and courses left and right. I finally made my failures a matter of prayer and told the Lord Christ that, “if in the exam I was taking on the morrow, in Dr. Martin’s class, I failed that really would be the end.” I took the exam and the next week received the exam back. I think I had scored something like a “45%.” I thought to myself … “Well, Lord I guess that does it — I’m finished.” However, I thought I would check on Dr. Martin’s door to correlate the score to the grade and found out, that because Martin graded on a curve, and because the rest of the Freshman class was as stupid as I was that a “45%” was a “C.” I stuck with it and the rest is, as they say, History.

Dr. Martin was also my adviser through college and we became as much friends as a bumpkin and a genius can become. I’ll never forget that he went out of his way to attend the first sermon I ever preached. (Which must have been quite painful for him to sit through.) I also remember him attending a meal in my honor at my graduation w/ my family and friends. I also was privileged to be invited to his home to watch the Republicans in 1980 nominate Ronald Reagan for President. Reagan was a man for which Dr. Martin had great hopes.

Dr. Martin was always viewed with suspicion at his place of employment. In reflection I would say that that was one part envy and one part ideological conflict. The suspicion became so deep while I was there that one professor each from the Sociology and the Psychology departments actually enrolled to take classes from Dr. Martin because they just couldn’t believe what Martin students were bringing to and saying in the classes in sociology and psychology they were teaching. It was clear that Worldview conflict between departments at Marion College was intense. Dr. Martin seemed not to be phased by this as he understood and taught the whole Reformed idea of the antithesis, though he never called it “Reformed.”

Dr. Martin’s influence was so great at Marion College while I was there that when an attempt was made to start a “Young Democrats Club” nobody showed up to become a member. Largely because of Dr. Martin Marion College was a conservative (I would even say paleo-conservative) campus.

I left in 1982 and occasionally I would hear through the grapevine that Indiana Wesleyan University (the new name of my Marion College) was going liberal. When I attended Marion College there was always a professor here or there who was loopy that way, but on the whole the religion and theology department (one of my degrees was from this department as well) was as solid as Arminians can be in that regard. I mean, in hindsight their theology sucked, but they weren’t teaching the historical-critical method of hermeneutics or singing the praises of Bultmann or Tillich, or Barth. They were basically “come to Jesus” (revivalist) people in their theology and while the damage in such theology is bad enough it was nowhere near the muck and mire that is being taught at Indiana Wesleyan University now.

And this brings us back to Dr. Schenck. Somehow (and I honestly quite forget how) I learned that Schenck and the Religion department was running down Dr. Martin. Then as I interacted w/ Dr. Ken Schenck I leanred for myself the incredible public disrespect Schenck exhibited for Dr. Martin.

Now, I have many faults. Legion is their name. However, one of them isn’t a lack of loyalty. I owe a debt that I will never be able to repay to Dr. Glen Martin and I didn’t and don’t take to kindly to these fool Ph.D’s in the religion department at IWU running down the greatest teacher that University will probably ever know. Further then that this becomes a, “Who is on the King’s side,” kind of tale because in the attacks the religion department made on Martin while he was alive and now makes on him now that he is dead they are attacking, as far as I am concerned, King Jesus. Not because Dr. Martin = Jesus but because many of the positions that Martin took were just your basic Christianity 101.

The theology of these people isn’t merely your garden variety Arminianism (which would be bad enough) but rather IWU has gone over the edge w/ a Barthian-post-modernist strain in their thinking. Schenck himself has told me that there is no way that one can ever find an objective. For Schenck all there is, is particulars. There are no Universals. This descends into pure subjectivism in theology and in matters of truth. Schenck insists that he prefers to play “small ball” when it comes to these issues but if there are no Universals then how can he know what small ball is?

I will always … always have a soft spot in my heart for the Wesleyans. When I was a child and a young adult they were the love of Christ to me when I was living in a pretty messed up family life. It may seem a severe mercy with the slapping around of Dr. Ken Schenck that I am returning to them for all their past kindnesses but if I could write anything to shake these people up and get them to return to John Wesley Arminiansim as opposed to Ken Schenck post-modern Arminianism I would be ecstatic.

And besides, I’m not a guy with a lot of heroes in my life and the handful I have I am going to defend against the attacks of little men like Dr. Ken Schenck who look big in our even smaller culture and church.

Observations On Natural Law Theory

1.) Natural law exists but it can’t be appealed to as a mechanism to build societal harmony or social order by, since men suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

2.) Natural law, according to Natural law theory, is that aspect of reality that is dependent upon the reality of God and is inescapable and because of its inescapable revelatory nature can be appealed to in order to build a common realm existence and social order. The problem here though, is that man Himself is part of Natural law — which is to say that man himself is dependent upon the reality of God and is Himself part of God’s inescapable revelatory work. Yet, because man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness he denies that he denies both that he is dependent upon God and that he himself is part of God’s inescapable revelatory work. Now, if man suppresses the truth about Natural law that is closest to himself (i.e. — his very own existence) how is it that man is going to accept the tenants of some Natural law theory that that would require far less suppression then the suppression used to deny that he himself is part of God’s Natural law?

3.)For Natural law to work it has to exist within a overarching agreed upon theological matrix / paradigm. You can have Christian Natural law work as a organizing mechanism for a social order but it is not working because of the Natural law component but because of the Christian framework that is informing Natural law and in which the natural law expression is resting. Some faith system is always prior to some Natural law expression.

4.) Natural law worked within Christendom for centuries precisely because the objective social order was Christian. Take away that objective social order and Natural law is just one mans or group of men’s opinion.

5.) This is why Natural Law can never work in a social order context that exists within overarching theological matrix of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism’s (pluralistic modernity) very definition requires as many Natural Laws as there are variant cultures comprising the “multi-cultural” project. To appeal to one Natural law in a multicultural society is in direct contradiction to the whole multicultural project. Multiculturalism demands multi-Natural-law theories.

6.) The one exception to #5 is when multiculturalism realizes that its project is not really about chaotic diversity but unitarian unity. What is really be pursued in multiculturalims is the mono-culture that is called multiculturalism. Natural law could work in a putative multicultural setting where it is realized, at least by the ruling elites, that multiculturalism is not about absolute cultural diversity but rather absolute cultural unity. However, the Natural law that will arise if this day ever comes will not be a Natural law that any Christian could ever accept.

However, in the scenario put forth in #6 once again Natural law is existing in a overarching a-priori theological matrix-paradigm.

7.) You can not invoke the matter upon which one will be thinking (Natural law) without first considering the thinker themselves. Since they will be thinking upon the matter delivered to them by natural law their cogitation is based on something prior to the matter they are receiving that Natural law is sending. In other words their thinking about what they are receiving in Natural law is already religiously conditioned, since they as the thinker are religiously conditioned. As man thinks about whatever he thinks about he thinks about it from a religiously conditioned viewpoint.

The whole “LIGHT” in the “light of nature” is only light as general revelation is read through the prism of special revelation.

8.) If you define the natural light as merely intuitive then we’d agree that natural light is perspicuous, necessary and sufficient. However, the minute you go from intuitive to discursive at that minute the process is poisoned by sin. Ontologically we can’t get away from what we know to be the truth and that ontological knowing seems to be grasped intuitively. However, it seems to be the case that we use our epistemological apparatus in discursive reasoning to deny what we can’t escape knowing ontologically.

Hammond on Mandela …. White On Arminians

For the whole 20th century Communism advanced by complaining about the injustice of those in power, only to turn around and compound the ruling wickedness they complained of by 1000 fold. If the Czar’s killed their thousands, the Bolsheviks and Communists killed their tens of millions. If Chiang Kai-shek was ruthless it looked like gentle kisses in comparison to Mao’s Communism. Castro made Batista look like a day care provider. On and on the list goes. Wherever Communism has come to power it has made the roughness of the previous ruling authorities look like Nirvana.

This comparison includes Mandela and the ANC as compared to the Apartheid rulers. The West forced the end of white rule in South Africa and it feted and hailed Mandela when he visited the States. However the communist black rule of the ANC makes the “oppressive” white rule look absolutely benign.

This link is a excellent exposition of that idea and I recommend its viewing … especially in light of the recent Hollywood release of “INVICTUS” that continues to try and make Mandela look like some victimized God.

————————————————

On a lighter note, the following link is absolutely hilarious. It is a song done by Don White (who has a Masterful singing voice) titled “I’m Arminian.” It is based on a poem written by Mark Chambers and set to the tune of, “If I Only Had A Brain.”

Wheaton College Continues To Go Off The Rails

Wheaton college is a place that produces enemies of the Cross and of Biblical Christianity (Witness Michael Gerson). But then why should they be an exception to Evangelical Colleges that are anti-Christ?

Recently, Wheaton came out with a study exploring the, “Intersection of Government, Foreign Assistance, and God’s Mission in the World.” In a preliminary statement that still has to go through the revision stage they affirmed,

The extraordinary power of the United States and the daily impact of the United States on the world’s poor requires special vigilance on the part of American Christian citizens as to the effects of the US role and policies and assistance programs. Our goal should be to bend the power of the United States toward a maximally effective impact on the world’s poor”

And in a press release they offered a series of Affirmations,

1.) We affirm that active concern for the poor is a non-negotiable aspect of Christian discipleship.

2.) We affirm that Christians need to become more competent in addressing the full range of government policy as it relates to the poor in the United States and globally.

3.) We affirm that Christians should advocate for just, generous, and fair government foreign assistance and related policies.

Now the fact that these statements are just so much “social justice” window dressing to disguise a Marxist agenda is seen by the reality that one of their speakers was one Ron Sider whose position was totally decimated by David Chilton’s, “Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulation: A Biblical Response to Ronald J. Sider,” in 1990.\

Now, on the surface there isn’t much to disagree with in these statements. However, if one scratches the surface of these statements one begins to smell the sulfur of Marxism. There is no absolute affirmation that wealth should be redistributed from the US to the world in order to pursue equity but the idea seems to lie just below the surface. For example, in that #3 above we find ourselves asking what standard they are using to define “just,” “generous,” and “fair.” I would be willing to bet the farm that the standard is a Marxist standard.

If we really wanted to “bend the power of the United States toward a maximally effective impact on the world’s poor” we would first realize that poverty often (not always) is a result of the death that always follows pagan religions. What impoverished countries need more than anything else (what this country needs more than anything else) is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Worldview that that Gospel creates. Countries that are institutionally and politically impoverished will never escape their impoverishment no matter how many resources we send their way, as long as they, as a culture, are haters of Christ. Concern for the poor demands that we cure their poverty with the totalistic impact of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Secondly, if we really wanted to “bend the power of the United States toward a maximally effective impact on the world’s poor” we would advocate destroying the IMF and Centralized Banking as it exists throughout the world. These Central Banks exist in order to impoverish nations by placing them in huge debt that can never be overcome. If Christians really desired to put a dent in global poverty they would end our own Federal Reserve and then demand that these united States pull out of every international banking cartel. Concern for the poor requires us to oppose the depredations of Global banking which always works to keep the poor, poor for the sake of the wealthy.

Thirdly, if we really wanted to “bend the power of the United States toward a maximally effective impact on the world’s poor” we would criminalize Marxism and social justice theories that are spun from Marxism. Marxism, insures poverty whenever it is pursued. People like Ron Sider and those who support Marxist inspired social justice theories should be deported or put in hospitals for the criminally insane. Concern for the poor requires us to marginalize those people who advocate policy that will create poverty.