Most of what I remember from the 80’s is limited to cartoons (Transformers, Ninja Turtles, He-Man [totally random, but I wonder if he found his She-Woman?], and my favorite: GI Joes) and playground experiences. This is why I tend to think of myself more as a child of the 90’s on into the 00’s. Like most kids, politics was off in the distant future while I sorted out more important issues to me at the time. For me, it was working out kinks in my theology until about 2004. This was the year politics meant something to me. I began reading the news, listening to talk radio, and thinking hard about the prominent political discussions of the day. I registered as a Republican and cast an informed vote in the Presidential election.
From my own experience, I’ve discovered that once one becomes informed about the world it is difficult to walk back into ignorance because there is so much that needs fixing. You learn that government is a necessary evil that God establishes to constrain the wicked desires of man’s heart, and to maintain civility in society.
I’d have serious doubts if the reader didn’t know ahead of time most of my political conclusions, but how is it I ended up reaching these conclusions? Certainly the most important influences were my parents, my best friend, and the folks at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. Aware of my own presuppositions and traditions, I knew that the truthfulness of my beliefs needs to be consistent, which is why I spent a great deal of time and energy thinking about politics. Staying informed of the political landscape has enabled me to engage in a host of ideas: the role of government, morality in government and society, how a Christian is supposed to function within a governmental framework, a Christian’s role within democracy, and so on and so forth.
2004 until today have been an interesting six or seven years, as you’re probably aware. I have experienced political ups and downs with each victory and loss. The most important issue, however, happened this past Sunday when the House passed a historic bill that will forever change the direction of this nation. Many have said this already, but it is worth repeating: the America we knew is coming to an end. Government insurance that will cover 30+ million Americans will do that to a nation.
Are the Republicans being a bit too extreme in their reaction to this healthcare reform bill? No, I don’t believe so. Let me explain … 30+ million people insured by the government will make them the largest health insurance company in the country. No other insurance company in their right mind will try to compete with the kind of rates the government will control. This means these insurance companies will be forced to expand to other kinds of insurance – home, auto, business, life – ooor simply go out of business. This is inevitable. Next, we’ll see the government be the sole insurance provider for health care. The Speaker of the House and our President claim that this healthcare reform bill will actually decrease the cost of healthcare and lower the national deficit! How can this be in light of the fact that the government will now be paying with our tax dollars for these 30+ million insureds. This is insanity … pure insanity to say the deficit will decrease when our spending increases.
Why are Republicans so worked up over this? Because the Socialization of healthcare increases government control of our lives and reduces the freedom we have. Rather than choosing whether we want healthcare or not, the government will decide for us. Like the public school system, it seems a logical and practical step that the government will decide what doctors and hospitals you can go to. They may even decide which cases are too costly to pay for – they will have millions upon millions to pay for, you see.
It is a simple matter of freedom versus Socialism. Don’t be fooled for a moment that the issue is really about covering millions of people who cannot afford healthcare. The issue is about our freedoms as individuals. I don’t want to pay for someone else’s healthcare. I don’t want the government to take away more of my money. My goodness, how much more can they take from us? Isn’t 35-40% enough?!
How do I respond to the accusation that Republicans don’t want these 30+ million people to have access to health insurance? Why don’t we pass meaningful healthcare reform that allows individuals to keep health insurance in-between jobs, and with pre-existing conditions. Yes, having a pre-condition will mean your insurance rate will be higher than someone without any pre-conditions. But again, this assumes personal responsibility over against government mandated insurance like Social Security. Really, with the right kind of reform, Americans are fully capable of providing for their own health insurance, just as they are capable of planning for their own retirement.
Ronald Reagan made a point that I must reiterate to you. He said that Americans will never vote under the banner of “Socialism” but they will under the banner of “Liberalism,” which claims to defend the middle-class by increasing the role of the state. A fair warning indeed.
Thanks for reading,
Rusty
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Too Much to Tell
Truly, so much has happened since my last post, I don’t know where to begin. Emily said yes … to my proposal in marriage. Somehow, I managed to convince her to marry a guy like me, and how lucky I am! That Irish luck thing finally paid off, it seems. After far too long [Master Kenobi] I’ve earned my Bachelor’s degree in Business Management. Lastly, it’s been about five months since my promotion, but I was promoted at Starbucks. Oh! Last of the lasterlies, Emily and I bought a house that will be closing on the 30th. W00ty w00t.
Curious as to how I managed to persuade my Emily to say yes? Valentine’s Day was approaching, and I thought that to pop the question on that particular day would be far too expected. I did, however, drop hints to mislead her to believe I would be proposing on Valentine’s Day – yup, I’m evil. In actuality, the Saturday before V-Day, I told her we had plans for a double date with my best friend Scott, and his lovely wife, Mindy. We were supposed to have some couple’s shots with Adam (Scott’s bro-in-law), so we were all dressed slightly upwards from casual. A faked phone call was all that was needed to continue on the charade that Adam was actually meeting with us to take our picture. Once we arrived at one of the Superstition Mountain’s lakes, we parked and decided to walk around while we waited for Adam. Scott and Mindy created some distance and it wasn’t long after that that I read to Emily an early Valentine’s Day card, in which were some song lyrics that I had been saving to read to the one I would propose to, dropped to my knee, and held out the ring. By God’s free grace, she quickly said yes, and I would be lying if I said there weren’t a few tears from the both of us. It was a spectacular moment, one that we will undoubtedly remember for the rest of our lives together.
Because the parallels between myself and Chris Farley might be made, I shall refrain from stating the total amount of time I spent to earn my degree. Nevertheless, earned it I did. The most exciting part of having this accomplishment under my belt is how it will open up more possibilities for me in the future.
It has been five? six? months since I was promoted to a management position at Val Vista and Southern. Great learning experience thus far, especially working with a whole new set of folks. I’ve learned some invaluable lessons from a business angle and interpersonal-savvy angle. All I can say is this: QASA, VIA, SKCDL’s, DCM’s and scones have been my life during this brief time. I’ll try not to have nightmares about the drive-thru bell ringing in my ear every 20 seconds =).
Perhaps two weeks after Emily and I were engaged, we made a bid on a house. We found this house on our very first day of house-hunting, and both knew this was the one within minutes (in fact, we only spent a grand total of five minutes inside the first time). That’s all it took. We have done everything on our end, so now we wait for the bank to fund the loan and BAM. That’s all she wrote. Lord willing, everything goes smoothly from this point onward.
Our wedding date is August 14th, and that day cannot come soon enough. Maybe I should have listened to my fiancé who suggested we marry a month sooner? =). There you have it: my life update in a nutshell. Thanks for reading.
Rusty
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Compatibalist Freedom
David,
Thank you for your email and your excellent questions. These are both well formulated and well thought out; I very much appreciate that.
Your first question: “If God ordains and puts all sin and disobedience into motion by His plans, how does the blame for this sin land on sinners and not Himself?”
Though it is true that men perform the actions ordained by God since eternity they are also held accountable for their actions. This is what we call Compatibalist Freedom. There is a distinction made between primary and secondary causes. God is the primary cause for all things that happen in time and space. Secondary causes are accomplished through the agents themselves. God ordained the Fall of Adam and Eve, yet it was actualized through Adam and Eve. It was not God who sinned, but Adam and Eve.
There are 3 clear examples in Scripture that teach Compatibalist Freedom: Genesis 50:20, Isaiah 10:5-14, and Acts 4:27-28.
Genesis 50:20, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” (NASB).
Shortly before our text, Joseph and his brothers witnessed their father‘s death. After they finished burying him, his brothers began to worry that Joseph may take vengeance for the many evil deeds they did against him (vs. 15). Eventually they approach Joseph to beg for mercy, and Joseph responds in verse 20. His brothers meant much evil against Joseph, and yet God intended good from these actions. This means that God had a purpose all along for the many evil difficulties they forced upon their brother. God had intentions for their actions before they were ever performed! Joseph showed mercy to his brothers, even though they were clearly guilty of the actions God ordained ahead of time.
Isaiah 10:5-14, “5 Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hands is My indignation, 6 I send it against a godless nation And commission it against the people of My fury To capture booty and to seize plunder, And to trample them down like mud in the streets. 7 Yet it does not so intend, Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy And to cut off many nations. 8 For it says, "Are not my princes all kings? 9 "Is not Calno like Carchemish, Or Hamath like Arpad, Or Samaria like Damascus? 10 "As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols, Whose graven images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria, 11 Shall I not do to Jerusalem and her images Just as I have done to Samaria and her idols?" 12 So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness." 13 For he has said, "By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this, For I have understanding; And I removed the boundaries of the peoples And plundered their treasures, And like a mighty man I brought down their inhabitants, 14 And my hand reached to the riches of the peoples like a nest, And as one gathers abandoned eggs, I gathered all the earth; And there was not one that flapped its wing or opened its beak or chirped.”” (NASB).
In this scenario Assyria is used by God to punish His people for their godlessness. Assyria “did not so intend” or “plan so in its heart” to attack Jerusalem but only to “destroy and to cut off many nations.” And so God uses Assyria to attack Jerusalem. After the fact, God punishes Assyria for “the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness.”
This is another example of God causing events and then holding the individuals involved responsible. In this case, Assyria didn’t even intend … but God did intend for them to do this. Then Assyria is held accountable and punished accordingly.
Finally, Acts 4:27-28 may be the most important of these 3 examples because of who is involved in God’s predestining purpose: Jesus Christ.
Acts 4:27-28 “27 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.” (NASB).
Luke records Peter’s and John’s response to the priests, elders and scribes. The point I will make from this text is that the Lord predestined many decisions and actions which resulted in the suffering of Christ, yet Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the Jews are all accountable before God for their behavior and involvement.
Next, I would like to address a possible implication from your question. Are you implying that without a libertarian freedom man cannot be held accountable for his actions? If so, I would simply ask how such a freedom can exist since men are unable to do other than what God foreknew they would do? In other words, if men lack the liberty to act apart from the foreknowledge of God then they cannot possess a freedom independent of all forces (including God’s). Libertarianism is clearly not the kind of freedom men possess. Rather, the Bible teaches that men have a compatibalist freedom, where under the sovereign rulership of God men are still accountable for their deeds.
On to your second question: “If genuine, unprovoked devotion is not, and cannot be part of His plans due to His sovereign nature, why did He not create everyone with a natural positive response to His being?”
Very simply - because God, in His infinite wisdom, decided to create the way He did. I will make reference to Ephesians 1 and Romans 9. Also consider that the secret things belong to the Lord; we know only what God has revealed to us (Deuteronomy 29:29). Going beyond the Scriptures into speculation about why God ordained things this way is futile since only the mind of the Lord knows such things. We might as well ask why God created the law of gravity the way He did.
I hope this was beneficial for you. If you would like to continue on this discussion, or have further questions please let me know.
Because of the sovereign rulership of God,
Casey “Rusty” Ryan
AOMin
Thank you for your email and your excellent questions. These are both well formulated and well thought out; I very much appreciate that.
Your first question: “If God ordains and puts all sin and disobedience into motion by His plans, how does the blame for this sin land on sinners and not Himself?”
Though it is true that men perform the actions ordained by God since eternity they are also held accountable for their actions. This is what we call Compatibalist Freedom. There is a distinction made between primary and secondary causes. God is the primary cause for all things that happen in time and space. Secondary causes are accomplished through the agents themselves. God ordained the Fall of Adam and Eve, yet it was actualized through Adam and Eve. It was not God who sinned, but Adam and Eve.
There are 3 clear examples in Scripture that teach Compatibalist Freedom: Genesis 50:20, Isaiah 10:5-14, and Acts 4:27-28.
Genesis 50:20, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” (NASB).
Shortly before our text, Joseph and his brothers witnessed their father‘s death. After they finished burying him, his brothers began to worry that Joseph may take vengeance for the many evil deeds they did against him (vs. 15). Eventually they approach Joseph to beg for mercy, and Joseph responds in verse 20. His brothers meant much evil against Joseph, and yet God intended good from these actions. This means that God had a purpose all along for the many evil difficulties they forced upon their brother. God had intentions for their actions before they were ever performed! Joseph showed mercy to his brothers, even though they were clearly guilty of the actions God ordained ahead of time.
Isaiah 10:5-14, “5 Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hands is My indignation, 6 I send it against a godless nation And commission it against the people of My fury To capture booty and to seize plunder, And to trample them down like mud in the streets. 7 Yet it does not so intend, Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy And to cut off many nations. 8 For it says, "Are not my princes all kings? 9 "Is not Calno like Carchemish, Or Hamath like Arpad, Or Samaria like Damascus? 10 "As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols, Whose graven images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria, 11 Shall I not do to Jerusalem and her images Just as I have done to Samaria and her idols?" 12 So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness." 13 For he has said, "By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this, For I have understanding; And I removed the boundaries of the peoples And plundered their treasures, And like a mighty man I brought down their inhabitants, 14 And my hand reached to the riches of the peoples like a nest, And as one gathers abandoned eggs, I gathered all the earth; And there was not one that flapped its wing or opened its beak or chirped.”” (NASB).
In this scenario Assyria is used by God to punish His people for their godlessness. Assyria “did not so intend” or “plan so in its heart” to attack Jerusalem but only to “destroy and to cut off many nations.” And so God uses Assyria to attack Jerusalem. After the fact, God punishes Assyria for “the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness.”
This is another example of God causing events and then holding the individuals involved responsible. In this case, Assyria didn’t even intend … but God did intend for them to do this. Then Assyria is held accountable and punished accordingly.
Finally, Acts 4:27-28 may be the most important of these 3 examples because of who is involved in God’s predestining purpose: Jesus Christ.
Acts 4:27-28 “27 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.” (NASB).
Luke records Peter’s and John’s response to the priests, elders and scribes. The point I will make from this text is that the Lord predestined many decisions and actions which resulted in the suffering of Christ, yet Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the Jews are all accountable before God for their behavior and involvement.
Next, I would like to address a possible implication from your question. Are you implying that without a libertarian freedom man cannot be held accountable for his actions? If so, I would simply ask how such a freedom can exist since men are unable to do other than what God foreknew they would do? In other words, if men lack the liberty to act apart from the foreknowledge of God then they cannot possess a freedom independent of all forces (including God’s). Libertarianism is clearly not the kind of freedom men possess. Rather, the Bible teaches that men have a compatibalist freedom, where under the sovereign rulership of God men are still accountable for their deeds.
On to your second question: “If genuine, unprovoked devotion is not, and cannot be part of His plans due to His sovereign nature, why did He not create everyone with a natural positive response to His being?”
Very simply - because God, in His infinite wisdom, decided to create the way He did. I will make reference to Ephesians 1 and Romans 9. Also consider that the secret things belong to the Lord; we know only what God has revealed to us (Deuteronomy 29:29). Going beyond the Scriptures into speculation about why God ordained things this way is futile since only the mind of the Lord knows such things. We might as well ask why God created the law of gravity the way He did.
I hope this was beneficial for you. If you would like to continue on this discussion, or have further questions please let me know.
Because of the sovereign rulership of God,
Casey “Rusty” Ryan
AOMin
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Joshua,
Job is a wonderful book, full of insight into the mighty control of our God, even over the terrible events that happen in the lives of His saints. You asked if the end result of Job’s conversation with God is with the Lord essentially telling Job, “How dare you question me?” Yes, this is what I believe is happening. God is the Creator of all things, including events that occur in time and space. He ordains everything for the betterment of His people; the good and the evil.
You said, “If it is, then I really don't understand Job accepting God's Authority.”
God has ultimate authority. He is the ruler over everything that exists, so Job accepting this fact was wise on his part =).
You continued, “I mean, God allowed Satan to take everything from him, and offers no direct reasons why.”
Being the sovereign over all creation, God does not have to answer to us … for anything. In fact, we only know what God allows us to know about His purposes. Otherwise, it is kept hidden from us (Deut 29:29).
The lesson from the book of Job is that the Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. But whether He gives or takes away, we are to bless His name. Job 1:20-22, “20 Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head, and he fell to the ground and worshiped. 21 He said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, And naked I shall return there. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD." 22 Through all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God.” (NASB).
All good things come from God’s hand, and all these things we do not deserve. Therefore, how can we complain when the Lord takes back what was from Him? If we received what we deserve we would face God’s judgment and then sent to Hell for all eternity to be punished for our sins. But thank the Maker of all that He has chosen to demonstrate His mercy on a great multitude of guilty sinners. This is why Job did not blame God when God used Satan to take away His family, possessions and health. Job did not originally deserve the blessings from God’s hand, so what right did He have to complain, much less to question the wisdom of God in purposing what He purposed to happen?
While we do not always know the reasons behind why God is doing something, we must remember the promise of God that He does everything for the good of those that love him (Romans 8:28).
I hope this was of help to you. Please let me know if you have any further questions on this subject, or if there is anything I can help you with.
Because of the sovereign rulership of our God,
Casey “Rusty” Ryan
AOMin
Job is a wonderful book, full of insight into the mighty control of our God, even over the terrible events that happen in the lives of His saints. You asked if the end result of Job’s conversation with God is with the Lord essentially telling Job, “How dare you question me?” Yes, this is what I believe is happening. God is the Creator of all things, including events that occur in time and space. He ordains everything for the betterment of His people; the good and the evil.
You said, “If it is, then I really don't understand Job accepting God's Authority.”
God has ultimate authority. He is the ruler over everything that exists, so Job accepting this fact was wise on his part =).
You continued, “I mean, God allowed Satan to take everything from him, and offers no direct reasons why.”
Being the sovereign over all creation, God does not have to answer to us … for anything. In fact, we only know what God allows us to know about His purposes. Otherwise, it is kept hidden from us (Deut 29:29).
The lesson from the book of Job is that the Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. But whether He gives or takes away, we are to bless His name. Job 1:20-22, “20 Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head, and he fell to the ground and worshiped. 21 He said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, And naked I shall return there. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD." 22 Through all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God.” (NASB).
All good things come from God’s hand, and all these things we do not deserve. Therefore, how can we complain when the Lord takes back what was from Him? If we received what we deserve we would face God’s judgment and then sent to Hell for all eternity to be punished for our sins. But thank the Maker of all that He has chosen to demonstrate His mercy on a great multitude of guilty sinners. This is why Job did not blame God when God used Satan to take away His family, possessions and health. Job did not originally deserve the blessings from God’s hand, so what right did He have to complain, much less to question the wisdom of God in purposing what He purposed to happen?
While we do not always know the reasons behind why God is doing something, we must remember the promise of God that He does everything for the good of those that love him (Romans 8:28).
I hope this was of help to you. Please let me know if you have any further questions on this subject, or if there is anything I can help you with.
Because of the sovereign rulership of our God,
Casey “Rusty” Ryan
AOMin
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Preparation for Witnessing to Latter-day Saints
Rob sent Alpha and Omega an email looking for help in witnessing to a pair of LDS missionaries, and mentioned that he was "burning" to present the gospel to them. I wish more Christians were like Rob. Hopefully, I was able to give him a good start to further prepare to be a faithful witness to the Latter-day Saint community in his area. Here's what I sent him, and may also help you as you do your best to present the gospel of our Lord to all men:
Hello Rob,
First of all, I thank God for you and your willingness to preach the gospel to this pair of Latter-day Saint full-time missionaries. I have met so many Christians who prefer to shut the door on Mormons rather than reasoning with them from the Scriptures, so please know you are a great encouragement to me.
Your approach in how you plan on talking with these young Mormons (if you have not already) sounds great to me. I have met with dozens of LDS missionaries over the years and am actually meeting with a pair right now, going on our fifth encounter next week - which I’ve learned is quite rare. My approach is similar to yours, in that, I try to be extremely up-front in the beginning. I let them know right away that I have no desire to convert to the Latter-day Saint church, that I have read the entirety of their Scriptures and have intensely studied their belief-system in an attempt to better understand their perspectives, and that it is my goal to convert them just as it is their goal to convert me. Lastly, I mention that I prefer to have a pleasant conversation and polite debate centering around our differences in hopes of winning them over.
This seems to work much better than my first attempt with a pair of LDS missionaries where I was not forthright and led them to believe I was a seeker, possibly interested in investigating their church. Being straightforward with them is respectful, and I believe, the God-honoring approach.
In your discussions with them try to control the topics of conversation - there is no need to go through their lesson plans. Many times I will select a topic that focuses on a core difference between us. For example, in my current discussions with missionaries we are talking about how many true gods exist, as well as the nature of God. The Trinity is regularly needing to be mentioned, along with what I do not believe about God. Comparing and contrasting my beliefs with theirs, then demonstrating that the Biblical evidence fully supports our beliefs about God, and also does not support their beliefs is the best approach to take. Whatever approach you take, continue to reinforce your said beliefs from the Bible so that they can begin to understand why Evangelicals believe what we do.
There are a number of books and mp3’s I want to recommend to help you prepare for your evangelism towards the Latter-day Saint community. James White has written two of the best books on Mormonism that I’ve encountered: Is the Mormon My Brother? and Letters to a Mormon Elder. The first is a systematic look at LDS beliefs organized by their authority structure. The second is more a reference and contains a series of fictitious letters between James and a Mormon elder on his mission on a wide variety of topics. Both are invaluable to have on your shelf. Jerald (now deceased) and Sandra Tanner’s Utah Lighthouse Ministry also has any number of books, and a unique set of documentation that are useful for those in-depth conversations with a Latter-day Saint. Walter Martin’s (deceased) Kingdom of the Cults is also a great reference to have on the LDS faith, along with other spin-offs of Christianity and other world religions. At the AOMin website there are a number of good articles, mp3’s and DVD’s on Mormonism that can greatly aid you. “The Witnessing to Mormons Seminar” (#482MP3) is a personal favorite that I listen to each year before handing out tracts at the Mormon Easter Pageant at the temple in Mesa, AZ. Check out the articles section of our site, and the store has mp3’s and dvd’s on Mormonism that will greatly assist you. Our site address: http://www.aomin.org.
I have some friends in Maryland who may be able to help you in your studies of Mormonism. I’ll shoot over an email to them and get back to you as soon as I can. Also, feel free to ask me any questions on the subject. It would be my pleasure. I will be praying for you as you continue to shine the light of the gospel to the Latter-day Saint community.
Because of Christ,
Casey “Rusty” Ryan
AOMin
Hello Rob,
First of all, I thank God for you and your willingness to preach the gospel to this pair of Latter-day Saint full-time missionaries. I have met so many Christians who prefer to shut the door on Mormons rather than reasoning with them from the Scriptures, so please know you are a great encouragement to me.
Your approach in how you plan on talking with these young Mormons (if you have not already) sounds great to me. I have met with dozens of LDS missionaries over the years and am actually meeting with a pair right now, going on our fifth encounter next week - which I’ve learned is quite rare. My approach is similar to yours, in that, I try to be extremely up-front in the beginning. I let them know right away that I have no desire to convert to the Latter-day Saint church, that I have read the entirety of their Scriptures and have intensely studied their belief-system in an attempt to better understand their perspectives, and that it is my goal to convert them just as it is their goal to convert me. Lastly, I mention that I prefer to have a pleasant conversation and polite debate centering around our differences in hopes of winning them over.
This seems to work much better than my first attempt with a pair of LDS missionaries where I was not forthright and led them to believe I was a seeker, possibly interested in investigating their church. Being straightforward with them is respectful, and I believe, the God-honoring approach.
In your discussions with them try to control the topics of conversation - there is no need to go through their lesson plans. Many times I will select a topic that focuses on a core difference between us. For example, in my current discussions with missionaries we are talking about how many true gods exist, as well as the nature of God. The Trinity is regularly needing to be mentioned, along with what I do not believe about God. Comparing and contrasting my beliefs with theirs, then demonstrating that the Biblical evidence fully supports our beliefs about God, and also does not support their beliefs is the best approach to take. Whatever approach you take, continue to reinforce your said beliefs from the Bible so that they can begin to understand why Evangelicals believe what we do.
There are a number of books and mp3’s I want to recommend to help you prepare for your evangelism towards the Latter-day Saint community. James White has written two of the best books on Mormonism that I’ve encountered: Is the Mormon My Brother? and Letters to a Mormon Elder. The first is a systematic look at LDS beliefs organized by their authority structure. The second is more a reference and contains a series of fictitious letters between James and a Mormon elder on his mission on a wide variety of topics. Both are invaluable to have on your shelf. Jerald (now deceased) and Sandra Tanner’s Utah Lighthouse Ministry also has any number of books, and a unique set of documentation that are useful for those in-depth conversations with a Latter-day Saint. Walter Martin’s (deceased) Kingdom of the Cults is also a great reference to have on the LDS faith, along with other spin-offs of Christianity and other world religions. At the AOMin website there are a number of good articles, mp3’s and DVD’s on Mormonism that can greatly aid you. “The Witnessing to Mormons Seminar” (#482MP3) is a personal favorite that I listen to each year before handing out tracts at the Mormon Easter Pageant at the temple in Mesa, AZ. Check out the articles section of our site, and the store has mp3’s and dvd’s on Mormonism that will greatly assist you. Our site address: http://www.aomin.org.
I have some friends in Maryland who may be able to help you in your studies of Mormonism. I’ll shoot over an email to them and get back to you as soon as I can. Also, feel free to ask me any questions on the subject. It would be my pleasure. I will be praying for you as you continue to shine the light of the gospel to the Latter-day Saint community.
Because of Christ,
Casey “Rusty” Ryan
AOMin
Foreordination and human responsibility
Hello Ben,
I appreciate your desire to seek out the truth even on difficult issues such as these. I’ll do my best to answer your questions in their entirety.
You asked: “Did God create beings He knew would rebel against Him? And if so, how can He hold them accountable for that rebellion?”
Yes, God created beings He knew would rebel against Him. On a related note, I would also like to address how God knew the future before the foundation of the world, and I think you‘ll see how this becomes directly relevant to your questions. Was God simply looking down through the corridors of time, much like a fortune-teller with her crystal ball? Or does the Lord have another basis for knowing what happens in the future? I believe the Bible answers this very question.
Isaiah 44:6-8 reads: “6"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me. 7 'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it; Yes, let him recount it to Me in order, From the time that I established the ancient nation. And let them declare to them the things that are coming And the events that are going to take place. 8 'Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.'“” (NASB).
This is a text I use fairly often when talking with Latter-day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses, but also with Open Theists, oddly enough. In these few verses our God states in more ways than one that He is the only true and living god that exists. More than that, He offers a challenge to the many false gods to declare to Him the events of the past and their purpose for happening. God then challenges idols to declare events that have yet to happen. I believe there is a strong implication that just as the Lord established past events and the ancient nation He likewise establishes the future.
Isaiah says in 46:8-11, “8"Remember this, and be assured; Recall it to mind, you transgressors. 9 "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; 11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.” (NASB).
Saying similar things as the previous passage we looked at, but also that He declares the end from the beginning so that His purpose will be established according to His good pleasure. He has spoken and it will happen just as He desires. His plans always come to pass.
Next, I’d encourage you to read Isaiah 40-50 … but until then … this section in Isaiah not only presents a series of tests to demonstrate that He is the only true god, but also to serve as reassurance for this fact. Among His many tests are the constant reminder that He alone is the Creator of all things, and I believe that His many mentions of ordaining the past, present and future must be considered an act of God’s creative handiwork (creation).
Romans 8:28 is a passage well known amongst Christians down through the ages of the Church because of it’s reassurance of God’s total control over all things: “8 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” (NASB). This is comforting not only because God is watching out for the Christian’s best interests but because everything that happens is according to God’s purposes. Think how the first century Church viewed this text in light of the intense persecution brought by the Jews and the Romans, and the text becomes all the more relevant. Even in the face of persecution our Lord is in control because He has ordained what will happen, and His ends will be accomplished for the betterment of His people.
What I have attempted to do up to this point is demonstrate that the Creator has ordained all events in time and space: the past, present and future. But I have one other point to make regarding good and evil. Going back to Isaiah, we read in 45:6-7, “6 That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, 7 The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.” (NASB). He forms light and darkness, causing well-being and calamity. Another text, Proverbs 6:4 reads: “4 The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil.” (NASB). This brings out a very important fact: God ordains all things, good and evil - evil the wicked for the day of doom.
We are nearly ready to directly address your question, but first we need to answer one other question: if God has ordained good and evil events, how does that all play out? In an attempt to better explain our theology, Calvinists differentiate between first and secondary causes. God is the first cause of all things that happen. In other words, He has ordained everything that takes place. Secondary causes are the means which He uses to accomplish His ordained decree.
So, did God “create” sin? I suppose it depends on how you are defining the term “create.” He certainly ordained the existence of sin and evil, but it was Satan and human beings that actualized, or brought about, its existence.
How is it that human beings are held accountable for their sins in light of the fact that God has ordained all things? A simple answer would be that it is human beings that sin and not God. But going further, human beings have what is known as compatibilist freedom. That is, that though God is sovereign in ordaining everything that comes to pass, man is responsible for what he does. This is seen in 3 key texts of Scripture: Genesis 50:20, Isaiah 10:5-13, and Acts 4:27-28.
Genesis 50:20, “20 "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” (NASB)
In this rather awkward scenario where Joseph’s brothers are pleading with him to not be punished as a result of their wicked behavior, we have a clear recognition that God had purpose and intent in the evil they had done. What was that purpose? To preserve many people alive. Joseph’s brothers meant evil but God meant it for good. It is important to point out that though God has ordained even Joseph’s brothers’ evil deeds, they are not let off the hook for their behavior. For evidence of this take a look at what Jacob said to each of his sons on his deathbed.
Isaiah 10:5-13, “5 Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hands is My indignation, 6 I send it against a godless nation And commission it against the people of My fury To capture booty and to seize plunder, And to trample them down like mud in the streets. 7 Yet it does not so intend, Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy And to cut off many nations. 8 For it says, "Are not my princes all kings? 9 "Is not Calno like Carchemish, Or Hamath like Arpad, Or Samaria like Damascus? 10 "As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols, Whose graven images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria, 11 Shall I not do to Jerusalem and her images Just as I have done to Samaria and her idols?" 12 So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness." 13 For he has said, "By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this, For I have understanding; And I removed the boundaries of the peoples And plundered their treasures, And like a mighty man I brought down their inhabitants,” (NASB).
Assyria had evil intent to destroy and cut off many nations, but not against Jerusalem. Yet God chose to use Assyria as the rod of His anger and punish the Jews. Once finished, the Lord then punishes Assyria for what they did to Jerusalem. The simple lesson from this passage is that God controls all things but we are still held accountable for our actions.
Finally, Acts 4:27-28, “27 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.” (NASB).
Even the Son of God had an appointed time to face abuse and death at the hands of Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel. We know from the Scriptures that all these have been held accountable for their actions. But think about the many decisions that led to the experiences that Christ faced. Between Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and the Israelites there were an innumerable number of decisions. The first century also came thousands of years after the time of the creation … and I wonder how many choices and actions were done leading up to the time of Christ? If God did not ordain even the choices of men I suggest to you that ordaining specific events of Christ’s life would have been impossible. The Lord is either utterly sovereign over the universe - including time and space - or He is not sovereign at all. These are our two options.
One final question you had asked was whether God created beings He knew would be destined for eternal punishment? I believe that He did - Romans 9 talks a bit about why God did this very thing.
I’ll wrap it up there, but please let me know if you’d like to discuss this further or if you have any further questions.
Praise God for His rulership over all things,
Casey “Rusty” Ryan
AOMin
I appreciate your desire to seek out the truth even on difficult issues such as these. I’ll do my best to answer your questions in their entirety.
You asked: “Did God create beings He knew would rebel against Him? And if so, how can He hold them accountable for that rebellion?”
Yes, God created beings He knew would rebel against Him. On a related note, I would also like to address how God knew the future before the foundation of the world, and I think you‘ll see how this becomes directly relevant to your questions. Was God simply looking down through the corridors of time, much like a fortune-teller with her crystal ball? Or does the Lord have another basis for knowing what happens in the future? I believe the Bible answers this very question.
Isaiah 44:6-8 reads: “6"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me. 7 'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it; Yes, let him recount it to Me in order, From the time that I established the ancient nation. And let them declare to them the things that are coming And the events that are going to take place. 8 'Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.'“” (NASB).
This is a text I use fairly often when talking with Latter-day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses, but also with Open Theists, oddly enough. In these few verses our God states in more ways than one that He is the only true and living god that exists. More than that, He offers a challenge to the many false gods to declare to Him the events of the past and their purpose for happening. God then challenges idols to declare events that have yet to happen. I believe there is a strong implication that just as the Lord established past events and the ancient nation He likewise establishes the future.
Isaiah says in 46:8-11, “8"Remember this, and be assured; Recall it to mind, you transgressors. 9 "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; 11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.” (NASB).
Saying similar things as the previous passage we looked at, but also that He declares the end from the beginning so that His purpose will be established according to His good pleasure. He has spoken and it will happen just as He desires. His plans always come to pass.
Next, I’d encourage you to read Isaiah 40-50 … but until then … this section in Isaiah not only presents a series of tests to demonstrate that He is the only true god, but also to serve as reassurance for this fact. Among His many tests are the constant reminder that He alone is the Creator of all things, and I believe that His many mentions of ordaining the past, present and future must be considered an act of God’s creative handiwork (creation).
Romans 8:28 is a passage well known amongst Christians down through the ages of the Church because of it’s reassurance of God’s total control over all things: “8 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” (NASB). This is comforting not only because God is watching out for the Christian’s best interests but because everything that happens is according to God’s purposes. Think how the first century Church viewed this text in light of the intense persecution brought by the Jews and the Romans, and the text becomes all the more relevant. Even in the face of persecution our Lord is in control because He has ordained what will happen, and His ends will be accomplished for the betterment of His people.
What I have attempted to do up to this point is demonstrate that the Creator has ordained all events in time and space: the past, present and future. But I have one other point to make regarding good and evil. Going back to Isaiah, we read in 45:6-7, “6 That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, 7 The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.” (NASB). He forms light and darkness, causing well-being and calamity. Another text, Proverbs 6:4 reads: “4 The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil.” (NASB). This brings out a very important fact: God ordains all things, good and evil - evil the wicked for the day of doom.
We are nearly ready to directly address your question, but first we need to answer one other question: if God has ordained good and evil events, how does that all play out? In an attempt to better explain our theology, Calvinists differentiate between first and secondary causes. God is the first cause of all things that happen. In other words, He has ordained everything that takes place. Secondary causes are the means which He uses to accomplish His ordained decree.
So, did God “create” sin? I suppose it depends on how you are defining the term “create.” He certainly ordained the existence of sin and evil, but it was Satan and human beings that actualized, or brought about, its existence.
How is it that human beings are held accountable for their sins in light of the fact that God has ordained all things? A simple answer would be that it is human beings that sin and not God. But going further, human beings have what is known as compatibilist freedom. That is, that though God is sovereign in ordaining everything that comes to pass, man is responsible for what he does. This is seen in 3 key texts of Scripture: Genesis 50:20, Isaiah 10:5-13, and Acts 4:27-28.
Genesis 50:20, “20 "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” (NASB)
In this rather awkward scenario where Joseph’s brothers are pleading with him to not be punished as a result of their wicked behavior, we have a clear recognition that God had purpose and intent in the evil they had done. What was that purpose? To preserve many people alive. Joseph’s brothers meant evil but God meant it for good. It is important to point out that though God has ordained even Joseph’s brothers’ evil deeds, they are not let off the hook for their behavior. For evidence of this take a look at what Jacob said to each of his sons on his deathbed.
Isaiah 10:5-13, “5 Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hands is My indignation, 6 I send it against a godless nation And commission it against the people of My fury To capture booty and to seize plunder, And to trample them down like mud in the streets. 7 Yet it does not so intend, Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy And to cut off many nations. 8 For it says, "Are not my princes all kings? 9 "Is not Calno like Carchemish, Or Hamath like Arpad, Or Samaria like Damascus? 10 "As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols, Whose graven images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria, 11 Shall I not do to Jerusalem and her images Just as I have done to Samaria and her idols?" 12 So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness." 13 For he has said, "By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this, For I have understanding; And I removed the boundaries of the peoples And plundered their treasures, And like a mighty man I brought down their inhabitants,” (NASB).
Assyria had evil intent to destroy and cut off many nations, but not against Jerusalem. Yet God chose to use Assyria as the rod of His anger and punish the Jews. Once finished, the Lord then punishes Assyria for what they did to Jerusalem. The simple lesson from this passage is that God controls all things but we are still held accountable for our actions.
Finally, Acts 4:27-28, “27 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.” (NASB).
Even the Son of God had an appointed time to face abuse and death at the hands of Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel. We know from the Scriptures that all these have been held accountable for their actions. But think about the many decisions that led to the experiences that Christ faced. Between Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and the Israelites there were an innumerable number of decisions. The first century also came thousands of years after the time of the creation … and I wonder how many choices and actions were done leading up to the time of Christ? If God did not ordain even the choices of men I suggest to you that ordaining specific events of Christ’s life would have been impossible. The Lord is either utterly sovereign over the universe - including time and space - or He is not sovereign at all. These are our two options.
One final question you had asked was whether God created beings He knew would be destined for eternal punishment? I believe that He did - Romans 9 talks a bit about why God did this very thing.
I’ll wrap it up there, but please let me know if you’d like to discuss this further or if you have any further questions.
Praise God for His rulership over all things,
Casey “Rusty” Ryan
AOMin
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Which gospel to believe?
I had the honor of responding to a recent email entirely about the gospel. I hope this is encouraging for you =)
---------------------------------------------------------------
I am not out to start a fight. I just want both sides to the story. I am not a fan of tit for tat ridicule I see on both Protestant and catholic blogs. I just want to make an informed decision based on fact and reason. I am a fallen away christian, but I have decided religion should be the most important thing in my life, so I am searching for answers. 1.)evn though the 7 books in the catholic bible(Judith, Tobit, etc. are not in prot. ones, are they the work of God? I must add I found comfort and felt closer after i read them. Is that wrong. I met a priest who was a nice guy, and he told me he didn't care what denomination I was, he just wanted me to be closer to God. He was not anti-prot. as I thought they all were, and he told me to keep going to my Baptist church. The guys I read on the cath. apoli. on the internet were down right mean, as were alot of the prot. Are we not all followers of Jesus? Very confused. Even alot of the prot. guys were ripping each other. Mt head is spinning. I don't know who to believe?
---------------------------------------------------------------
My response:
Paul,
First of all, let me just say that I am honored to be able to respond to your email because you touch on the most important issue in life: true religion.
I’ll respond to your email as best I can but the more I know about what specific questions you have and what issues you are struggling with the better I’ll be able to interact with you.
Contrary to liberals who are ever ready to share their opinions, conservatives on both sides of the Protestant and Catholic isles would argue that the differences between the two perspectives are of the utmost importance. We are not talking about peripheral issues that have no meaningful impact, but rather issues that focus on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Roman Catholics would say that the Protestant gospel is false, just as Protestants would say that the Roman Catholic gospel is false.
Now to the main thrust of your email: Which of these two religions is true, and which possesses the true gospel of God?
Paul the Apostle began his letter to the saints at Rome by describing the gospel as “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1:16, NASB). If we are to believe that Paul was here correct in his assertion that the gospel is the power of God for salvation to all who believe, then having a right view of the gospel must be our foremost concern. All other issues pale in comparison because it is only through the gospel that God has chosen to save sinners from a life and the consequences of our sins. Were it not for the Lord’s intervention, we would be hopelessly left to bear the guilt and punishment for our sins.
While there are many important issues dividing Protestants and Roman Catholics, I’ll spend most of my time in this email focusing on the differences between the two gospels. I will also offer a Biblical defense of the Protestant view of the gospel from the Bible.
The great divide that exists between the Protestant and Roman Catholic gospel is centered around the doctrine of justification. So I ask the question: how is a sinner justified, or declared not guilty of his sins, before God?
The Catholic catechism defines justification this way: “The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1987). We see here a summarized statement that sinful man is justified through faith and through baptism. It is important to remember that justification and sanctification are considered one and the same by Rome, therefore it shouldn’t surprise us that justification is considered an ongoing process, completed only after death and Purgatory. Ludwig Ott has this to say on the subject: “Without a special revelation nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions that are necessary for achieving justification" (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma Rockford Ill.: TAN Books and Publishers, 1974, p.262). A sinner may never fulfill all the requirements to be justified; it may increase, decrease and even be lost. The Catholic Catechism also teaches that we may increase in our sanctification through our merits. The Holy Spirit gives prevenient grace that enables all of mankind to respond and cooperate with God’s grace. Justification is then a cooperative effort between God’s grace, which makes a way of salvation possible, but in the end it is up to man’s will and personal merits that earn salvation for him.
By contrast, the Protestant view of justification is solely a work of God’s grace and not a cooperative effort between God and man. Because of Adam all of mankind is spiritually dead to the things of God, unable even to respond to the gospel. Man is so affected by sin that he cannot repent or believe in the Savior. The Holy Spirit must give grace for believers to respond, though a key difference here with Rome is that when the Holy Spirit gives grace to a sinner it accomplishes the task to its fullness. I could say it another way: God never fails to save a sinner whom He has decided to save. Through the hearing of the gospel (the message of Christ) the Holy Spirit raises the dead sinner to spiritual life, who then believes in Jesus Christ and is justified of his sins. Because of our complete inability to save ourselves, or to do anything pleasing in God’s sight (even repentance and faith), Protestants emphasize that salvation is by grace alone. Justification is a legal declaration made by God in His law court at a point in time, and not a process. We are not justified by works of any kind, be that works of Law or personal merits, but solely by faith. Therefore, the basis for our right-standing before God is not because of our own merits but because of the merits of Jesus Christ, imputed to us (considered to be ours) through faith. Justification can not be increased or lost because one‘s right-standing before the Lord is not based on man‘s work. This is a completely different idea compared to Rome’s view of an infused righteousness within man as an ongoing process.
Where in the Bible do we see this view of justification by faith alone, and not by works at all? Firstly, I would strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with the epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians because they are on the subject of justification.
In Romans, Paul spends the first few chapters demonstrating that all men are deserving of the wrath of God because of sin. Both Jews and Gentiles are addressed in these chapters, and Paul makes sure to point out that both works of the Law and personal merits cannot make up for the consequences of sin. We are completely lost, unable to have a right position before our Creator. Then finally, in Romans 3:21-31 we have one of the most beautiful sections in all of Scripture explaining how God saves dead sinners through faith. In verse 28, Paul writes, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” (NASB). Or again, Romans 5:1, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (NASB).If Paul was going to add anything necessary to ensure our justification he would have mentioned in here.
Next, Paul continues on his argument in chapter 4:1-8: “What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. 8 "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.””
Abraham, the Father of our faith, was not justified by works but through faith. The righteousness of God was made known to Abraham through faith. Paul makes the contrast between the one who works and the one who does not work, and it is to the one who does not work that is justified of his sins. God justifies the ungodly, not the godly. He credits righteousness to those not working but having faith in Christ. The contrast between faith and works must be noted because they are given as though polar opposites.
To the Galatians, Paul wrote this: “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” (Galatians 2:16, NASB).
The distinction between the Protestant - and I believe, Biblical - gospel with the gospel taught by Roman Catholicism is immense. The Counter-Reformation led by the Roman Church completely reject this Biblical understanding of the gospel in their Council of Trent and gives us a good idea of how Rome views the Evangelical perspective; Canon IX: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”
In conclusion, Protestants agree with the Scriptures that say sinners are justified through faith alone, and not by works. Rome says that we are justified through faith and works.
Obviously, I’ve given you a lot to think about so I’ll leave it here and eagerly await your response.
Because of the finished work of Christ,
Casey (Rusty) Ryan
AOMin
---------------------------------------------------------------
I am not out to start a fight. I just want both sides to the story. I am not a fan of tit for tat ridicule I see on both Protestant and catholic blogs. I just want to make an informed decision based on fact and reason. I am a fallen away christian, but I have decided religion should be the most important thing in my life, so I am searching for answers. 1.)evn though the 7 books in the catholic bible(Judith, Tobit, etc. are not in prot. ones, are they the work of God? I must add I found comfort and felt closer after i read them. Is that wrong. I met a priest who was a nice guy, and he told me he didn't care what denomination I was, he just wanted me to be closer to God. He was not anti-prot. as I thought they all were, and he told me to keep going to my Baptist church. The guys I read on the cath. apoli. on the internet were down right mean, as were alot of the prot. Are we not all followers of Jesus? Very confused. Even alot of the prot. guys were ripping each other. Mt head is spinning. I don't know who to believe?
---------------------------------------------------------------
My response:
Paul,
First of all, let me just say that I am honored to be able to respond to your email because you touch on the most important issue in life: true religion.
I’ll respond to your email as best I can but the more I know about what specific questions you have and what issues you are struggling with the better I’ll be able to interact with you.
Contrary to liberals who are ever ready to share their opinions, conservatives on both sides of the Protestant and Catholic isles would argue that the differences between the two perspectives are of the utmost importance. We are not talking about peripheral issues that have no meaningful impact, but rather issues that focus on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Roman Catholics would say that the Protestant gospel is false, just as Protestants would say that the Roman Catholic gospel is false.
Now to the main thrust of your email: Which of these two religions is true, and which possesses the true gospel of God?
Paul the Apostle began his letter to the saints at Rome by describing the gospel as “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1:16, NASB). If we are to believe that Paul was here correct in his assertion that the gospel is the power of God for salvation to all who believe, then having a right view of the gospel must be our foremost concern. All other issues pale in comparison because it is only through the gospel that God has chosen to save sinners from a life and the consequences of our sins. Were it not for the Lord’s intervention, we would be hopelessly left to bear the guilt and punishment for our sins.
While there are many important issues dividing Protestants and Roman Catholics, I’ll spend most of my time in this email focusing on the differences between the two gospels. I will also offer a Biblical defense of the Protestant view of the gospel from the Bible.
The great divide that exists between the Protestant and Roman Catholic gospel is centered around the doctrine of justification. So I ask the question: how is a sinner justified, or declared not guilty of his sins, before God?
The Catholic catechism defines justification this way: “The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1987). We see here a summarized statement that sinful man is justified through faith and through baptism. It is important to remember that justification and sanctification are considered one and the same by Rome, therefore it shouldn’t surprise us that justification is considered an ongoing process, completed only after death and Purgatory. Ludwig Ott has this to say on the subject: “Without a special revelation nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions that are necessary for achieving justification" (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma Rockford Ill.: TAN Books and Publishers, 1974, p.262). A sinner may never fulfill all the requirements to be justified; it may increase, decrease and even be lost. The Catholic Catechism also teaches that we may increase in our sanctification through our merits. The Holy Spirit gives prevenient grace that enables all of mankind to respond and cooperate with God’s grace. Justification is then a cooperative effort between God’s grace, which makes a way of salvation possible, but in the end it is up to man’s will and personal merits that earn salvation for him.
By contrast, the Protestant view of justification is solely a work of God’s grace and not a cooperative effort between God and man. Because of Adam all of mankind is spiritually dead to the things of God, unable even to respond to the gospel. Man is so affected by sin that he cannot repent or believe in the Savior. The Holy Spirit must give grace for believers to respond, though a key difference here with Rome is that when the Holy Spirit gives grace to a sinner it accomplishes the task to its fullness. I could say it another way: God never fails to save a sinner whom He has decided to save. Through the hearing of the gospel (the message of Christ) the Holy Spirit raises the dead sinner to spiritual life, who then believes in Jesus Christ and is justified of his sins. Because of our complete inability to save ourselves, or to do anything pleasing in God’s sight (even repentance and faith), Protestants emphasize that salvation is by grace alone. Justification is a legal declaration made by God in His law court at a point in time, and not a process. We are not justified by works of any kind, be that works of Law or personal merits, but solely by faith. Therefore, the basis for our right-standing before God is not because of our own merits but because of the merits of Jesus Christ, imputed to us (considered to be ours) through faith. Justification can not be increased or lost because one‘s right-standing before the Lord is not based on man‘s work. This is a completely different idea compared to Rome’s view of an infused righteousness within man as an ongoing process.
Where in the Bible do we see this view of justification by faith alone, and not by works at all? Firstly, I would strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with the epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians because they are on the subject of justification.
In Romans, Paul spends the first few chapters demonstrating that all men are deserving of the wrath of God because of sin. Both Jews and Gentiles are addressed in these chapters, and Paul makes sure to point out that both works of the Law and personal merits cannot make up for the consequences of sin. We are completely lost, unable to have a right position before our Creator. Then finally, in Romans 3:21-31 we have one of the most beautiful sections in all of Scripture explaining how God saves dead sinners through faith. In verse 28, Paul writes, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” (NASB). Or again, Romans 5:1, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (NASB).If Paul was going to add anything necessary to ensure our justification he would have mentioned in here.
Next, Paul continues on his argument in chapter 4:1-8: “What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. 8 "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.””
Abraham, the Father of our faith, was not justified by works but through faith. The righteousness of God was made known to Abraham through faith. Paul makes the contrast between the one who works and the one who does not work, and it is to the one who does not work that is justified of his sins. God justifies the ungodly, not the godly. He credits righteousness to those not working but having faith in Christ. The contrast between faith and works must be noted because they are given as though polar opposites.
To the Galatians, Paul wrote this: “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” (Galatians 2:16, NASB).
The distinction between the Protestant - and I believe, Biblical - gospel with the gospel taught by Roman Catholicism is immense. The Counter-Reformation led by the Roman Church completely reject this Biblical understanding of the gospel in their Council of Trent and gives us a good idea of how Rome views the Evangelical perspective; Canon IX: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”
In conclusion, Protestants agree with the Scriptures that say sinners are justified through faith alone, and not by works. Rome says that we are justified through faith and works.
Obviously, I’ve given you a lot to think about so I’ll leave it here and eagerly await your response.
Because of the finished work of Christ,
Casey (Rusty) Ryan
AOMin
Monday, November 30, 2009
Free Will and 2 Peter 3:9
The following is my response to an AOMin email. Enjoy =)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason,
Thanks for your email and your interest in the subject of Calvinism. The single greatest point I would like to begin with is one that you stated in your email: "I've just always assumed we have free will." In other words, one of your presuppositions is that men have "free will." Two questions seem to logically follow this statement: (1) How do you define "free will;" (2) Upon what basis do you say that men have "free will?"
In my experience, most folks tend to define "free will" to mean the following: an inherent ability within sinful man to be able to spiritually accept or reject the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not only does the Bible not define the term "free will" in this way, but it simply does not define it at all. I would suggest that the Bible very clearly teaches the opposite of the definition I listed above. In fact, the Word of God emphatically teaches that because of our fallen state we are unable to repent and believe, or perform any spiritually-pleasing act before God's sight.
Because I want to zone in on your question relatively soon, I'll list a handful of passages on the subject with a book recommendation or two for further study. Ephesians 2:1-4, John 6:37-44, Romans 3:10-11, Romans 9:10-18. Two books that I would recommend to you are The Potter's Freedom and Drawn by the Father both authored by James White.
Now onto your question: "How does a Calvinist explain 2 Peter 3:9? It says God doesn't want "anyone to perish", "but everyone to come to repentance". How can that be if God has predetermined who will perish, and who will be saved? Unless he is drawing everyone to him, which can't be true." If you will allow me, note that this question is only indirectly related to man's ability, or lack thereof, to spiritually come to Christ in faith. However, I think it is a perfectly valid question regarding the Calvinist perspective on predestination: If God has foreordained those whom He would save, how can He also desire every person who has ever lived or ever will live to be saved?
I'll give you my conclusion first, then explain my reasoning in how I interpret this passage. My conclusion is simply that God does not desire to save every person who has ever lived or ever will live. How can I say this in light of 2 Peter 3:9? I think the answer is actually in the text ... but we must pay attention to the pronouns.
The Apostle Peter starts off this epistle addressing a particular audience when he writes: "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1, NASB). This same audience is being addressed in chapter 3, but a contrast between a second group is made throughout the chapter. After reminding this group of Saints that this is his second letter written for them (vs 1), he then introduces a distinct group of people he describes as "mockers," "scoffers," and "ungodly men." This second group, a group of unbelieving men, are referred to using pronouns such as "they" and "them."
After such a clear distinction can be seen between the Christians ("beloved," "you") and the non-Christians ("their," "they") we arrive at verse 9. If you follow the pronouns, and the distinction that Peter himself is making in the text, the questions can then be asked: Who is God patient towards? Who does God not desire to perish? The simple answer is that God is patient towards the "you," and He does not desire the "any" and "all" to perish. The question then becomes: Who is the "you," "any," and "all?" Without inserting a foreign meaning onto the text (commonly called "eisegesis") Peter is referring to Christians. God is patient in His coming for the sake of His elect people, and desires that all of His chosen ones will be saved. Other explanations of this text make the "you," "any," and "all" mean something that is foreign to the context.
I hope this was helpful for you. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further, or have any further questions.
Because of Christ,
Casey (Rusty) Ryan
AOMin
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason,
Thanks for your email and your interest in the subject of Calvinism. The single greatest point I would like to begin with is one that you stated in your email: "I've just always assumed we have free will." In other words, one of your presuppositions is that men have "free will." Two questions seem to logically follow this statement: (1) How do you define "free will;" (2) Upon what basis do you say that men have "free will?"
In my experience, most folks tend to define "free will" to mean the following: an inherent ability within sinful man to be able to spiritually accept or reject the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not only does the Bible not define the term "free will" in this way, but it simply does not define it at all. I would suggest that the Bible very clearly teaches the opposite of the definition I listed above. In fact, the Word of God emphatically teaches that because of our fallen state we are unable to repent and believe, or perform any spiritually-pleasing act before God's sight.
Because I want to zone in on your question relatively soon, I'll list a handful of passages on the subject with a book recommendation or two for further study. Ephesians 2:1-4, John 6:37-44, Romans 3:10-11, Romans 9:10-18. Two books that I would recommend to you are The Potter's Freedom and Drawn by the Father both authored by James White.
Now onto your question: "How does a Calvinist explain 2 Peter 3:9? It says God doesn't want "anyone to perish", "but everyone to come to repentance". How can that be if God has predetermined who will perish, and who will be saved? Unless he is drawing everyone to him, which can't be true." If you will allow me, note that this question is only indirectly related to man's ability, or lack thereof, to spiritually come to Christ in faith. However, I think it is a perfectly valid question regarding the Calvinist perspective on predestination: If God has foreordained those whom He would save, how can He also desire every person who has ever lived or ever will live to be saved?
I'll give you my conclusion first, then explain my reasoning in how I interpret this passage. My conclusion is simply that God does not desire to save every person who has ever lived or ever will live. How can I say this in light of 2 Peter 3:9? I think the answer is actually in the text ... but we must pay attention to the pronouns.
The Apostle Peter starts off this epistle addressing a particular audience when he writes: "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1, NASB). This same audience is being addressed in chapter 3, but a contrast between a second group is made throughout the chapter. After reminding this group of Saints that this is his second letter written for them (vs 1), he then introduces a distinct group of people he describes as "mockers," "scoffers," and "ungodly men." This second group, a group of unbelieving men, are referred to using pronouns such as "they" and "them."
After such a clear distinction can be seen between the Christians ("beloved," "you") and the non-Christians ("their," "they") we arrive at verse 9. If you follow the pronouns, and the distinction that Peter himself is making in the text, the questions can then be asked: Who is God patient towards? Who does God not desire to perish? The simple answer is that God is patient towards the "you," and He does not desire the "any" and "all" to perish. The question then becomes: Who is the "you," "any," and "all?" Without inserting a foreign meaning onto the text (commonly called "eisegesis") Peter is referring to Christians. God is patient in His coming for the sake of His elect people, and desires that all of His chosen ones will be saved. Other explanations of this text make the "you," "any," and "all" mean something that is foreign to the context.
I hope this was helpful for you. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further, or have any further questions.
Because of Christ,
Casey (Rusty) Ryan
AOMin
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Trouble Loving My Enemies
Do you have someone in your life that is difficult to be around because of some negative aspects to their personality? For you, this might be an acquaintance you’re forced to bump into every so often, a coworker, a friend’s girlfriend (or boyfriend), or even someone who frequents the same Starbucks as you at the same times. That one person could be described as rude, overbearing, mean and nasty, or may even touch on the verge of hateful. I have such a person in my life; a person who easily fits into the descriptions listed above.
I say all of this, and it really does sadden me that I have this kind of relationship with this person. Someone who acts this way cannot be called my friend, and I don’t think it a stretch to recognize that this person is my enemy. Not by choice – I don’t think I would choose to ever have an enemy with a fellow human being. Yet I find myself at odds with this person on a regular basis and for no good reason. The amount of thought and energy I have spent to try and understand why this individual treats me so is beyond me, and I am at my wits end.
Today I found myself praying to God: “God, why does so-and-so hate me without cause?” Then again: “God, I need Your help if I am to truly love my enemy.”
That is my goal today. To focus on what it means to love an enemy and how this can be done.
During my internal battle (and it is a terrible onslaught of a war) the Holy Spirit brought to mind our Lord’s statement from the Sermon on the Mount:
Beyond doubt, you can rest assured that I am to not be taken advantage of. Any amount of kindness or compromising should not include being walked all over, or slapped around. Rather, as Jesus provides a handful of unique examples, we may use creative means to bring out the shame in what they are trying to do to us without crossing a line, thus behaving sinfully like our enemies. My remaining sin would love it if our responsibilities ended there, because I could then rejoice at justice being done, without sinning, but not … “going the extra mile” … as it were =).
We are not only to avoid abuse or creatively point out sinfulness, I believe we are to love those trying to do these things to us. This does not simply mean an emotion – although an element of understanding and compassion should be at play here. After all, we would act no differently apart from God’s free grace! We are to truly love our enemies. This is what I find a difficult task: I must not become like my enemy. I am not permitted at any point to hate this person in my heart, thus becoming a murderer in God’s eyes. I cannot attempt to harm this person’s reputation, though this has been attempted by this person. I certainly cannot treat my enemy poorly.
Above all this, I am to do good to my enemy! Even when I know it might be shoved back in my face, I am to do good to this person. The thought of doing this does not please me in the slightest. Why do you think that is? Iiii think it’s because deep down in my innermost being I don’t believe my enemy deserves to be treated well by me. There it is. There it is. My true thoughts and intents are revealed there, and this is one reason why I struggle in loving this enemy. Isn’t it the point that none of us deserve grace – that is what makes grace … grace. It’s free. It can’t be earned. Grace is undeserved.
Since I received free grace from the Lord God, not because of anything in me, then shouldn’t I do likewise for others?
God’s Holy Spirit brought one other verse to mind:
Thanks for reading ya'll,
Rusty
I say all of this, and it really does sadden me that I have this kind of relationship with this person. Someone who acts this way cannot be called my friend, and I don’t think it a stretch to recognize that this person is my enemy. Not by choice – I don’t think I would choose to ever have an enemy with a fellow human being. Yet I find myself at odds with this person on a regular basis and for no good reason. The amount of thought and energy I have spent to try and understand why this individual treats me so is beyond me, and I am at my wits end.
Today I found myself praying to God: “God, why does so-and-so hate me without cause?” Then again: “God, I need Your help if I am to truly love my enemy.”
That is my goal today. To focus on what it means to love an enemy and how this can be done.
During my internal battle (and it is a terrible onslaught of a war) the Holy Spirit brought to mind our Lord’s statement from the Sermon on the Mount:
“43You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' 44But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:43-48, NASB).Once having read this passage the Holy Spirit would never again let me off the hook with my enemies =). It seems clear to me from the earlier context of this chapter that we are not to let folks take advantage of us simply because we are Christians, and yet from these verses we are required to love those who would try to. This is very much the circumstance that I find myself in. A person I am forced to interact with on a consistent basis who treats me poorly, though unprovoked. How am I to respond to such treatment, and what is my responsibility as a Christian?
Beyond doubt, you can rest assured that I am to not be taken advantage of. Any amount of kindness or compromising should not include being walked all over, or slapped around. Rather, as Jesus provides a handful of unique examples, we may use creative means to bring out the shame in what they are trying to do to us without crossing a line, thus behaving sinfully like our enemies. My remaining sin would love it if our responsibilities ended there, because I could then rejoice at justice being done, without sinning, but not … “going the extra mile” … as it were =).
We are not only to avoid abuse or creatively point out sinfulness, I believe we are to love those trying to do these things to us. This does not simply mean an emotion – although an element of understanding and compassion should be at play here. After all, we would act no differently apart from God’s free grace! We are to truly love our enemies. This is what I find a difficult task: I must not become like my enemy. I am not permitted at any point to hate this person in my heart, thus becoming a murderer in God’s eyes. I cannot attempt to harm this person’s reputation, though this has been attempted by this person. I certainly cannot treat my enemy poorly.
Above all this, I am to do good to my enemy! Even when I know it might be shoved back in my face, I am to do good to this person. The thought of doing this does not please me in the slightest. Why do you think that is? Iiii think it’s because deep down in my innermost being I don’t believe my enemy deserves to be treated well by me. There it is. There it is. My true thoughts and intents are revealed there, and this is one reason why I struggle in loving this enemy. Isn’t it the point that none of us deserve grace – that is what makes grace … grace. It’s free. It can’t be earned. Grace is undeserved.
Since I received free grace from the Lord God, not because of anything in me, then shouldn’t I do likewise for others?
God’s Holy Spirit brought one other verse to mind:
“If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” (Romans 12:18, NASB).The scenario that the Apostle Paul describes here is a possible scenario (“if”), but is a noble goal, nonetheless. “So far as it depends on me” Christians are to be at peace with everyone. The question then is: Have I done everything I can to make peace with my enemy? Up to this point, God has not ordained that I get along with this person, which may mean there isn’t anything I can do to gain my enemy’s favor. However, this does not mean that I should not try everything to make peace. Blessed are the peacemakers.
Thanks for reading ya'll,
Rusty
Monday, August 17, 2009
A Government Option Becomes the Only Option
President Obama is out and about, traveling through the Southwestern states, attempting to convince Americans of the validity of his health care reform ideas. If you’ve been following the news at all you know that many of these town-hall meetings with the President and state senators aren’t going overly well. People are getting angry, so much so that these events have turned into shouting matches. While I am all for disagreements being handled in a civil manner, I can’t entirely blame people for being angry.
Health insurance is already too expensive and is expected to become even more expensive! Anyone who thinks through the consequences of instituting a national health insurance company for 47 million people knows that no private insurance company can hope to compete with the government! Why is this so? Because no insurance company in the United States insures 47 million people! The government will literally put private insurance companies out of business. I’ve wondered what the insurance company I work for will do if and when a national insurance company comes about – I can’t speak dogmatically at this point, but I am willing to bet that we’ll pull out of dealing with health insurance altogether.
Obama claims that he can provide health insurance for 47 million uninsured Americans – and all who desire to switch to the government option – while only taxing the “wealthiest Americans,” and on top of all this the costs of health care will be reduced. How in the world is he going to accomplish all this? Does anyone seriously believe that by taxing the super rich we can cover the enormous costs of health care for 47 million people? Doesn’t it seem logical that health care costs will increase because the bill will no longer be through private companies but now the bill would be sent to the government with a seemingly endless supply of money?
Do you know the worst part about this plan? 47 million people would just be the beginning of who utilizes this government insurance. Large corporations would stop providing private insurance deals because “well, we’re already being taxed by the government for insurance … why not use that instead?” I cannot even begin to imagine the domino effect this would have on the insurance and health care industry. Eventually, the government would end up as the majority insurance provider to which most Americans would become dependent on. Taxes would increase if the government insures 47 million people; I don’t think we are ready to consider how much taxes would increase to pay for 300+ million people. The potential costs are staggering.
Sunday afternoon I read an article in The New York Times that explained the story of an English gentleman who needed to make an appointment with a doctor. He called his government approved doctor’s office to make an appointment, and they estimated they could see him in 4 months. FOUR MONTHS! But then he informed them, “Oh, I’m a private, not a public, patient.” The receptionist responded, “Terrific! We can fit you in tomorrow.” England’s national health insurance has been the most important cause to decrease the quality of their health care. The English government has limited funds and therefore must ration health care to the extent that wait times are outrageously long. But as we see in this instance, those who choose to use private insurance are able to achieve quality care in a timely manner.
It is one thing to want every citizen to have health insurance. But using the government is not the answer. What we really need is meaningful health care and health insurance reform that will allow transitions for policies between jobs and/or insurance companies. I think it’s time for our President to consider reforming the private sector rather than increasing nationwide government dependence. I think the President is beginning to see how unpopular his plan is amongst the average citizen. One can only hope.
Rusty
Health insurance is already too expensive and is expected to become even more expensive! Anyone who thinks through the consequences of instituting a national health insurance company for 47 million people knows that no private insurance company can hope to compete with the government! Why is this so? Because no insurance company in the United States insures 47 million people! The government will literally put private insurance companies out of business. I’ve wondered what the insurance company I work for will do if and when a national insurance company comes about – I can’t speak dogmatically at this point, but I am willing to bet that we’ll pull out of dealing with health insurance altogether.
Obama claims that he can provide health insurance for 47 million uninsured Americans – and all who desire to switch to the government option – while only taxing the “wealthiest Americans,” and on top of all this the costs of health care will be reduced. How in the world is he going to accomplish all this? Does anyone seriously believe that by taxing the super rich we can cover the enormous costs of health care for 47 million people? Doesn’t it seem logical that health care costs will increase because the bill will no longer be through private companies but now the bill would be sent to the government with a seemingly endless supply of money?
Do you know the worst part about this plan? 47 million people would just be the beginning of who utilizes this government insurance. Large corporations would stop providing private insurance deals because “well, we’re already being taxed by the government for insurance … why not use that instead?” I cannot even begin to imagine the domino effect this would have on the insurance and health care industry. Eventually, the government would end up as the majority insurance provider to which most Americans would become dependent on. Taxes would increase if the government insures 47 million people; I don’t think we are ready to consider how much taxes would increase to pay for 300+ million people. The potential costs are staggering.
Sunday afternoon I read an article in The New York Times that explained the story of an English gentleman who needed to make an appointment with a doctor. He called his government approved doctor’s office to make an appointment, and they estimated they could see him in 4 months. FOUR MONTHS! But then he informed them, “Oh, I’m a private, not a public, patient.” The receptionist responded, “Terrific! We can fit you in tomorrow.” England’s national health insurance has been the most important cause to decrease the quality of their health care. The English government has limited funds and therefore must ration health care to the extent that wait times are outrageously long. But as we see in this instance, those who choose to use private insurance are able to achieve quality care in a timely manner.
It is one thing to want every citizen to have health insurance. But using the government is not the answer. What we really need is meaningful health care and health insurance reform that will allow transitions for policies between jobs and/or insurance companies. I think it’s time for our President to consider reforming the private sector rather than increasing nationwide government dependence. I think the President is beginning to see how unpopular his plan is amongst the average citizen. One can only hope.
Rusty
Monday, August 10, 2009
Conversation with a Latter-day Saint
[The following is part of a continuing conversation between a Latter-day Saint (David) and myself about the Trinity and absolute monotheism. David's portion appears first then followed by my response.]
Rusty:
I did a little research regarding those passages in Isaiah … Here Jehovah (Jesus Christ), is declaring that he is the God of Israel. He always has been the God of Israel and always will be their God … The only God they will ever have anything to do with … After reading Isaiah 43:10 are you concluding that the Father and the Son are one personage?
They are one in purpose, perfectly united ... If you're not one, then you're not mine ...
I hope we don't wind up citing the passage ... "God is a spirit... " Some like to cite that verse and put a big period at the end of it. However, there is no period at the end; the verse goes on to say … "and those that worship me, must worship me in spirit and in truth."
In other words, in these verses, the meaning of the word "spirit" refers to truth and righteousness. The old explanation goes like this: If the word "spirit" in these verses meant "no body; no parts" in essence a mist or a cloud, then the second verse "worshiping in spirit", would mean that we would have to leave our bodies at home to worship him! Yikes!
Here are some thoughts about the passages from Isaiah: Persons who object to the Church say, "What about Isaiah 43:10 where it says there were no Gods before Jehovah and will be none after him? Jesus and his Father have to be the same, and there is only one God." Let us look at that verse.
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” (Isaiah 43:10)
In chapter 43, God is talking about the relationship between him and the Israelites. He uses the analogy of a trial in which he calls witnesses. In verse 3, he declares he is the God of Israel, and in subsequent verses he reassures the Israelites of this relationship. In verse 9 he challenges the nations of the earth to bring forth their witnesses of their gods, and in verse 10 he declares that the Israelites are his witnesses of his work and of the salvation which he is providing. Not only are they his witnesses but his servants because they do his work among the children of the earth. As his servants, he wants the Israelites to understand he is their God. In verse 10 when he said, "before me there was no God formed" he is saying he has always been the God of Israel. When he said, "neither shall their be [any] after me" he is saying he will always be the God of Israel. Thus, we see the context of that verse is that Jehovah always has been and always will be the God of Israel. That verse does not address the question whether Jesus and the Father are the same or are separate. As mentioned above, since Jesus and the Father are perfectly united, it is appropriate to refer to them as "one God".
Those who object also ask, "How about Isaiah 44:8?" Let us look at that verse. “Hear ye not, neither be afraid; have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” (Isaiah 44:8)
This verse is a continuation of the "trial" dialogue we just discussed. Jehovah is the God of Israel, and "there is no God" besides Him. As with the other verse, this passage concerns the relationship between God and Israel and does not address the nature of the Godhead.
By the way, back to the mission field in South America. You would not believe how many people gave me that "deer in the headlights look", when my companion and I asked them who the Savior was praying to in the Garden of Gethsemane! If the Father and the Son were one personage!?
Take care,
David
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David,
Thanks again for the reply. I apologize for the length of this email, but found that I couldn't do justice by subtracting from its current length. Please read this over carefully as each point will be important to our discussion.
I think it might be helpful for both of us to make sure we are on the same page in our understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Briefly, I would summarize this doctrine as follows: Within the one Being that is God, there eternally exists three coequal and coeternal Persons; namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
There are 3 essential foundations to the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Bible supports each of these foundations. First, absolute monotheism - there is only one true God in existence. Second, there are three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Third, the three divine Persons are coequal and coeternal. This means that the three Persons have existed from eternity as divine Persons (not simply their matter having eternally existed). This also means that the three Persons are coequal in nature; they all share the One Being of God. Each of the three Persons are equally God. It would be inappropriate to try to divide God's Being up into thirds, like a pie chart. No, rather, each divine Person is fully God and shares the one Being of God.
A helpful analogy of understanding what is meant by "Being" and "Person" is crucial when discussing this definition. Let me begin by using my cell phone as an example. My cell phone has being. It exists. But it has no personality. There is no person sharing its being. Now, I can ask my cell phone how it is doing, but no matter how much I talk to the phone it will never once respond to me. Why? Because it can't reason. The cell phone has no person within its being to recognize itself, or communicate. Now, if you will allow me, I'll use you, David, as an example. You are one being, and within your being there is only one personality sharing your being: the person of David. God also has one being. However, rather than one person sharing His being, He has 3 persons within His one Being.
What the doctrine of the Trinity does not mean is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same Person. The Father is the not the Son; the Son is not the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Father – or any which way you want to put it. The Bible teaches the three persons are distinct. Each of these Persons can say “I” of Himself, and can address the other Persons. So when you mention that on your mission you encountered folks who were befuddled by Christ praying to the Father, the answer is simple: Christ was praying to the Father. Christ was not praying to Himself. Yes, that means that the three distinct Persons, sharing the one Being of God, communicate with one another.
One final note, and then I will be done with definitions =). I agree with you that the three distinct Persons are one in purpose, but this is not what I mean when I say that there is only one true God. I mean that there is only one true God in existence, and not three gods or three beings (or more).
You seem to hint in your preemptive strike against John 4:24 ... =) ... that the Father and the Son are separate beings, separate persons, each with their own respective bodies, and therefore “God is spirit” cannot mean that God is spirit, but rather that God has a physical body. This is an important point of disagreement between us. However, I would point to John 4:24, because Christ is talking with the Samaritan woman (which was not a reputable practice for the Jews) about the fact that since God is spirit the worship of Him is not dependent on the location ... as would soon be revealed with the coming of the Holy Spirit. "Spirit" does not mean "truth and righteousness." Spirit means spirit, and in fact "God is spirit" is literally what the Greek says here and is a qualitative description of God's very nature. Well, what is a spirit then? Jesus, when he rose from the grave, spoke to his alarmed disciples by reminding them that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones," and was painstakingly clear that He was physically raised from the dead and not a spirit.
The trouble I think Latter-day Saints sometimes have with understanding the doctrine of the Trinity is that you think of God as an exalted man, with a body as tangible as man's (LDS teachings). The Bible clearly says that God is not a man, but rather His very essence is spiritual, and therefore is not a human being.
You might ask, "Well how can God manage to exist like that? I don't understand..." I don't believe the finite can fully understand the infinite. In other words, we are limited by time and space, but God is not. You and I are limited in our power and our abilities, but God is not. So just because we don't fully grasp something about God does not mean it is not true. The question you need to ask yourself is: does the Bible teach the doctrine of the Trinity? Each of the three foundations I listed above are crucial, and I believe it is on these that we must focus our conversation.
Isaiah 43:10 is one text that supports the Biblical teaching of absolute monotheism. I do not believe that this passage, or the section in Isaiah 40-50, is simply teaching that God is the only God for the Israelites to worship. No, the reason the Israelites were to limit their worship to God is because He is the only true God in existence. This section of Isaiah is, as you rightly describe it, the trial of the false gods. God says in so many ways that He is the only true God in existence. When we consider Isaiah 43:10, He says of Himself, “Before me there was no God formed.” The word “formed” means “to create.” But as the passage continues we discover that there will be no Gods after God either.
The LDS faith teaches contrary to this very text: there were gods formed before God, and there will be gods formed after God.
In closing, I have 2 questions for you:
(1) In light of the fact that God says that there were no gods created before Him, and there will be no gods created after Him, how can you believe that there were, and there will be?
(2) How can this passage make sense from an LDS perspective, considering that “LORD” refers to Jehovah (Jesus) and “God” refers to Elohim (Father)? In other words, if we were to interpret this passage in light of LDS thinking it would read as follows: “Before Me [Jesus] there was no [Father] formed, And there will be none after Me.” (Brackets MINE).
I look forward to your response.
Casey (Rusty) Ryan
AOMin
Rusty:
I did a little research regarding those passages in Isaiah … Here Jehovah (Jesus Christ), is declaring that he is the God of Israel. He always has been the God of Israel and always will be their God … The only God they will ever have anything to do with … After reading Isaiah 43:10 are you concluding that the Father and the Son are one personage?
They are one in purpose, perfectly united ... If you're not one, then you're not mine ...
I hope we don't wind up citing the passage ... "God is a spirit... " Some like to cite that verse and put a big period at the end of it. However, there is no period at the end; the verse goes on to say … "and those that worship me, must worship me in spirit and in truth."
In other words, in these verses, the meaning of the word "spirit" refers to truth and righteousness. The old explanation goes like this: If the word "spirit" in these verses meant "no body; no parts" in essence a mist or a cloud, then the second verse "worshiping in spirit", would mean that we would have to leave our bodies at home to worship him! Yikes!
Here are some thoughts about the passages from Isaiah: Persons who object to the Church say, "What about Isaiah 43:10 where it says there were no Gods before Jehovah and will be none after him? Jesus and his Father have to be the same, and there is only one God." Let us look at that verse.
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” (Isaiah 43:10)
In chapter 43, God is talking about the relationship between him and the Israelites. He uses the analogy of a trial in which he calls witnesses. In verse 3, he declares he is the God of Israel, and in subsequent verses he reassures the Israelites of this relationship. In verse 9 he challenges the nations of the earth to bring forth their witnesses of their gods, and in verse 10 he declares that the Israelites are his witnesses of his work and of the salvation which he is providing. Not only are they his witnesses but his servants because they do his work among the children of the earth. As his servants, he wants the Israelites to understand he is their God. In verse 10 when he said, "before me there was no God formed" he is saying he has always been the God of Israel. When he said, "neither shall their be [any] after me" he is saying he will always be the God of Israel. Thus, we see the context of that verse is that Jehovah always has been and always will be the God of Israel. That verse does not address the question whether Jesus and the Father are the same or are separate. As mentioned above, since Jesus and the Father are perfectly united, it is appropriate to refer to them as "one God".
Those who object also ask, "How about Isaiah 44:8?" Let us look at that verse. “Hear ye not, neither be afraid; have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” (Isaiah 44:8)
This verse is a continuation of the "trial" dialogue we just discussed. Jehovah is the God of Israel, and "there is no God" besides Him. As with the other verse, this passage concerns the relationship between God and Israel and does not address the nature of the Godhead.
By the way, back to the mission field in South America. You would not believe how many people gave me that "deer in the headlights look", when my companion and I asked them who the Savior was praying to in the Garden of Gethsemane! If the Father and the Son were one personage!?
Take care,
David
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David,
Thanks again for the reply. I apologize for the length of this email, but found that I couldn't do justice by subtracting from its current length. Please read this over carefully as each point will be important to our discussion.
I think it might be helpful for both of us to make sure we are on the same page in our understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Briefly, I would summarize this doctrine as follows: Within the one Being that is God, there eternally exists three coequal and coeternal Persons; namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
There are 3 essential foundations to the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Bible supports each of these foundations. First, absolute monotheism - there is only one true God in existence. Second, there are three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Third, the three divine Persons are coequal and coeternal. This means that the three Persons have existed from eternity as divine Persons (not simply their matter having eternally existed). This also means that the three Persons are coequal in nature; they all share the One Being of God. Each of the three Persons are equally God. It would be inappropriate to try to divide God's Being up into thirds, like a pie chart. No, rather, each divine Person is fully God and shares the one Being of God.
A helpful analogy of understanding what is meant by "Being" and "Person" is crucial when discussing this definition. Let me begin by using my cell phone as an example. My cell phone has being. It exists. But it has no personality. There is no person sharing its being. Now, I can ask my cell phone how it is doing, but no matter how much I talk to the phone it will never once respond to me. Why? Because it can't reason. The cell phone has no person within its being to recognize itself, or communicate. Now, if you will allow me, I'll use you, David, as an example. You are one being, and within your being there is only one personality sharing your being: the person of David. God also has one being. However, rather than one person sharing His being, He has 3 persons within His one Being.
What the doctrine of the Trinity does not mean is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same Person. The Father is the not the Son; the Son is not the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Father – or any which way you want to put it. The Bible teaches the three persons are distinct. Each of these Persons can say “I” of Himself, and can address the other Persons. So when you mention that on your mission you encountered folks who were befuddled by Christ praying to the Father, the answer is simple: Christ was praying to the Father. Christ was not praying to Himself. Yes, that means that the three distinct Persons, sharing the one Being of God, communicate with one another.
One final note, and then I will be done with definitions =). I agree with you that the three distinct Persons are one in purpose, but this is not what I mean when I say that there is only one true God. I mean that there is only one true God in existence, and not three gods or three beings (or more).
You seem to hint in your preemptive strike against John 4:24 ... =) ... that the Father and the Son are separate beings, separate persons, each with their own respective bodies, and therefore “God is spirit” cannot mean that God is spirit, but rather that God has a physical body. This is an important point of disagreement between us. However, I would point to John 4:24, because Christ is talking with the Samaritan woman (which was not a reputable practice for the Jews) about the fact that since God is spirit the worship of Him is not dependent on the location ... as would soon be revealed with the coming of the Holy Spirit. "Spirit" does not mean "truth and righteousness." Spirit means spirit, and in fact "God is spirit" is literally what the Greek says here and is a qualitative description of God's very nature. Well, what is a spirit then? Jesus, when he rose from the grave, spoke to his alarmed disciples by reminding them that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones," and was painstakingly clear that He was physically raised from the dead and not a spirit.
The trouble I think Latter-day Saints sometimes have with understanding the doctrine of the Trinity is that you think of God as an exalted man, with a body as tangible as man's (LDS teachings). The Bible clearly says that God is not a man, but rather His very essence is spiritual, and therefore is not a human being.
You might ask, "Well how can God manage to exist like that? I don't understand..." I don't believe the finite can fully understand the infinite. In other words, we are limited by time and space, but God is not. You and I are limited in our power and our abilities, but God is not. So just because we don't fully grasp something about God does not mean it is not true. The question you need to ask yourself is: does the Bible teach the doctrine of the Trinity? Each of the three foundations I listed above are crucial, and I believe it is on these that we must focus our conversation.
Isaiah 43:10 is one text that supports the Biblical teaching of absolute monotheism. I do not believe that this passage, or the section in Isaiah 40-50, is simply teaching that God is the only God for the Israelites to worship. No, the reason the Israelites were to limit their worship to God is because He is the only true God in existence. This section of Isaiah is, as you rightly describe it, the trial of the false gods. God says in so many ways that He is the only true God in existence. When we consider Isaiah 43:10, He says of Himself, “Before me there was no God formed.” The word “formed” means “to create.” But as the passage continues we discover that there will be no Gods after God either.
The LDS faith teaches contrary to this very text: there were gods formed before God, and there will be gods formed after God.
In closing, I have 2 questions for you:
(1) In light of the fact that God says that there were no gods created before Him, and there will be no gods created after Him, how can you believe that there were, and there will be?
(2) How can this passage make sense from an LDS perspective, considering that “LORD” refers to Jehovah (Jesus) and “God” refers to Elohim (Father)? In other words, if we were to interpret this passage in light of LDS thinking it would read as follows: “Before Me [Jesus] there was no [Father] formed, And there will be none after Me.” (Brackets MINE).
I look forward to your response.
Casey (Rusty) Ryan
AOMin
Friday, August 7, 2009
Lunch-Time Conversations
There are some occasions that seem to be random but really aren’t. They may start off by recurring intermittently but given enough time become daily activities. One such occasion is something I eagerly await every day, and it happens around noontime. Oftentimes I will get off work and have approximately half an hour to kill before I make the trek to my next job. During this timeframe there are 2 customers who visit us on their lunch breaks to sip on coffee or tea.
My interactions with these 2 middle-aged gentlemen began by sitting down on one of the comfy chairs adjacent the three other comfy chairs. It seems to be their custom to invite those rambunctious enough to participate in with their conversations. I was invited to one of their conversations and the tradition has continued for a month now. Each of us brings a book that we are presently reading – which is a commonality that cannot be overlooked. In fact, the desire for learning, reasoning with one another, even debate is something we all share. Most of all, we each have a strong desire for good conversation.
Earlier in the week I was able to briefly share some thoughts from the biography about Jimmy Carter, but ended up learning a great deal from these men who lived through the 70’s.
Movie recommendations are also an integral part of our dialogue each day. On Monday they mentioned two films that are, according to them, classics and a “must see.” The first is “The Avengers,” followed by “Glenn Gary, Glenn Ross.” Yesterday they were anxious to see if I had made time to watch both the films. I chuckled and told them that I’d order them this weekend.
Customers like these make my time at Starbucks completely worthwhile, and this is precisely the kind of “third place” environment we are famous for providing as a company. This is why we have succeeded as a coffee and tea shop while others have failed. There is something about meeting friends, family or even strangers to talk about what is most important to you. The closest resemblance in history seems to be the Salons (not for hair) in France leading up to the French Revolution. People would gather to discuss and debate social, political and religious ideas.
I hope that I might act as salt and light to these men, choosing my words carefully because I represent the God of the universe.
Rusty
My interactions with these 2 middle-aged gentlemen began by sitting down on one of the comfy chairs adjacent the three other comfy chairs. It seems to be their custom to invite those rambunctious enough to participate in with their conversations. I was invited to one of their conversations and the tradition has continued for a month now. Each of us brings a book that we are presently reading – which is a commonality that cannot be overlooked. In fact, the desire for learning, reasoning with one another, even debate is something we all share. Most of all, we each have a strong desire for good conversation.
Earlier in the week I was able to briefly share some thoughts from the biography about Jimmy Carter, but ended up learning a great deal from these men who lived through the 70’s.
Movie recommendations are also an integral part of our dialogue each day. On Monday they mentioned two films that are, according to them, classics and a “must see.” The first is “The Avengers,” followed by “Glenn Gary, Glenn Ross.” Yesterday they were anxious to see if I had made time to watch both the films. I chuckled and told them that I’d order them this weekend.
Customers like these make my time at Starbucks completely worthwhile, and this is precisely the kind of “third place” environment we are famous for providing as a company. This is why we have succeeded as a coffee and tea shop while others have failed. There is something about meeting friends, family or even strangers to talk about what is most important to you. The closest resemblance in history seems to be the Salons (not for hair) in France leading up to the French Revolution. People would gather to discuss and debate social, political and religious ideas.
I hope that I might act as salt and light to these men, choosing my words carefully because I represent the God of the universe.
Rusty
Monday, August 3, 2009
The beauty of the Ant
The other day walked by an ant hill and my first response was to cover the hill with my feet. For some reason I decided to take a closer look and I discovered one single ant left outside the now-closed hill. This ant began to take a single grain of sand at a time away from the covered hill in order to reopen the passage way. It was an instant epiphany! This ant was not taking any orders. It was not taking time to decide if it wanted to do the job that I gave it. It was not working for any perceived future reward. It was doing what it was wired to do with all diligence.
"Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise..." (Proverbs 6:6)
"Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise..." (Proverbs 6:6)
Friday, July 31, 2009
No Such Thing as a Hyphenated American
This might come as a shock to some of you, but I am politically conservative. *gasp* !!!!!!! Like a good conservative Republican I try to be aware of current events, and even go so far as to listen to political talk-radio while driving. My two favorite shows happen to be at the same time on different stations: Rush Limbaugh and Michael Medved. El Rushbo is pretty arrogant and a bit obnoxious, but ya know what? More often than not he is extremely right, and he falls on the conservative side of things far more often than his colleagues. Medved provides more thought-provoking topics of conversation, at least I think so =). In fact, there are three books I’ve read because of his recommendation: a book on the Crusades, his own The 10 Big Lies About America (which I just finished), and a book about Jimmy Carter and the 1970’s.
There are literally dozens of topics that I may end up blogging about over the next few weeks from “The 10 Big Lies About America,” but I wanted to focus on just one of them today. Michael Medved has a chapter responding to the myth that “America Has Always Been a Multicultural Society.” In this chapter he quotes part of a speech made by the beloved Theodore Roosevelt in 1915:
Now don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with “celebrating” one’s heritage, or identifying and appreciating one’s familial background. But when I think about my friends, classmates and coworkers, and how they choose to identify themselves, it isn’t primarily as an American. Many blacks overemphasize their African-ness. Many whites overemphasize their European-ness. The problem arises when one is more proud of where they’ve come from rather than where they are.
“Cultural Diversity in Education” was one perhaps the single greatest waste of time in my entire life. I remember the professor asking the class one day: “How many of you think racism is a major problem in America today?” Everyone’s hand shot up, except mine. Immediately, I could feel the scornful looks from various individuals in the classroom, including the professor who couldn’t believe her eyes. Puzzled, she asked me why I didn’t think racism was not a major problem in America. I answered: “Because the vast majority of Americans are openly opposed to racism, the Federal and state governments are opposed to racism, and we now have laws protecting against racial discrimination. Sure, there are racists in America, but they are widely condemned throughout the land.” My professor happened to be black, and tried to hide just how offended she was, but continue on with our conversation. “Well, I have been mistreated by many people because of my black-ness,” she said. I expressed my sympathies, but reiterated that the greater majority are opposed to people thinking less of someone simply because of the color of their skin.
That group of students was essential in pointing out to me just how much racism is not a problem. Americans are so opposed to racism that all education majors are required to take courses like “Cultural Diversity in Education.” If we would simply recognize that racism was a huge problem in America, and at the same time admit that we have – for the most part – overcome racism we would begin to stop thinking of people in terms of ethnicity at all. Shouldn’t our goal be to instill in our fellow citizens that we are all equal in value because of our shared humanity, rather than because of our different ethnic backgrounds? Why is it that blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians or any other ethnicity are all equal? Is it not because we are all human? If you’re like me, you’re thinking to yourself, “Yup. No duh, Case.” Haha. The problem is that many liberals do not think this way. It’s true that they believe all peoples are equal in value but they arrive at this conclusion by celebrating ethnicities, rather than recognizing ethnicities all share a common humanity.
Three of four years ago I began to take great interest in my own family history and ethnic heritage. Part of my heritage is Irish, and I am uber proud of my Irish-ness (just ask Scott, who was forced to listen to hours upon hours of Irish tunes on repeat). I have made the mistake of focusing too much on my ethnicity, rather than identifying myself primarily as an American. Never fear, I’m not about to stop enjoying my Irish-ness, but I do plan on clarifying that I am an American first, and Irish second. My loyalty is to this nation, which still represents the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Thanks for reading this American’s thoughts,
Rustyrust
There are literally dozens of topics that I may end up blogging about over the next few weeks from “The 10 Big Lies About America,” but I wanted to focus on just one of them today. Michael Medved has a chapter responding to the myth that “America Has Always Been a Multicultural Society.” In this chapter he quotes part of a speech made by the beloved Theodore Roosevelt in 1915:
“There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans. Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all…. The one absolutely certain way of brining this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.” (Pgs. 103-104).What cut me to the quick was when I learned that this speech was made to a group of Irish Catholics. The annotation I made in the margins of this page reads: “Never thought about it that way before.” Honestly, I hadn’t. Having been raised in the public school system, and taken an innumerable amount of college courses, I guess I’ve been more influenced to believe that one’s national identity is not first as an American citizen, but rather in one’s ethnic heritage.
Now don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with “celebrating” one’s heritage, or identifying and appreciating one’s familial background. But when I think about my friends, classmates and coworkers, and how they choose to identify themselves, it isn’t primarily as an American. Many blacks overemphasize their African-ness. Many whites overemphasize their European-ness. The problem arises when one is more proud of where they’ve come from rather than where they are.
“Cultural Diversity in Education” was one perhaps the single greatest waste of time in my entire life. I remember the professor asking the class one day: “How many of you think racism is a major problem in America today?” Everyone’s hand shot up, except mine. Immediately, I could feel the scornful looks from various individuals in the classroom, including the professor who couldn’t believe her eyes. Puzzled, she asked me why I didn’t think racism was not a major problem in America. I answered: “Because the vast majority of Americans are openly opposed to racism, the Federal and state governments are opposed to racism, and we now have laws protecting against racial discrimination. Sure, there are racists in America, but they are widely condemned throughout the land.” My professor happened to be black, and tried to hide just how offended she was, but continue on with our conversation. “Well, I have been mistreated by many people because of my black-ness,” she said. I expressed my sympathies, but reiterated that the greater majority are opposed to people thinking less of someone simply because of the color of their skin.
That group of students was essential in pointing out to me just how much racism is not a problem. Americans are so opposed to racism that all education majors are required to take courses like “Cultural Diversity in Education.” If we would simply recognize that racism was a huge problem in America, and at the same time admit that we have – for the most part – overcome racism we would begin to stop thinking of people in terms of ethnicity at all. Shouldn’t our goal be to instill in our fellow citizens that we are all equal in value because of our shared humanity, rather than because of our different ethnic backgrounds? Why is it that blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians or any other ethnicity are all equal? Is it not because we are all human? If you’re like me, you’re thinking to yourself, “Yup. No duh, Case.” Haha. The problem is that many liberals do not think this way. It’s true that they believe all peoples are equal in value but they arrive at this conclusion by celebrating ethnicities, rather than recognizing ethnicities all share a common humanity.
Three of four years ago I began to take great interest in my own family history and ethnic heritage. Part of my heritage is Irish, and I am uber proud of my Irish-ness (just ask Scott, who was forced to listen to hours upon hours of Irish tunes on repeat). I have made the mistake of focusing too much on my ethnicity, rather than identifying myself primarily as an American. Never fear, I’m not about to stop enjoying my Irish-ness, but I do plan on clarifying that I am an American first, and Irish second. My loyalty is to this nation, which still represents the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Thanks for reading this American’s thoughts,
Rustyrust
Friday, July 24, 2009
The Half-Blood Prince
The beginning portions of this post will not contain spoilers for HBP, and I’ll give a warning before the spoilers are let loose =)
July 14th was one of the most memorable movie-going experiences I’ve had. Myself and Emily, and Cory and Melissa waited in line for the showing all day. We arrived around 10am, chick-filet for breakfast, starbucks, and then joined the line outside. It was only a few moments when the manager came out to let everyone inside – boy oh boy were we thankful we could be inside since it was already beginning to boil.
Our group was 3rd in line and we had a bench; our day was off to a fantastic start! Within a few minutes Melissa and I decided to get into our costumes, me into my Quidditch costume, Melissa into a Hogwarts school uniform costume. Gotta say that they were the best costumes, by far =).
We brought a Harry Potter 20-Questions game, a simplified magic-like Harry Potter board/card game which we spent 40 minutes trying to figure out and was much too difficult to play, but a fun amount of time nonetheless. Of course we made friends with our fellow waiters-in-line and ended up playing a group game of Silent Football. It was hilarious, haha. I can tell you right now it musta been quite the sight seeing adults dressed in Harry Potter costumes spitting at each other or thrusting elbow’s in one another’s face, all the while remaining fairly silent =).
Our auditorium was allowed in to be seated at 6pm. Not only were we able to save enough seats for the rest of our party but we had a wonderful spot right in the middle.
12:01am grew ever closer and you could feel the electricity begin to build in the auditorium. People were excited, and with good reason! I think it was 2 years ago that OoTP came out?
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was overwhelmingly my favorite of the Potter films. Many non-die-hard fans, but who’ve followed the movies, have said that they wished there was more action. But die-hard fans, and those who’ve read the books, loved it.
What made the HBP so much better? The most noticeable improvement was the actors’ and actresses’ ability to perform. Their acting had improved with each new film, and was incredibly noticeable here. My brother, Dvorák, who is not Radcliffe’s biggest fan, said even he did a great job.
SPOILERS TO FOLLOW! THOSE WHO HAVEN’T SEEN THE MOVIES AND READ ALL SEVEN BOOKS SHOULD CONTINUE AT THE SPOILER BREAK – (Will appear in caps below)!!!!!!!
At this point I’ve seen the HBP twice, and my favorite part as of now is when Ron is overcome by Ramilda Vane’s (sp?) love potion. His stupefied expression and that stupid grin kept me laughing. Then there was Radcliffe who got me laughing once he took the “Liquid Luck” potion. Sitting on that over-sized stool in Hagrid’s hut, clapping and smiling was truly the equivalent of roflberry pwncakes!
Harry and Ginny’s romance has begun full swing, and I’m sure all the girls loved that =). Hey, I did too! She sure is aggressive, but I’m pretty sure Harry needed someone like her. Those of us who know the ending of book 7 are probably prone to agree with me?
What I felt was lacking most of all were key elements from the spectacular battle scene near the end. I’ll need to re-read the book, but the way I remember that scene in my head was with more Death Eaters. Also, where was Hagrid?! Was he burning in his hut?! I was hoping to see countless spells bounce off of his half-giant thick skin. Still, the scene was enjoyable.
I completely forgot about Bill and Fleur. Also, here’s a question to the reader: do you think that Lupin and Nymphadora’s romance was too revealed in this movie? Should they have waited to develop it until they reveal it more fully in book 7?
END OF SPOILERS
Honestly, I cannot wait to find an excuse to see this movie again. Maybe I ought to be more clever and just come up with something =). This will undoubtedly be the best-selling blockbuster of the year.
Thanks for reading ya’ll,
The Rusted One
July 14th was one of the most memorable movie-going experiences I’ve had. Myself and Emily, and Cory and Melissa waited in line for the showing all day. We arrived around 10am, chick-filet for breakfast, starbucks, and then joined the line outside. It was only a few moments when the manager came out to let everyone inside – boy oh boy were we thankful we could be inside since it was already beginning to boil.
Our group was 3rd in line and we had a bench; our day was off to a fantastic start! Within a few minutes Melissa and I decided to get into our costumes, me into my Quidditch costume, Melissa into a Hogwarts school uniform costume. Gotta say that they were the best costumes, by far =).
We brought a Harry Potter 20-Questions game, a simplified magic-like Harry Potter board/card game which we spent 40 minutes trying to figure out and was much too difficult to play, but a fun amount of time nonetheless. Of course we made friends with our fellow waiters-in-line and ended up playing a group game of Silent Football. It was hilarious, haha. I can tell you right now it musta been quite the sight seeing adults dressed in Harry Potter costumes spitting at each other or thrusting elbow’s in one another’s face, all the while remaining fairly silent =).
Our auditorium was allowed in to be seated at 6pm. Not only were we able to save enough seats for the rest of our party but we had a wonderful spot right in the middle.
12:01am grew ever closer and you could feel the electricity begin to build in the auditorium. People were excited, and with good reason! I think it was 2 years ago that OoTP came out?
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was overwhelmingly my favorite of the Potter films. Many non-die-hard fans, but who’ve followed the movies, have said that they wished there was more action. But die-hard fans, and those who’ve read the books, loved it.
What made the HBP so much better? The most noticeable improvement was the actors’ and actresses’ ability to perform. Their acting had improved with each new film, and was incredibly noticeable here. My brother, Dvorák, who is not Radcliffe’s biggest fan, said even he did a great job.
SPOILERS TO FOLLOW! THOSE WHO HAVEN’T SEEN THE MOVIES AND READ ALL SEVEN BOOKS SHOULD CONTINUE AT THE SPOILER BREAK – (Will appear in caps below)!!!!!!!
At this point I’ve seen the HBP twice, and my favorite part as of now is when Ron is overcome by Ramilda Vane’s (sp?) love potion. His stupefied expression and that stupid grin kept me laughing. Then there was Radcliffe who got me laughing once he took the “Liquid Luck” potion. Sitting on that over-sized stool in Hagrid’s hut, clapping and smiling was truly the equivalent of roflberry pwncakes!
Harry and Ginny’s romance has begun full swing, and I’m sure all the girls loved that =). Hey, I did too! She sure is aggressive, but I’m pretty sure Harry needed someone like her. Those of us who know the ending of book 7 are probably prone to agree with me?
What I felt was lacking most of all were key elements from the spectacular battle scene near the end. I’ll need to re-read the book, but the way I remember that scene in my head was with more Death Eaters. Also, where was Hagrid?! Was he burning in his hut?! I was hoping to see countless spells bounce off of his half-giant thick skin. Still, the scene was enjoyable.
I completely forgot about Bill and Fleur. Also, here’s a question to the reader: do you think that Lupin and Nymphadora’s romance was too revealed in this movie? Should they have waited to develop it until they reveal it more fully in book 7?
END OF SPOILERS
Honestly, I cannot wait to find an excuse to see this movie again. Maybe I ought to be more clever and just come up with something =). This will undoubtedly be the best-selling blockbuster of the year.
Thanks for reading ya’ll,
The Rusted One
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)