In some ways I hate doing a blog like this - separating Christianity out by its specific denominations. I do desire the unity within the Church universal. But I do believe that there are some cases in which we can use this "legal" approach to ultimately try to bring unity.
I write this in dealing with the role of the church in part of salvation, relationship with God, and the worship of God. I will say that I believe, as a general rule, that Roman Catholics often over-emphasize the role of the church and under-emphasize the role of the personal relationship with God, while many Protestants undershoot the role of the church, focusing primarily on the personal aspect of salvation.
But both are very important, and asking which is more important or which comes first is like asking what comes first out of the chicken or the egg (except I believe that the chicken did!). The church is the Bride of Chris our heir, thus like the individual Christian's mother. We know that Mother's come before their offspring. However where would the church be without the individual Christian?
I do not believe that membership in a church assures salvation. I do not believe that a Baptism assures salvation. I do not believe that one must go to Mass to keep salvation, nor do I believe one must do what the church says to escape purgatory. I do not believe the Roman Catholic doctrines of the Pope or of Mary, although I do not judge them on such doctrines either. I do understand that there are plenty of Roman Catholics who look to a personal faith in Jesus as their only way of salvation, not Popes or the Virgin Mary.
I believe that often Protestants do not look highly enough of the church. While I do not believe we should have a Pope, I do believe there should be some form of church government. While I do not believe that the Virgin Mary should be worshipped or prayed to, I believe many Protestants shy away from anything to do with Mary, when she is a very important figure of Christianity. I also believe that Communion is often looked down upon in many Protestant churches. I believe that having real bread and real wine each week in worship service is very important. It is where we have a meal with God, where we are reminded of His grace, and where He is reminded (for lack of a better word) of His covenant with us.
Many Protestant's look at private prayer, personal piety, etc., as the chief end of their salvation. Church attendance, baptism, etc., only help show off or at best amplify the personal relationship. But once again, both the personal relationship with God, and the corporate relationship with God must go together. They should be ever flowing. A prayer closes should lead to corporate worship, which should lead back to a prayer closet.
Jesus is the only interceder in our salvation. We need no Priest, Pope, parent, Pastor, Mass, etc. to obtain salvation. Only Jesus' personal grace. But at the same time, we take part in the blessings of salvation through the church; we fully worship God through the church; we amplify our relationship with God through the church; we spread the Gospel through the church; and we renew our covenant with God through the church. I alone am not the Bride of Christ, but the church Catholic (in the sense of 'universal') is the Bride of Christ. The Church Catholic (again, universal, not strictly Roman) should be important to us. So I encourage Roman Catholic's and Protestant's to look at themselves, examine their view of the church and of a personal relationship with God, and see the two as ever-flowing. Perhaps then we can strive for union in the One Body of Christ.
What do you think?
God bless His Church
April 1, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
The Other Side of Feminism
Forgive me for being a while getting back on here. I have been busy with work, school, and traveling to the lake.
The Other Side of Feminism
Feminism is a movement sweeping into the minds of many people across the globe, and it destroys the traditional and proper view of humanity. But there are many myths surrounding feminism. We have the general idea of what feminism is. Women are to blame - they want power and want to be equal or greater than man - that general sort of idea. But feminism is much more than a modern attempt at electing a woman as President. Feminism is a constant struggle throughout the race of mankind, and it is not merely the fault of women.
What feminism does is destroy the way we should view humanity. It takes us away from the traditional God-ordained way of viewing men and women, giving us a worldly alternative. This movement is not really modern - in fact, the very first sin man committed was feministic in nature. The "modern" side of feminism is just the different applications and rhetoric used.
When Eve ate from the forbidden fruit, she was putting herself to the level of God, or so in her mind, and did so even without asking her husband. Perhaps it would be forgivable if, when Eve felt tempted, she asked her husband's permission, and he said no. But Eve did not do this.
However at the same time, Adam is blamed for this sin much more than Eve is. The Scriptures do not tell us about "Death through Eve" but rather "Death through Adam." Adam seemed to have been present watching Eve eat the fruit, and he failed to remind her of God's grace and His law that they should not eat of that tree. He failed to be the man! See, feminism is not so about women wanting too much power, but it is often about men not being men. If men are not the men, protecting their families, loving a wife with a passion unknown to the mind of mortal man, raising a family in a God-fearing way, being the head of the house as Christ is the head of the church, etc., then it is very forgivable to the women to want to take over.
I do not agree with the women feminists of today, so do not get me wrong. But it seems the actions of the men speak as louder or louder as the words used by women. So often while working at Chick-Fil-A, I notice women paying for the food, telling me what they and their husband want, grabbing the food and taking it to the table, etc. These may not be great big deals, but there is something behind them. If men are not willing to make a living for the family, then who can blame the women for doing that?
Once again, I do not write this to condone the women leaders of modern feminism, because they, the voices, are at fault too. This blog is written to show 'the other side' of feminism, not the only side of feminism. But it is the side that does not get talked about much today.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
March 21, 2008
Ryan Hampton
The Other Side of Feminism
Feminism is a movement sweeping into the minds of many people across the globe, and it destroys the traditional and proper view of humanity. But there are many myths surrounding feminism. We have the general idea of what feminism is. Women are to blame - they want power and want to be equal or greater than man - that general sort of idea. But feminism is much more than a modern attempt at electing a woman as President. Feminism is a constant struggle throughout the race of mankind, and it is not merely the fault of women.
What feminism does is destroy the way we should view humanity. It takes us away from the traditional God-ordained way of viewing men and women, giving us a worldly alternative. This movement is not really modern - in fact, the very first sin man committed was feministic in nature. The "modern" side of feminism is just the different applications and rhetoric used.
When Eve ate from the forbidden fruit, she was putting herself to the level of God, or so in her mind, and did so even without asking her husband. Perhaps it would be forgivable if, when Eve felt tempted, she asked her husband's permission, and he said no. But Eve did not do this.
However at the same time, Adam is blamed for this sin much more than Eve is. The Scriptures do not tell us about "Death through Eve" but rather "Death through Adam." Adam seemed to have been present watching Eve eat the fruit, and he failed to remind her of God's grace and His law that they should not eat of that tree. He failed to be the man! See, feminism is not so about women wanting too much power, but it is often about men not being men. If men are not the men, protecting their families, loving a wife with a passion unknown to the mind of mortal man, raising a family in a God-fearing way, being the head of the house as Christ is the head of the church, etc., then it is very forgivable to the women to want to take over.
I do not agree with the women feminists of today, so do not get me wrong. But it seems the actions of the men speak as louder or louder as the words used by women. So often while working at Chick-Fil-A, I notice women paying for the food, telling me what they and their husband want, grabbing the food and taking it to the table, etc. These may not be great big deals, but there is something behind them. If men are not willing to make a living for the family, then who can blame the women for doing that?
Once again, I do not write this to condone the women leaders of modern feminism, because they, the voices, are at fault too. This blog is written to show 'the other side' of feminism, not the only side of feminism. But it is the side that does not get talked about much today.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
March 21, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Sin, Confession, and Lent
Approaching Easter Day, it is easy for many people to overlook the season of Lent. Lent is the season leading up to Easter, in which we dwell on our sin and lowliness. The tradition of Mardi Gras actually arises from the season of Lent. Mardi Gras has become the day in which people party as if it is the last day before they really have to get serious about their sin.
And certainly this can be a wrong outlook to life and Lent, as if we should sin as much as we can to make up for a sinless Lent. But there is nothing wrong with a season to help us better understand our sins. It helps us better look forward to Easter. It makes us all the more joyous when Easter comes, and we realize that despite our sin and lowliness, there is Someone who covers up our sin, and has resurrected with glory so that we may resurrect with glory at the Final Resurrection.
It seems just like yesterday Lent just began, and now it is about over. I remember feeling bad that I missed our church's Ash Wednesday Service -- a service that is really humbling. I know I have not dwelt on my sin enough, but it is never to late for me, nor you, to see our sins.
We have all sinned, and we should not forget that. In lives in which we so often forget about our sin, it is good to humbly look over our lives. Whenever we think we have it all together, that other people should learn from us, we should be humbled to see our sin and our misery apart from the grace of God. We have all failed in all of the Commandments. We have all put something ahead of God; we have all made and constructed things that we in some spirit worshiped; we have all used God's name in a manner that did not go to give Him full praise and adoration; we have all forgotten that the Sabbath Day is the Day of the Lord, and we have opted to work for our own personal benefits instead of worshipping God corporately each week; we have failed to honor our parents, not that we even honor those below us either; we have all taken something that was not rightfully ours; we have all looked to some other person with some sort of lustful immoral thought; we have all had unrighteous anger toward a fellow man; we have all spoken falsely against our fellow man for only our own personal immediate sake; we have all desired for and even complained about something else someone else had that we did not. This covers each Commandment. We are all sinners, of whom I am of the worst.
Of course, I do not write this to scare you into thinking that there is no hope; rather, I write this to show you just how great the Hope is, and how desperately we all need it -- everyone of us. So I encourage you to look at your sin, and perhaps instead of complaining about that person you know who is weird, that person who is acting unwise in any sort of relationship right now, that person who is always late to everything when you are always on time, that person who cheats on tests, has excessive foul language, who seems to have no respect for his parents, seek forgiveness for yourself, and then humbly share it with others. Confess your sin to God -- even specific sins. Feel free to confess many of your sins to others around you. If you have held a grudge against someone, get rid of it, and lead by example in recognizing your own faults even to them. Build each other up in the Lord as Paul spoke of -- even people you have perhaps been angry at or looked down upon for a while.
Didn't Jesus tell us to consider the plank in our eye before looking at the speck in someone else's eye? Didn't Paul tell us that we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God? Perhaps we should all personalize these issues, and stop complaining about other people.
Just a thought.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
March 12, 2008
Ryan Hampton
And certainly this can be a wrong outlook to life and Lent, as if we should sin as much as we can to make up for a sinless Lent. But there is nothing wrong with a season to help us better understand our sins. It helps us better look forward to Easter. It makes us all the more joyous when Easter comes, and we realize that despite our sin and lowliness, there is Someone who covers up our sin, and has resurrected with glory so that we may resurrect with glory at the Final Resurrection.
It seems just like yesterday Lent just began, and now it is about over. I remember feeling bad that I missed our church's Ash Wednesday Service -- a service that is really humbling. I know I have not dwelt on my sin enough, but it is never to late for me, nor you, to see our sins.
We have all sinned, and we should not forget that. In lives in which we so often forget about our sin, it is good to humbly look over our lives. Whenever we think we have it all together, that other people should learn from us, we should be humbled to see our sin and our misery apart from the grace of God. We have all failed in all of the Commandments. We have all put something ahead of God; we have all made and constructed things that we in some spirit worshiped; we have all used God's name in a manner that did not go to give Him full praise and adoration; we have all forgotten that the Sabbath Day is the Day of the Lord, and we have opted to work for our own personal benefits instead of worshipping God corporately each week; we have failed to honor our parents, not that we even honor those below us either; we have all taken something that was not rightfully ours; we have all looked to some other person with some sort of lustful immoral thought; we have all had unrighteous anger toward a fellow man; we have all spoken falsely against our fellow man for only our own personal immediate sake; we have all desired for and even complained about something else someone else had that we did not. This covers each Commandment. We are all sinners, of whom I am of the worst.
Of course, I do not write this to scare you into thinking that there is no hope; rather, I write this to show you just how great the Hope is, and how desperately we all need it -- everyone of us. So I encourage you to look at your sin, and perhaps instead of complaining about that person you know who is weird, that person who is acting unwise in any sort of relationship right now, that person who is always late to everything when you are always on time, that person who cheats on tests, has excessive foul language, who seems to have no respect for his parents, seek forgiveness for yourself, and then humbly share it with others. Confess your sin to God -- even specific sins. Feel free to confess many of your sins to others around you. If you have held a grudge against someone, get rid of it, and lead by example in recognizing your own faults even to them. Build each other up in the Lord as Paul spoke of -- even people you have perhaps been angry at or looked down upon for a while.
Didn't Jesus tell us to consider the plank in our eye before looking at the speck in someone else's eye? Didn't Paul tell us that we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God? Perhaps we should all personalize these issues, and stop complaining about other people.
Just a thought.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
March 12, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Friday, March 7, 2008
I Thought Evolutionists Did Not Look For Their Conclusions
If you hear a debate between a conservative Creationist Christian and an evolutionist/atheist, the evolutionist will most likely mention that we should "study facts and then reach a conclusion." Supposedly, Christians assume a conclusion, and then find random facts to back it up. But watching this video, this seems different. I find the evolutionist reaching a conclusion and then looking for the facts. No, I am not posting this as a Ron Paul video. Of course, I do find it odd that small clips are used to try to show Paul's "flip-flop" on evolution, when the majority of the video is supposedly scientific and not political. But that is not what I post this for. For the point I am trying to make, you really only need to watch is the last two and a half minutes or so.
I find it odd that the evolutionist, forced with his problem of the missing chromosome, looks for a conclusion and just happens to find it. He found his conclusion, and then looked for the facts. Of course, his "finding," even if is true, does not prove anything, and only leads us to the question of "why were the two chromosomes 'taped?'" Just something I happened to notice.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
March 7, 2008
Ryan Hampton
I find it odd that the evolutionist, forced with his problem of the missing chromosome, looks for a conclusion and just happens to find it. He found his conclusion, and then looked for the facts. Of course, his "finding," even if is true, does not prove anything, and only leads us to the question of "why were the two chromosomes 'taped?'" Just something I happened to notice.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
March 7, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Saturday, March 1, 2008
The Politics of the Church
One of the problems the church has always had has been knowing how to approach
politics. The church has been in political troubles all throughout her history. We should not treat this generation or time period as an exception, but neither should we treat it as the only time this has been a problem either.
Many tell us that the church has become too political. A few would argue that the church has not been political enough. But the problem is not that the church has been too political or not political enough, but the problem is that the church has not been the church.
There was a time when there was argument whether the King or the Pope had complete authority. Was the church being the church at this time? No, they were too obsessed with civil power that they forgot about the Great Commission. The church has forgotten about the Great Commission today, and has instead has become legalistic about books and movies such as "Harry Potter" and "The Golden Compass." These things may be issues that the church can deal with, but only after it has first focused on its main roles: to love others as ourselves, to spread the Word to all nations, to reunite the many denominations that have divided Christians for so long, to worship God corporately each Sunday, and to all around return to the basic principles of Jesus.
The point is we should first focus on ourselves before we really worry about politics. But at the very same time, we should not resist politics. The politics of the church will come when we focus on the teachings of Jesus, and they will come in a profound way. Dr. George Grant said that "We must think of politics some of the time, so that we do not think of politics all the of the time." This quote seems to hold up; many of those today who complain that the church is too political are the most legalistic of Christians out there.
So what should the politics of the church look like? Well, as I said before, let us first focus on our basic task. The politics will then begin to take care of themselves. We should long for a day when the entire world bows on their knees and confesses with their tongues that Jesus is Lord; we should long for the day when earthly rulers bow to the ultimate rule of God; we should long for the day our governments are orchestrated by a Christian worldview that all men are created equal with certain unalienable Rights, and that governments are set up by God to protect our Rights; we should long for a day when the life of an innocent baby, born or unborn, would not be threatened; we should long for a day when our government punishes those who threaten our life, liberty, and property. This is extremely political, but it comes from the mission of the church.
And what has happened today? Today, we start with politics, and then we try to separate Christianity and make it something to the side. If we see religion and politics crossing paths, we make a political issue about it. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, should we not vote for him? Mike Huckabee was a Baptist Minister, does this make him more or less prepared for the job. Don't get me wrong - I want a firm Christian who can confess Jesus as Lord while speaking to the entire nation to be our President as much as most anyone, but the way we make political issues out of it all today is quite distasteful to me. One reason I would be skeptical of voting for Mitt Romney is because of his Mormonism. But I don't want to go around making a political issue about it. Perhaps today what we need is someone with a quiet driving faith, if a political fuss will be made of anything else.
The difference between the ideal way the church should handle politics and the way it has, is that the ideal way of handling politics is to first be a Christian. Because our Christianity covers (or should cover) all of our life, politics will be taken care of in the boldest of ways. Today, Christians seem to first be political, and then try to separate Christianity out of it. When the two intermingle, as they inevitably do, we have a giant mess on our hands.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless His church
Pray for our Troops
March 1, 2008
Ryan Hampton
politics. The church has been in political troubles all throughout her history. We should not treat this generation or time period as an exception, but neither should we treat it as the only time this has been a problem either.
Many tell us that the church has become too political. A few would argue that the church has not been political enough. But the problem is not that the church has been too political or not political enough, but the problem is that the church has not been the church.
There was a time when there was argument whether the King or the Pope had complete authority. Was the church being the church at this time? No, they were too obsessed with civil power that they forgot about the Great Commission. The church has forgotten about the Great Commission today, and has instead has become legalistic about books and movies such as "Harry Potter" and "The Golden Compass." These things may be issues that the church can deal with, but only after it has first focused on its main roles: to love others as ourselves, to spread the Word to all nations, to reunite the many denominations that have divided Christians for so long, to worship God corporately each Sunday, and to all around return to the basic principles of Jesus.
The point is we should first focus on ourselves before we really worry about politics. But at the very same time, we should not resist politics. The politics of the church will come when we focus on the teachings of Jesus, and they will come in a profound way. Dr. George Grant said that "We must think of politics some of the time, so that we do not think of politics all the of the time." This quote seems to hold up; many of those today who complain that the church is too political are the most legalistic of Christians out there.
So what should the politics of the church look like? Well, as I said before, let us first focus on our basic task. The politics will then begin to take care of themselves. We should long for a day when the entire world bows on their knees and confesses with their tongues that Jesus is Lord; we should long for the day when earthly rulers bow to the ultimate rule of God; we should long for the day our governments are orchestrated by a Christian worldview that all men are created equal with certain unalienable Rights, and that governments are set up by God to protect our Rights; we should long for a day when the life of an innocent baby, born or unborn, would not be threatened; we should long for a day when our government punishes those who threaten our life, liberty, and property. This is extremely political, but it comes from the mission of the church.
And what has happened today? Today, we start with politics, and then we try to separate Christianity and make it something to the side. If we see religion and politics crossing paths, we make a political issue about it. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, should we not vote for him? Mike Huckabee was a Baptist Minister, does this make him more or less prepared for the job. Don't get me wrong - I want a firm Christian who can confess Jesus as Lord while speaking to the entire nation to be our President as much as most anyone, but the way we make political issues out of it all today is quite distasteful to me. One reason I would be skeptical of voting for Mitt Romney is because of his Mormonism. But I don't want to go around making a political issue about it. Perhaps today what we need is someone with a quiet driving faith, if a political fuss will be made of anything else.
The difference between the ideal way the church should handle politics and the way it has, is that the ideal way of handling politics is to first be a Christian. Because our Christianity covers (or should cover) all of our life, politics will be taken care of in the boldest of ways. Today, Christians seem to first be political, and then try to separate Christianity out of it. When the two intermingle, as they inevitably do, we have a giant mess on our hands.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless His church
Pray for our Troops
March 1, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Lessons in Theology, Building a Covenant Foundation, Part IV - Worship
Each blog in this series I have used to hint to the upcoming blog. Last blog was no different, although all the previous blogs in this series really built up to this. What has the church done to pervert our ideas of corporate worship? We have replaced covenant theology with the idea of individualism.
Corporate worship is corporate, and it is based on the covenant. We do not go to church on Sunday morning because it seems fitting with the previous week. The theology the church has today seems to put worship at the last day of the week; after God has blessed us throughout the week, we come together to recap and share our experiences and increase our personal relationship with Jesus.
Although there may be a certain amount of this that in its proper context can be good, this theology is very problematic when it comes to worship. We do not go to look back at the previous week, and then play songs that relate merely to the personal aspect of our faith; we should come to remember God's covenant and look ahead at the week in light of God's covenant.
So what is corporate worship? Is it worship itself? Is it evangelism? Is it education? Is it what we do for God or what God does for us? Ultimately, it is all of these things, but none of these things specifically. We do not go merely to give basic worship to God, but a service with no worship would be wrong. We do not go simply to evangelize the world - that is what we do throughout the week. But our church service should equip us for evangelizing, and that is what the church universal functions for. We do not go to church just to learn about the Bible, but that should certainly happen through our church attendance. When we go to service, we go to give to God, and for God to work in us. Corporate Lord's Day worship is a full experience.
In light of our relationship with God, there are some definite things we should do. There is a certain amount of creativity as well, and it is not right to create a certain "standard" worship service. But the church today focuses more on the creativity than the definite. To give you an idea of a service that I believe would be appropriate, I will give a run through of our church service (I do not claim this to be perfect, nor other styles of worship as something God does not hear; this is just my opinion).
After announcements, we have a call to worship. The Pastor quotes phrases in Scripture dealing with a group of God's Covenant People coming toward Him. The people respond to this calling by saying "Our feet our standing within Your gates, O Jerusalem" or something to that affect. In this call of worship, we come forward into the real presence of God, and can only worship in praise at His glorious throne. We have a hymn that resembles this mentality.
But as we approach God's throne, it is obvious to us and to God that we are sinners. We must "wipe our feet on the welcome mat" so to speak, before fully entering God's presence. We kneel for corporate confession of sin, where after this we are given the full assurance of God's forgiveness. It is here that we ascend into the real presence of Heaven, lifting our hands and looking up toward God in our ascension hymn.
After this, we have Scripture readings, from the Torah, the Psalms, and the Epistles (or sometimes the prophets instead of the Torah?). After each Scripture reading, the speaker says, "The Word of the Lord" where the rest of the congregation responds "Thanks be to God." After these readings, we have a hymn of celebration. Then the Gospel is preached, where the Pastor walks amongst the Congregation during the reading, symbolizing how the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, as is recorded for us in the Gospels.
After this, we have our sermon, where we learn and take personal application to God's Word.
After the Sermon, we take our tithes and offerings. After this, we have corporate prayer for the specific needs of the congregation and of the world. We sing hymns, confess the common basic Christian faith as expressed in the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed (we do one or the other). Finally, we come for the Lord's Supper, each week. Real bread, real wine. Being strengthened and nourished, we sing a hymn of dismissal, and then receive the Benediction to go in the peace and favor of the Lord, fulfilling the Great Commission.
This is much different than most typical Christian churches today. In most churches, you will see something like this: the congregation sings a bunch of contemporary Christian songs with personalized lyrics, followed by the choir singing their songs. After this, you may see a video presentation, telling us perhaps the problems with evolution, or a motivational "Tell your co-worker about Jesus" spin. Then, we have a motivational sermon, perhaps a "Seven steps to being a closer to your family, step one, take a vacation" sort of deal. After the sermon, a guess speaker may come and give a motivational speech and just as the people are caught up in their emotions, the tithes and offerings are collected. If you are really lucky, you may get a bread-flavored cracker and grape juice. After this, there will be a dismissing prayer.
Now many of these things are good, at least in some context, but how many mainstream evangelicals know why they do what they do in corporate Lord's Day worship? What does each aspect of the service mean?
It is interesting that the first of the two liturgies resembles the covenant structure we see in the Bible. We have a call to worship, where God calls us into His presence, taking hold of us, in order to do something with us. After this, God separates us, individually acknowledging our sin, and cutting it off. We are separate, and then our sin is separated from us, so that God may make something new out of us. After this, God speaks to us through His Word and the sermon. Then, soon after this, we partake in the Lord's Supper - the sign and seal of our covenant. Then we are prepared for the future with the benediction, so that we may go forth in the world, proclaiming the Good News (The Great Commission). All throughout we have education, worship, and are prepared for evangelism. We make our bodies one living sacrifice (Romans 12:1). We worship as sacrifice, not the sacrifice of blood, but as one living sacrifice for God, where all our other sacrifices come from our corporate worship. In a sense, the Lord's Day worship is the most important thing of the week. We do not come to remember God in the past week, but to remember and renew our covenant with Him, looking ahead to the blessings that are assured for us in the future.
I know some Christians who do not attend church. But church is not just icing on the cake. It is where our salvation is found. What if a husband and a wife never saw each other? Are they married? Maybe on paper, but they are not in spirit. I think that the spirit of our salvation outweighs the legality of our salvation. Salvation comes from God, but He offers it to us through the church - it is our identity as apart of the Body of Christ. People who do not attend church should realize two things about church life: how we need the church, and how the church needs us. We all need the communion of the Saints to carry on in a personal relationship with Jesus. We all need to be reminded of our corporate covenant that joins us with Christ. This is what, in a real way, secures our salvation. We must be faithful until death (Rev. 2:10), and we can not just assume an easy feeling for our salvation. We stay faithful through the church. We all need the church. At the same time, the church is filled up with people like you! So if you need them, then they need you! Your work for the church, both maturing those within, and witnessing to those without, is drastically important. No "Seven steps to being a better family man" message by Joel Osteen on TV does justice to the real gathering of the Saints (Heb. 10: 26-27, Acts 20:7).
UPCOMING BLOGS: I will try to post a blog on the politics of the church. Is the church too political? Is it not political enough? What role should the church play in shaping our politics? I also want to post a blog on the 'other side' of feminism. Is feminism a threat, and if so, who is to blame? I am also wanting to post a blog on rethinking perfection. How have we fallen from the real idea of perfection in our society, and how does this false ideology affect Christianity worldwide? My answers to these questions may surprise you. I have a few other ideas as well, and they will come in time.
What do you think?
God bless His Church
God bless you
February 24, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Corporate worship is corporate, and it is based on the covenant. We do not go to church on Sunday morning because it seems fitting with the previous week. The theology the church has today seems to put worship at the last day of the week; after God has blessed us throughout the week, we come together to recap and share our experiences and increase our personal relationship with Jesus.
Although there may be a certain amount of this that in its proper context can be good, this theology is very problematic when it comes to worship. We do not go to look back at the previous week, and then play songs that relate merely to the personal aspect of our faith; we should come to remember God's covenant and look ahead at the week in light of God's covenant.
So what is corporate worship? Is it worship itself? Is it evangelism? Is it education? Is it what we do for God or what God does for us? Ultimately, it is all of these things, but none of these things specifically. We do not go merely to give basic worship to God, but a service with no worship would be wrong. We do not go simply to evangelize the world - that is what we do throughout the week. But our church service should equip us for evangelizing, and that is what the church universal functions for. We do not go to church just to learn about the Bible, but that should certainly happen through our church attendance. When we go to service, we go to give to God, and for God to work in us. Corporate Lord's Day worship is a full experience.
In light of our relationship with God, there are some definite things we should do. There is a certain amount of creativity as well, and it is not right to create a certain "standard" worship service. But the church today focuses more on the creativity than the definite. To give you an idea of a service that I believe would be appropriate, I will give a run through of our church service (I do not claim this to be perfect, nor other styles of worship as something God does not hear; this is just my opinion).
After announcements, we have a call to worship. The Pastor quotes phrases in Scripture dealing with a group of God's Covenant People coming toward Him. The people respond to this calling by saying "Our feet our standing within Your gates, O Jerusalem" or something to that affect. In this call of worship, we come forward into the real presence of God, and can only worship in praise at His glorious throne. We have a hymn that resembles this mentality.
But as we approach God's throne, it is obvious to us and to God that we are sinners. We must "wipe our feet on the welcome mat" so to speak, before fully entering God's presence. We kneel for corporate confession of sin, where after this we are given the full assurance of God's forgiveness. It is here that we ascend into the real presence of Heaven, lifting our hands and looking up toward God in our ascension hymn.
After this, we have Scripture readings, from the Torah, the Psalms, and the Epistles (or sometimes the prophets instead of the Torah?). After each Scripture reading, the speaker says, "The Word of the Lord" where the rest of the congregation responds "Thanks be to God." After these readings, we have a hymn of celebration. Then the Gospel is preached, where the Pastor walks amongst the Congregation during the reading, symbolizing how the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, as is recorded for us in the Gospels.
After this, we have our sermon, where we learn and take personal application to God's Word.
After the Sermon, we take our tithes and offerings. After this, we have corporate prayer for the specific needs of the congregation and of the world. We sing hymns, confess the common basic Christian faith as expressed in the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed (we do one or the other). Finally, we come for the Lord's Supper, each week. Real bread, real wine. Being strengthened and nourished, we sing a hymn of dismissal, and then receive the Benediction to go in the peace and favor of the Lord, fulfilling the Great Commission.
This is much different than most typical Christian churches today. In most churches, you will see something like this: the congregation sings a bunch of contemporary Christian songs with personalized lyrics, followed by the choir singing their songs. After this, you may see a video presentation, telling us perhaps the problems with evolution, or a motivational "Tell your co-worker about Jesus" spin. Then, we have a motivational sermon, perhaps a "Seven steps to being a closer to your family, step one, take a vacation" sort of deal. After the sermon, a guess speaker may come and give a motivational speech and just as the people are caught up in their emotions, the tithes and offerings are collected. If you are really lucky, you may get a bread-flavored cracker and grape juice. After this, there will be a dismissing prayer.
Now many of these things are good, at least in some context, but how many mainstream evangelicals know why they do what they do in corporate Lord's Day worship? What does each aspect of the service mean?
It is interesting that the first of the two liturgies resembles the covenant structure we see in the Bible. We have a call to worship, where God calls us into His presence, taking hold of us, in order to do something with us. After this, God separates us, individually acknowledging our sin, and cutting it off. We are separate, and then our sin is separated from us, so that God may make something new out of us. After this, God speaks to us through His Word and the sermon. Then, soon after this, we partake in the Lord's Supper - the sign and seal of our covenant. Then we are prepared for the future with the benediction, so that we may go forth in the world, proclaiming the Good News (The Great Commission). All throughout we have education, worship, and are prepared for evangelism. We make our bodies one living sacrifice (Romans 12:1). We worship as sacrifice, not the sacrifice of blood, but as one living sacrifice for God, where all our other sacrifices come from our corporate worship. In a sense, the Lord's Day worship is the most important thing of the week. We do not come to remember God in the past week, but to remember and renew our covenant with Him, looking ahead to the blessings that are assured for us in the future.
I know some Christians who do not attend church. But church is not just icing on the cake. It is where our salvation is found. What if a husband and a wife never saw each other? Are they married? Maybe on paper, but they are not in spirit. I think that the spirit of our salvation outweighs the legality of our salvation. Salvation comes from God, but He offers it to us through the church - it is our identity as apart of the Body of Christ. People who do not attend church should realize two things about church life: how we need the church, and how the church needs us. We all need the communion of the Saints to carry on in a personal relationship with Jesus. We all need to be reminded of our corporate covenant that joins us with Christ. This is what, in a real way, secures our salvation. We must be faithful until death (Rev. 2:10), and we can not just assume an easy feeling for our salvation. We stay faithful through the church. We all need the church. At the same time, the church is filled up with people like you! So if you need them, then they need you! Your work for the church, both maturing those within, and witnessing to those without, is drastically important. No "Seven steps to being a better family man" message by Joel Osteen on TV does justice to the real gathering of the Saints (Heb. 10: 26-27, Acts 20:7).
UPCOMING BLOGS: I will try to post a blog on the politics of the church. Is the church too political? Is it not political enough? What role should the church play in shaping our politics? I also want to post a blog on the 'other side' of feminism. Is feminism a threat, and if so, who is to blame? I am also wanting to post a blog on rethinking perfection. How have we fallen from the real idea of perfection in our society, and how does this false ideology affect Christianity worldwide? My answers to these questions may surprise you. I have a few other ideas as well, and they will come in time.
What do you think?
God bless His Church
God bless you
February 24, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Lessons in Theology, Building a Covenant Foundation, Part III: The Sacraments
Forgive me for taking a while to get back on these posts. I have been busy with school, work, trying to keep the house clean, and all that good stuff. But nonetheless, I will try to cover my thoughts on the sacraments here.
When a couple get married, there are certain signs that remind them of their covenant in marriage. Some signs are created by the couple. These may be bound by certain regulations of morality or society, or it could be completely up to the couple. But there are some signs that are generally universal. The wedding ring is perhaps the one that sticks out the most. It reminds the husband and the wife of their unity. Not just this, but it shows all others that they are married. The wedding ring is like their identity together. It shows that they are one. After this, there are certain signs they do to constantly remind themselves of their covenant. Perhaps the one that would strike the most is the sexual union of the couple.
This is similar to covenants made in the Bible. There is always a five-step covenant, and the signs of the covenant stick out the most. They are the faces of the covenant. When God made Adam, He spoke out the existence of the dust of which would become Adam, and took hold of the dust. Then God took the dust and separated it from the rest of dust. After this God spoke to Adam telling him of his duties to keep and protect the Garden. Then God told Adam not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God also showed Adam that there is a Tree of Life to eat from. Finally God prepared Adam for the future by giving him a bride, Eve.
So the five-step pattern goes something like this:
God takes hold.
God separates in order to make something new.
God speaks to the new creation.
God gives signs and seals of the covenant.
God prepares for the future.
So when God forms the first marriage covenant, it should look similar.
God took hold of Adam causing him to go into a deep sleep.
God separated Adam's rib from the rest of his body, in order to make something new.
God speaks to Adam and Eve, now telling them their respective roles with each other.
God created Eve as woman, showing that they are two but yet one.
God prepares for the future by allowing them to reproduce and glorify God.
When man sinned, God still offered covenants to His people, perhaps even in a greater sense. Now, God must deal with His special grace to His people. The signs of the covenant deal with God promising to remember His grace to His people, and His people faithfully trusting in God's promises. We see this in the doctrine of death and resurrection. The doctrine was not non-existent before the Fall, but it existed in a much simpler sort of way. Notice how God takes hold of His people and separates them in order to make something new. When Adam slept, he must have been dead asleep in order for God to take a rib out of his body! He basically died and rose again now with something even better - a companion. Now this death and resurrection involves real pain, and even the real death and resurrection of Jesus for our sins.
After the Fall, God continued to show covenants with His people as a reminder of His promise to send a Son, Jesus. God does this with Noah. God took hold of Noah. God separated Noah and his family from the world in order to make something new (the new world). The world died, but through this death arose Noah and his family to begin a new world. God spoke to Noah telling him of his duties to punish wrongdoers and to be fruitful and multiply. God gave Noah a sign of His covenant for both God and man to remember - the rainbow. Finally, God prepares for the future in promising never to flood the earth.
We can see this pattern with the Abrahamic covenant, and the Davidic covenant. But how does God's covenants work now when Jesus has already come?
God does not have to give us animals to kill. Jesus' blood has already been poured. God does not have to give us covenant after covenant, or play remnant favoritism. Now God's covenant is offered for all of mankind. But at the same time, He does ask for us to remember our covenant with God. He does ask that we remember our identity as God's people.
In the Old Testament, God used circumcision as the identity of God's people. But now God offers Baptism to God's people. Circumcision was given when the child was just eight days old. So by the same token, Baptism is offered to those who are born into a Christian home, and to those who come from a non-Christian home and are converted to the Faith sometime in their life. After Baptism, members of God's covenant people may take part in His table to remind them of God's grace. When God sees His supper being done, He dwells amongst His people and remembers His covenant with His people. Because Jesus has come, we may now be in Heaven, and in a sense that is where we are when we partake in the Lord's Supper.
So the sacraments are perhaps the most influential part of our life. They remind us of God's grace. Baptism is our identity. The Lord's Supper is a constant reminder of God's grace, and it strengthens and renews us. The Last Supper became like the first supper for the new Covenant - the Covenant of Grace. We should not exclude children from the Table, because after all, they are God's children. Children can come to God and have a personal relationship with God, and it does not have to be through us. At the same time, through the faith of the child's parents, the child is connected with the covenant. The child's Baptism reminds him of his identity, and the Lord's Supper constantly strengthens the child. In a real sense, the Lord's Supper is the most important meal of each week.
So we should not reject the child's faith. In Scripture, we see David speak of his faith since his infancy, even since he was in his mother's womb (Psalm 22: 9-11). John the Baptist knew God from infancy as well. Furthermore, children have identities when they are born. American-born children are simply born American's. How much more should a child's identity be in God, if they are born in a Christian home? How much more should be reminded of this identity through the Lord's Supper, even from infancy? After all, Jesus said that we must think as the children to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Why should we not give our children the joy of Christ's resurrection for them?!
So I encourage all of you to be joyful whenever you do the Lord's Supper, and if you are Baptized, to treat it as the sign and seal of your Christian identity. At the Lord's Supper, treat it as the best and most important meal of the week. Get a big piece of bread!! Remember God's grace. God will remember His covenant with you. And for all children, be joyful that God's covenant of grace extends to you, directly, not through your parents, nor only to your parents. It is for you!
And I preach to myself as much as anyone here!
What do you think?
God bless His church.
February 19, 2008
Ryan Hampton
When a couple get married, there are certain signs that remind them of their covenant in marriage. Some signs are created by the couple. These may be bound by certain regulations of morality or society, or it could be completely up to the couple. But there are some signs that are generally universal. The wedding ring is perhaps the one that sticks out the most. It reminds the husband and the wife of their unity. Not just this, but it shows all others that they are married. The wedding ring is like their identity together. It shows that they are one. After this, there are certain signs they do to constantly remind themselves of their covenant. Perhaps the one that would strike the most is the sexual union of the couple.
This is similar to covenants made in the Bible. There is always a five-step covenant, and the signs of the covenant stick out the most. They are the faces of the covenant. When God made Adam, He spoke out the existence of the dust of which would become Adam, and took hold of the dust. Then God took the dust and separated it from the rest of dust. After this God spoke to Adam telling him of his duties to keep and protect the Garden. Then God told Adam not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God also showed Adam that there is a Tree of Life to eat from. Finally God prepared Adam for the future by giving him a bride, Eve.
So the five-step pattern goes something like this:
God takes hold.
God separates in order to make something new.
God speaks to the new creation.
God gives signs and seals of the covenant.
God prepares for the future.
So when God forms the first marriage covenant, it should look similar.
God took hold of Adam causing him to go into a deep sleep.
God separated Adam's rib from the rest of his body, in order to make something new.
God speaks to Adam and Eve, now telling them their respective roles with each other.
God created Eve as woman, showing that they are two but yet one.
God prepares for the future by allowing them to reproduce and glorify God.
When man sinned, God still offered covenants to His people, perhaps even in a greater sense. Now, God must deal with His special grace to His people. The signs of the covenant deal with God promising to remember His grace to His people, and His people faithfully trusting in God's promises. We see this in the doctrine of death and resurrection. The doctrine was not non-existent before the Fall, but it existed in a much simpler sort of way. Notice how God takes hold of His people and separates them in order to make something new. When Adam slept, he must have been dead asleep in order for God to take a rib out of his body! He basically died and rose again now with something even better - a companion. Now this death and resurrection involves real pain, and even the real death and resurrection of Jesus for our sins.
After the Fall, God continued to show covenants with His people as a reminder of His promise to send a Son, Jesus. God does this with Noah. God took hold of Noah. God separated Noah and his family from the world in order to make something new (the new world). The world died, but through this death arose Noah and his family to begin a new world. God spoke to Noah telling him of his duties to punish wrongdoers and to be fruitful and multiply. God gave Noah a sign of His covenant for both God and man to remember - the rainbow. Finally, God prepares for the future in promising never to flood the earth.
We can see this pattern with the Abrahamic covenant, and the Davidic covenant. But how does God's covenants work now when Jesus has already come?
God does not have to give us animals to kill. Jesus' blood has already been poured. God does not have to give us covenant after covenant, or play remnant favoritism. Now God's covenant is offered for all of mankind. But at the same time, He does ask for us to remember our covenant with God. He does ask that we remember our identity as God's people.
In the Old Testament, God used circumcision as the identity of God's people. But now God offers Baptism to God's people. Circumcision was given when the child was just eight days old. So by the same token, Baptism is offered to those who are born into a Christian home, and to those who come from a non-Christian home and are converted to the Faith sometime in their life. After Baptism, members of God's covenant people may take part in His table to remind them of God's grace. When God sees His supper being done, He dwells amongst His people and remembers His covenant with His people. Because Jesus has come, we may now be in Heaven, and in a sense that is where we are when we partake in the Lord's Supper.
So the sacraments are perhaps the most influential part of our life. They remind us of God's grace. Baptism is our identity. The Lord's Supper is a constant reminder of God's grace, and it strengthens and renews us. The Last Supper became like the first supper for the new Covenant - the Covenant of Grace. We should not exclude children from the Table, because after all, they are God's children. Children can come to God and have a personal relationship with God, and it does not have to be through us. At the same time, through the faith of the child's parents, the child is connected with the covenant. The child's Baptism reminds him of his identity, and the Lord's Supper constantly strengthens the child. In a real sense, the Lord's Supper is the most important meal of each week.
So we should not reject the child's faith. In Scripture, we see David speak of his faith since his infancy, even since he was in his mother's womb (Psalm 22: 9-11). John the Baptist knew God from infancy as well. Furthermore, children have identities when they are born. American-born children are simply born American's. How much more should a child's identity be in God, if they are born in a Christian home? How much more should be reminded of this identity through the Lord's Supper, even from infancy? After all, Jesus said that we must think as the children to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Why should we not give our children the joy of Christ's resurrection for them?!
So I encourage all of you to be joyful whenever you do the Lord's Supper, and if you are Baptized, to treat it as the sign and seal of your Christian identity. At the Lord's Supper, treat it as the best and most important meal of the week. Get a big piece of bread!! Remember God's grace. God will remember His covenant with you. And for all children, be joyful that God's covenant of grace extends to you, directly, not through your parents, nor only to your parents. It is for you!
And I preach to myself as much as anyone here!
What do you think?
God bless His church.
February 19, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Monday, February 11, 2008
Lessons in Theology, Building a Covenant Foundation, Part II: Salvation
The idea of salvation is right at the core of Christianity, and is seen as the greatest gift of God. And all of this is rightfully so. The greatest showing of love in the history of history itself, is God becoming man, pouring out His blood even to death (a very painful death, I might add), in order to save sinful man.
Essentially, the doctrine of salvation is what defines Christianity. I say this because it is really logical. What is Christianity? Christianity is the religion based on the Trinity, where the second person of that Trinity becomes man and saves us. Furthermore, who are the Christians? It is those who are saved by Jesus' death. From this standpoint, it could be argued that all Christians, because all Christians are saved, have the same idea of salvation. So then why study it?
I do not write this because I believe that salvation is reached by something other than grace through faith, as is taught in our churches. I believe it is completely. But I write this because I believe many Christians, though they have a general understanding of their own salvation, do not really grasp the full picture, and how salvation fits in with God's covenant. And along the same paths, Christians may disagree on the specifics of the deeper questions of salvation (can you loose your salvation?, is salvation a choice by us, or God's eternal decree and predestined plan?, etc.). These are all fair questions, and to the best of my ability (granted, this is a bit of a mystery to mortal and finite man), I will give you my reasoning to these questions.
The last blog dealt with how God works in this world. Is all of history a predestined plan, to which we are merely robots of, as hyper-Calvinists would say? Or perhaps is history the complete opposite, as Deists would believe, that God created the world with its laws, to allow it to control its own destiny? Or could it be that we are all products of chemical reactions, to which all of eternity is predestined by the wills of evolution, as consistent atheists would say? Assuming the presupposition of God's existence, we rule out the third possibility. And assuming Christianity as our worldview, we ask how our salvation fits into this question.
Most Christians believe that the answer lies somewhere between the first two possibilities I presented below. Not even many Calvinists really believe that there is no free agency of some sort of man in God's creation and providence. However most "free will" Christians (forgive me for such blanketing and polarizing terms), believe in God's providence, and that God is in control of all things that happen, at least to some degree or another. The disagreements between Calvinists Christians and Christians who are not Calvinist is more a disagreement of emphasis, over disagreement in letter, word, or perhaps even ideology.
But the issue of our salvation in this plan is really a sticky issue, and is really a mystery. I touched on this some in my previous blog. How can I really "control" my salvation (salvation is more than a mere every-day choice). It must be at some level a revelation. But at the same time, why would God pick and choose His church? Even moreover, if God can do anything (as He can), could He not give us even a choice in the matter of our eternity? Once we are Christians, and apart of His Kingdom, is it up to us to keep our salvation, or do we leave it to God? The modern day individual viewpoint goes something like this:
God is good and allows us salvation.
We choose, on our own, whether or not we obtain this salvation.
God may be especially gracious to those incapable of reaching this mature decision, by granting them the benefit of the doubt in sending them to Heaven if they die early. After about twelve, we should all be able to make our own choice.
After we for sure have this salvation, we can rest assure, because there is no way we can loose our salvation. Once saved always saved.
Maybe that is a bit of a stretch and a stereotype to modern Christianity, but there is a lot of truth in it. Some of the ideas may be good, and these are only technical matters of the greater matter of the salvation itself. But I do believe that this viewpoint can be problematic. Let us analyze this.
God is good and allows us salvation. This, of course, is true, in that God is good, and that He offers salvation. Whether or not we say He offers it across the board or to His select only is still up for grabs (as I hope to get into this more throughout this blog and series).
>We freely choose our salvation.< Although I do not want to take away any human responsibility in our salvation, I fear that many Christians over-exaggerate this idea. Ultimately, salvation is given by God. Even if we do "choose" it in a sense, perhaps we should better look at it as accepting God's free gift, not pursuing salvation by our own good works.
>God automatically gives salvation to anyone who dies early.< I believe that God gives salvation to those who are born in a Christian home and then die in infancy (more on this later). But whether or not He gives salvation to just any infant who dies early, is really out of our knowledge (again more on this later). This idea leads parents to think along the lines of "They automatically have salvation now. We will pose to them the idea of salvation, and let them freely choose it as they are old enough to." This sort of parenting, I believe, can be naive and dangerous.
>After our salvation, God ensures it to us through all of our life.< Even if this was true, many Christians pervert this idea. Although Paul spoke of his knowledge of his salvation, he never really believed he could just "rest assure."
But even with all of this said, we need Scriptural defense for any point we make. I do no want to point you to a couple of passages regarding salvation that seems good, to try to prove any point. This is proof texting, and it too can be dangerous. What I want to do really is give you an overall picture of what salvation looks like through a Biblical worldview. Giving you a lot of specific verses, and showing how they all fit together, would require a book, not just a blog.
I like looking at looking at Biblical analogies in applying theology. In terms of salvation, I like looking at the analogies of Jesus being our Shepherd, or of a marriage. It is interesting that the Bible begins with a marriage (Adam and Eve), and ends with an even greater marriage (Jesus and the Church). The story of the Bible is like a wedding story, or a love story. It is like a Cinderella story where a sick woman is resurrected by her groom. Or perhaps a romantic view of the groom laying down his life for his bride. It is a store of God's People: things started good in the garden, then things went really bad with the Fall of man, and in the end, things will be better than before the Fall. We begin with "Once upon a time..." end with a "Live happily ever after..." The store line is about the restoration time of death to life.
So how does this systematic symbolic theology fit into our personal salvation. The Christian story beats all other stories because it is about community, and because it reaches to us personally. A real physical body is different parts working together, but it is not as if the body is constructed piece by piece. In Christianity, we are all one Body, but each member is added over time on a personal note. With this in mind, our salvation is very personal and very corporate.
But today, we focus too much on the private salvation. While it is possible to look too much to the corporate side of salvation and too little to the private aspect, that is not what we see in today's Christianity. Salvation comes from God, ultimately, but how does He offer it to us? Where is our defining moment of our salvation? The modern answer is that He offers it to us by simply laying it out on a platter for us to take (albeit it special revelation, or simply allowing us to hear of it in general). Then the moment of our acceptance is our defining moment.
But in a marriage, the marriage is offered over time. The groom does not just all of a sudden "pop the question." There were probably many hints along the way. The defining moment is the wedding. The symbol is the ring. In our salvation, God often (though maybe not always), offers salvation in normal ways, not just all of a sudden. Our defining moment is our Baptism. Our symbol is also our Baptism, like a wedding ring is the symbol of the marriage. A salvation with no Baptism is like a wedding with no ceremony. But the individual and modern idea of salvation presents Baptism as just "icing on the cake." It's like a honeymoon. It's a nice thing to do by tradition, but nothing really required in it (according to the modern view).
So how does salvation work for infants? And can we loose salvation? These are tough questions (after all its a mystery!). I believe that we are a Body, and this idea helps us better understand salvation on the infant level. But lets use the analogy of a shepherd and his sheep (as we are with Jesus).
If a shepherd has a flock of sheep, and one has a baby sheep (or would this be a lamb?), the shepherd does not reject the baby sheep, send it away, and make it come back. He would take the baby sheep, give it a mark to declare it His, and keep it, and treating it as his own. The sheep may wander, but hopefully with the help of the parents, it will stay and not wander. If it does wander, the shepherd may go out and try to find sheep (or lamb).
By the same token, I was born an American. I did not have to grow so old to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and write a paper on why the colonies broke off from Great Britain. Otherwise we are born an American. Our parents give us our name, and we get a birth certificate.
So in Christianity, if two Christian parents, or even one, have a baby, God does not reject the baby, making it come to salvation by his own merits. But he accepts the baby. He calls it His own. Then Baptism marks the child's identity. Then the family, and the church around them, seek to raise the child in the right way. God will always do His part in His relationship with the child. As the child grows, he has more responsibility not to wander from God's people. The church is like the gates of the pasture. That is why going to church each or most weeks is important. By not going to church it is as if we are wandering away from God's flock.
Christianity is deeper than these analogies, but I would make the argument that this only strengthens my points. Jesus is the good shepherd, so why should He reject His children? Jesus is the King of Kings, so why should He deny our citizenship in His Kingdom if we are born into it? We may wander, granted, but God will always do His part.
So God offers salvation, but He mostly offers it through the church. In a sense, the church is salvation. We are God's People. Our identity is Baptism. Those born into the church should be Baptized as infants (I know that many people do not agree with me on this, and that's fine, but I am speaking from my perspective). Those who come in from outside the church into the church, should be baptized soon after their conversion. In spirit, the defining moment for this person would be the conversion. But even a conversion may not be so supernatural, because God works even great things in ordinary means. His identity is marked in the Baptism. (Also the doctrine of infant Baptism could be expounded upon by showing how Baptism is the new Covenant fulfillment of circumcision, which was to boys eight days old. Since there is nothing against infant Baptism from this standpoint in Scripture, we assume it applies to infants as well. But this would be a different angle and could require a different blog).
Does God predestine salvation? Once again, this is a sticky issue, and I feel I have answered to the best of my ability already. Perhaps even if He does, He does it with the foreknowledge of who would strengthen His Kingdom best anyway, by the free choices He creates for us.
Can we loose our salvation? I believe asking this is like asking a couple on good standings if they would ever consider getting a divorce. Of course they wouldn't! But they must also always be guarding their hearts, keeping them close to their spouse. They remind each other of their marriage in ways that are simple and profound. A simple kiss could be a reminder. A nice anniversary gift. A vacation. Or in bed. All of these ways renews the mind and reminds them of the covenant they made on their wedding day. Some of the symbolism and reminders are set in stone ways, and others require their personal imagination.
This spirit is what will carry us through the next two blogs, to complete the four-part series.
What do you think?
God bless America.
Pray for our Troops.
God bless His People.
God bless you.
February 11, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Essentially, the doctrine of salvation is what defines Christianity. I say this because it is really logical. What is Christianity? Christianity is the religion based on the Trinity, where the second person of that Trinity becomes man and saves us. Furthermore, who are the Christians? It is those who are saved by Jesus' death. From this standpoint, it could be argued that all Christians, because all Christians are saved, have the same idea of salvation. So then why study it?
I do not write this because I believe that salvation is reached by something other than grace through faith, as is taught in our churches. I believe it is completely. But I write this because I believe many Christians, though they have a general understanding of their own salvation, do not really grasp the full picture, and how salvation fits in with God's covenant. And along the same paths, Christians may disagree on the specifics of the deeper questions of salvation (can you loose your salvation?, is salvation a choice by us, or God's eternal decree and predestined plan?, etc.). These are all fair questions, and to the best of my ability (granted, this is a bit of a mystery to mortal and finite man), I will give you my reasoning to these questions.
The last blog dealt with how God works in this world. Is all of history a predestined plan, to which we are merely robots of, as hyper-Calvinists would say? Or perhaps is history the complete opposite, as Deists would believe, that God created the world with its laws, to allow it to control its own destiny? Or could it be that we are all products of chemical reactions, to which all of eternity is predestined by the wills of evolution, as consistent atheists would say? Assuming the presupposition of God's existence, we rule out the third possibility. And assuming Christianity as our worldview, we ask how our salvation fits into this question.
Most Christians believe that the answer lies somewhere between the first two possibilities I presented below. Not even many Calvinists really believe that there is no free agency of some sort of man in God's creation and providence. However most "free will" Christians (forgive me for such blanketing and polarizing terms), believe in God's providence, and that God is in control of all things that happen, at least to some degree or another. The disagreements between Calvinists Christians and Christians who are not Calvinist is more a disagreement of emphasis, over disagreement in letter, word, or perhaps even ideology.
But the issue of our salvation in this plan is really a sticky issue, and is really a mystery. I touched on this some in my previous blog. How can I really "control" my salvation (salvation is more than a mere every-day choice). It must be at some level a revelation. But at the same time, why would God pick and choose His church? Even moreover, if God can do anything (as He can), could He not give us even a choice in the matter of our eternity? Once we are Christians, and apart of His Kingdom, is it up to us to keep our salvation, or do we leave it to God? The modern day individual viewpoint goes something like this:
God is good and allows us salvation.
We choose, on our own, whether or not we obtain this salvation.
God may be especially gracious to those incapable of reaching this mature decision, by granting them the benefit of the doubt in sending them to Heaven if they die early. After about twelve, we should all be able to make our own choice.
After we for sure have this salvation, we can rest assure, because there is no way we can loose our salvation. Once saved always saved.
Maybe that is a bit of a stretch and a stereotype to modern Christianity, but there is a lot of truth in it. Some of the ideas may be good, and these are only technical matters of the greater matter of the salvation itself. But I do believe that this viewpoint can be problematic. Let us analyze this.
God is good and allows us salvation. This, of course, is true, in that God is good, and that He offers salvation. Whether or not we say He offers it across the board or to His select only is still up for grabs (as I hope to get into this more throughout this blog and series).
>We freely choose our salvation.< Although I do not want to take away any human responsibility in our salvation, I fear that many Christians over-exaggerate this idea. Ultimately, salvation is given by God. Even if we do "choose" it in a sense, perhaps we should better look at it as accepting God's free gift, not pursuing salvation by our own good works.
>God automatically gives salvation to anyone who dies early.< I believe that God gives salvation to those who are born in a Christian home and then die in infancy (more on this later). But whether or not He gives salvation to just any infant who dies early, is really out of our knowledge (again more on this later). This idea leads parents to think along the lines of "They automatically have salvation now. We will pose to them the idea of salvation, and let them freely choose it as they are old enough to." This sort of parenting, I believe, can be naive and dangerous.
>After our salvation, God ensures it to us through all of our life.< Even if this was true, many Christians pervert this idea. Although Paul spoke of his knowledge of his salvation, he never really believed he could just "rest assure."
But even with all of this said, we need Scriptural defense for any point we make. I do no want to point you to a couple of passages regarding salvation that seems good, to try to prove any point. This is proof texting, and it too can be dangerous. What I want to do really is give you an overall picture of what salvation looks like through a Biblical worldview. Giving you a lot of specific verses, and showing how they all fit together, would require a book, not just a blog.
I like looking at looking at Biblical analogies in applying theology. In terms of salvation, I like looking at the analogies of Jesus being our Shepherd, or of a marriage. It is interesting that the Bible begins with a marriage (Adam and Eve), and ends with an even greater marriage (Jesus and the Church). The story of the Bible is like a wedding story, or a love story. It is like a Cinderella story where a sick woman is resurrected by her groom. Or perhaps a romantic view of the groom laying down his life for his bride. It is a store of God's People: things started good in the garden, then things went really bad with the Fall of man, and in the end, things will be better than before the Fall. We begin with "Once upon a time..." end with a "Live happily ever after..." The store line is about the restoration time of death to life.
So how does this systematic symbolic theology fit into our personal salvation. The Christian story beats all other stories because it is about community, and because it reaches to us personally. A real physical body is different parts working together, but it is not as if the body is constructed piece by piece. In Christianity, we are all one Body, but each member is added over time on a personal note. With this in mind, our salvation is very personal and very corporate.
But today, we focus too much on the private salvation. While it is possible to look too much to the corporate side of salvation and too little to the private aspect, that is not what we see in today's Christianity. Salvation comes from God, ultimately, but how does He offer it to us? Where is our defining moment of our salvation? The modern answer is that He offers it to us by simply laying it out on a platter for us to take (albeit it special revelation, or simply allowing us to hear of it in general). Then the moment of our acceptance is our defining moment.
But in a marriage, the marriage is offered over time. The groom does not just all of a sudden "pop the question." There were probably many hints along the way. The defining moment is the wedding. The symbol is the ring. In our salvation, God often (though maybe not always), offers salvation in normal ways, not just all of a sudden. Our defining moment is our Baptism. Our symbol is also our Baptism, like a wedding ring is the symbol of the marriage. A salvation with no Baptism is like a wedding with no ceremony. But the individual and modern idea of salvation presents Baptism as just "icing on the cake." It's like a honeymoon. It's a nice thing to do by tradition, but nothing really required in it (according to the modern view).
So how does salvation work for infants? And can we loose salvation? These are tough questions (after all its a mystery!). I believe that we are a Body, and this idea helps us better understand salvation on the infant level. But lets use the analogy of a shepherd and his sheep (as we are with Jesus).
If a shepherd has a flock of sheep, and one has a baby sheep (or would this be a lamb?), the shepherd does not reject the baby sheep, send it away, and make it come back. He would take the baby sheep, give it a mark to declare it His, and keep it, and treating it as his own. The sheep may wander, but hopefully with the help of the parents, it will stay and not wander. If it does wander, the shepherd may go out and try to find sheep (or lamb).
By the same token, I was born an American. I did not have to grow so old to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and write a paper on why the colonies broke off from Great Britain. Otherwise we are born an American. Our parents give us our name, and we get a birth certificate.
So in Christianity, if two Christian parents, or even one, have a baby, God does not reject the baby, making it come to salvation by his own merits. But he accepts the baby. He calls it His own. Then Baptism marks the child's identity. Then the family, and the church around them, seek to raise the child in the right way. God will always do His part in His relationship with the child. As the child grows, he has more responsibility not to wander from God's people. The church is like the gates of the pasture. That is why going to church each or most weeks is important. By not going to church it is as if we are wandering away from God's flock.
Christianity is deeper than these analogies, but I would make the argument that this only strengthens my points. Jesus is the good shepherd, so why should He reject His children? Jesus is the King of Kings, so why should He deny our citizenship in His Kingdom if we are born into it? We may wander, granted, but God will always do His part.
So God offers salvation, but He mostly offers it through the church. In a sense, the church is salvation. We are God's People. Our identity is Baptism. Those born into the church should be Baptized as infants (I know that many people do not agree with me on this, and that's fine, but I am speaking from my perspective). Those who come in from outside the church into the church, should be baptized soon after their conversion. In spirit, the defining moment for this person would be the conversion. But even a conversion may not be so supernatural, because God works even great things in ordinary means. His identity is marked in the Baptism. (Also the doctrine of infant Baptism could be expounded upon by showing how Baptism is the new Covenant fulfillment of circumcision, which was to boys eight days old. Since there is nothing against infant Baptism from this standpoint in Scripture, we assume it applies to infants as well. But this would be a different angle and could require a different blog).
Does God predestine salvation? Once again, this is a sticky issue, and I feel I have answered to the best of my ability already. Perhaps even if He does, He does it with the foreknowledge of who would strengthen His Kingdom best anyway, by the free choices He creates for us.
Can we loose our salvation? I believe asking this is like asking a couple on good standings if they would ever consider getting a divorce. Of course they wouldn't! But they must also always be guarding their hearts, keeping them close to their spouse. They remind each other of their marriage in ways that are simple and profound. A simple kiss could be a reminder. A nice anniversary gift. A vacation. Or in bed. All of these ways renews the mind and reminds them of the covenant they made on their wedding day. Some of the symbolism and reminders are set in stone ways, and others require their personal imagination.
This spirit is what will carry us through the next two blogs, to complete the four-part series.
What do you think?
God bless America.
Pray for our Troops.
God bless His People.
God bless you.
February 11, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Lessons in Theology, Building a Covenant Foundation, Part I: Freedestination
My plan is for this to be a four-part series on theology, ultimately leading up to weekly Christian worship, such as its purposes, reasons, what we should do, and why we should do what we should do. To begin, though, I don't want to dive right on in to worship. Along the way, I will speak of salvation, the sacraments, God's Sovereignty, and Its connection with the work of man.
I will begin by speaking of how God's Sovereignty fits in with man's will, or perhaps better put, how man's will fits in under God's Sovereingty. I will begin by stating that I am a Presbyterian, and yes, we are considered Calvinists. But I do not want a misunderstanding here. Although I have full belief in God's Sovereignty, I do believe in some sort of human choice and responsibility, and I do believe that the two can go together.
I believe that all of history is God's eternal plan, but I believe within this plan there are men who do great things by a certain amount of their choice (of course with God's grace in them), and men who do bad things on their own choice. But yet all of this is in God's plan, even though God may reward the good men as if they did something good, and punish the bad men as if they did evil.
Exactly how it works may be a mystery. I know that some non-Calvinist Christians it hits a brick wall. But nonetheless I use the term here. I believe calling it an excuse is much like considering it an excuse to call the incarnation of Jesus, how He was both God and man, a mystery. It is not as if calling it a mystery is an excuse for Christianity when it hits a brick wall, because God can do anything!
But I do not think that we should just stop with the term "mystery." There are often examples in which we see a mystery, but also firmly believe each side of the mystery. I like using Jesus' death as an illustration for how God's Sovereign plan and man's free choice/will/agency (or whatever else you may call it) go together.
It could be argued that for all time God has planned and perhaps predestined for Jesus to come and save sinners. Certainly He knew throughout all time that there should be a time in which Jesus would do this. He knew the time it would happen, and He specifically planned it to happen. Certainly since the Fall of man was it in His eternal plan (although it could be argued that the Fall was in His plan, therefore Jesus' death and ressurection was in His plan even before the Fall). Nonetheless, it was in God's plan for Jesus to come and save sinners even by His death.
But at the same time, the people who nailed Jesus to the cross were still guilty. Do you see the irony? God's plan involved evil people doing evil things, but through which one of the greatest things in mankind has ever happened - Jesus' death and ressurection. Still, those who crucified Jesus are held accountable for their actions next to God. I do not think that God would say, "Well what you did was bad, but I predestined it to happen, so its not your fault." They crucified Jesus by choice, but it was still God's sovereign plan.
Perhaps even salvation is the same general way. Ultimately, salvation is more than just a general "choice." It is not as if someone just says, "Well Heaven sounds better than Hell, so I think I'll be a Christian." Salvation is much more profound than that. Choices are made on general or strict probability. Salvation is an assurance of faith. But even by the same token, because God can do anything, He may allow us a certain amount of special choice in the matter as well. Assuming salvation merely as a typical choice is wrong, but it is sadly a part of typical church doctrine today.
How often do you hear of so many people just getting saved suddenly? It is as if the church's goal is to go to the lost, and then convert them in one night. All the glory to God if this happens, but often salvation does not work this way. One friend of mine put this as if someone said that they were in love with their wife from the moment they saw her. It is not that simple, and for most people salvation is not either. Along the way in a relationship, there are instances in which two people feel real love in an emotional experience, but it is not as if each one of those instances stands alone in their love. Their love is a long road over much time. I remember as a kid being told to "ask Jesus into my heart." It is true that He must come into your heart and save you, but by this watered-down approach, I had several "conversions experiences" because I was always worried I had not sincerely meant the last ones. Finally I realized I must stop saying the simple prayer and just live a Christian life.
C.S. Lewis (perhaps I am wrong on who this person is, but I believe it is Lewis - correct me if you know I'm wrong) once spoke of his salvation in a way unusual to today's theology. He said he got on a train, and sometime by the time he got off the train, he was a Christian. But he could not point to exactly where at on that train. But nonetheless, there was a mysterious time in there in which his whole worldview just radically changed.
So with this said, I believe our salvation is something that is in God's complete control. However He may in His infinite grace and power give us the choice of accepting Him and give us some choice of perserverence. Today Christians see perseverence as God's predestined gift one's we accept Jesus on our own. Yet it is our choice in many of our trials. But I take a somewhat different approach. God's gift of salvation may be given to us by our choice in some mysterious way, but there is also the sense in which God's grace is irresistable and only given by God. Our perseverence certainly includes God's gifts to us in our trials, and Him not pushing us past what we can stand, but there is never a time in which we can just "relax" and not care. Yet even yet we can have full assurance. It really is a mystery, but certainly a mystery of grace. This is really why I called this "Freedestination." It is both free (at least to a point), and destine by God. Again, it is a mystery.
I have said enough for now, as I feel I am hinting on the next three blogs. But one more point, kind of to the side: I believe that this mystery gives more evidence for God than it does against it. It is self-evident that we have a conscience, and some sort of choice in our salvation, whether the acceptance or the perserverence (with God's grace abounding all the way, of course). But with no God, where is our conscience? After all, aren't we (to still Dr. George Grant's words) "predestined to evolve" with no God? Are we not chemical reactions in a universe that is fit to whatever it forces itself to do, wherein no conscience really exists? Are we not bound to the chemicals in our brains, the taste buds in our toungs, and the movements in nature, which is not bound to the science? What would science be bound to anyway, if anything? In a Christian worldview, all things are bound on God. But because God can do anything, perhaps even His creation can have a certain choice in their life and perhaps even eternity. God created us with conscience to give Him full glory and honor and praise and adoration. May that be what we do.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless His Church
God bless you
Februrary 7, 2008
Ryan Hampton
I will begin by speaking of how God's Sovereignty fits in with man's will, or perhaps better put, how man's will fits in under God's Sovereingty. I will begin by stating that I am a Presbyterian, and yes, we are considered Calvinists. But I do not want a misunderstanding here. Although I have full belief in God's Sovereignty, I do believe in some sort of human choice and responsibility, and I do believe that the two can go together.
I believe that all of history is God's eternal plan, but I believe within this plan there are men who do great things by a certain amount of their choice (of course with God's grace in them), and men who do bad things on their own choice. But yet all of this is in God's plan, even though God may reward the good men as if they did something good, and punish the bad men as if they did evil.
Exactly how it works may be a mystery. I know that some non-Calvinist Christians it hits a brick wall. But nonetheless I use the term here. I believe calling it an excuse is much like considering it an excuse to call the incarnation of Jesus, how He was both God and man, a mystery. It is not as if calling it a mystery is an excuse for Christianity when it hits a brick wall, because God can do anything!
But I do not think that we should just stop with the term "mystery." There are often examples in which we see a mystery, but also firmly believe each side of the mystery. I like using Jesus' death as an illustration for how God's Sovereign plan and man's free choice/will/agency (or whatever else you may call it) go together.
It could be argued that for all time God has planned and perhaps predestined for Jesus to come and save sinners. Certainly He knew throughout all time that there should be a time in which Jesus would do this. He knew the time it would happen, and He specifically planned it to happen. Certainly since the Fall of man was it in His eternal plan (although it could be argued that the Fall was in His plan, therefore Jesus' death and ressurection was in His plan even before the Fall). Nonetheless, it was in God's plan for Jesus to come and save sinners even by His death.
But at the same time, the people who nailed Jesus to the cross were still guilty. Do you see the irony? God's plan involved evil people doing evil things, but through which one of the greatest things in mankind has ever happened - Jesus' death and ressurection. Still, those who crucified Jesus are held accountable for their actions next to God. I do not think that God would say, "Well what you did was bad, but I predestined it to happen, so its not your fault." They crucified Jesus by choice, but it was still God's sovereign plan.
Perhaps even salvation is the same general way. Ultimately, salvation is more than just a general "choice." It is not as if someone just says, "Well Heaven sounds better than Hell, so I think I'll be a Christian." Salvation is much more profound than that. Choices are made on general or strict probability. Salvation is an assurance of faith. But even by the same token, because God can do anything, He may allow us a certain amount of special choice in the matter as well. Assuming salvation merely as a typical choice is wrong, but it is sadly a part of typical church doctrine today.
How often do you hear of so many people just getting saved suddenly? It is as if the church's goal is to go to the lost, and then convert them in one night. All the glory to God if this happens, but often salvation does not work this way. One friend of mine put this as if someone said that they were in love with their wife from the moment they saw her. It is not that simple, and for most people salvation is not either. Along the way in a relationship, there are instances in which two people feel real love in an emotional experience, but it is not as if each one of those instances stands alone in their love. Their love is a long road over much time. I remember as a kid being told to "ask Jesus into my heart." It is true that He must come into your heart and save you, but by this watered-down approach, I had several "conversions experiences" because I was always worried I had not sincerely meant the last ones. Finally I realized I must stop saying the simple prayer and just live a Christian life.
C.S. Lewis (perhaps I am wrong on who this person is, but I believe it is Lewis - correct me if you know I'm wrong) once spoke of his salvation in a way unusual to today's theology. He said he got on a train, and sometime by the time he got off the train, he was a Christian. But he could not point to exactly where at on that train. But nonetheless, there was a mysterious time in there in which his whole worldview just radically changed.
So with this said, I believe our salvation is something that is in God's complete control. However He may in His infinite grace and power give us the choice of accepting Him and give us some choice of perserverence. Today Christians see perseverence as God's predestined gift one's we accept Jesus on our own. Yet it is our choice in many of our trials. But I take a somewhat different approach. God's gift of salvation may be given to us by our choice in some mysterious way, but there is also the sense in which God's grace is irresistable and only given by God. Our perseverence certainly includes God's gifts to us in our trials, and Him not pushing us past what we can stand, but there is never a time in which we can just "relax" and not care. Yet even yet we can have full assurance. It really is a mystery, but certainly a mystery of grace. This is really why I called this "Freedestination." It is both free (at least to a point), and destine by God. Again, it is a mystery.
I have said enough for now, as I feel I am hinting on the next three blogs. But one more point, kind of to the side: I believe that this mystery gives more evidence for God than it does against it. It is self-evident that we have a conscience, and some sort of choice in our salvation, whether the acceptance or the perserverence (with God's grace abounding all the way, of course). But with no God, where is our conscience? After all, aren't we (to still Dr. George Grant's words) "predestined to evolve" with no God? Are we not chemical reactions in a universe that is fit to whatever it forces itself to do, wherein no conscience really exists? Are we not bound to the chemicals in our brains, the taste buds in our toungs, and the movements in nature, which is not bound to the science? What would science be bound to anyway, if anything? In a Christian worldview, all things are bound on God. But because God can do anything, perhaps even His creation can have a certain choice in their life and perhaps even eternity. God created us with conscience to give Him full glory and honor and praise and adoration. May that be what we do.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless His Church
God bless you
Februrary 7, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Friday, February 1, 2008
Final Thoughts Before the Primaries
I figured before I get back into my "lessons" series, I would give a final blog about the upcoming Presidential Primary elections here in Alabama. I want to make this a quick (hopefully!) defense for my support of Congressman Ron Paul, Texas. I understand that he has little chance of winning, and many consider his views too radical, but I do believe he would be the best man for the job.
For one, Congressman Paul is the most convicted man running I do believe. He has convictions that do not depend on the latest surveys or polls. Congressman Paul is a Christian, and incorporates this worldview into his political ideology. Even if you may have disagreements with some of his applications, it is fairly obvious that he is at least convicted in his thoughts, and has come to what he sees as the best conclusion.
In saying this, he has the most consistent record of anyone running, and in Congress is known as "Dr. No." If the proposed bill is unconstitutional, then you can almost bank all of your money that Congressman Paul will vote against it, if he does indeed vote on the matter. And I believe with little question that one of the key missing elements in today's political society is the Supremecy view of the Constitution, and the main reason we have a Constitution. The Constitution was formed to limit the role of the Central government, not the people of the nation.
But even in saying this, I agree with most of what Dr. Paul has to say about the applications of this philosophy. We have a big monstrous government that spends way too much. Not many politicians would speak against our dangerous system of fiat money as I believe it is, but Dr. Paul does. Not many politicians want to get the Central Government out of education (something that is unconstitutional) while I do, but Dr. Paul does. This list that seems all too "radical" can go on longer, but these are the more obvious issues that come to my mind.
On the more dominant issues we see, Dr. Paul is pro-life, and for tougher border security, wanting no amnesty for those who come here illegally. After all, should they come here and not pay the taxes legal citizens pay, only to take part in our government programs (which are unconstitutional often times anyway)? Dr. Paul also wants to abolish the Federal Income Tax (which was also originally unconstitutional). We are all over taxed, and perhaps Dr. Paul stresses that the most. Consider how much more the government takes from you against your will, compared to the ten percent you should freely tithe at church.
I write this, and have written little on the issue of foreign policy, which is perhaps the biggest issue that drive Congressman Paul apart from the conservatives. I wrote of this in the last blog, and briefly defended Paul. I do not deny the possibility that Dr. Paul is perhaps a bit naive, but at least he knows where he stands and why he stands there. Congressman Paul has been the most consistent in foreign policy, showing me that he is not just making this a political issues as many Democrats and Republicans do. Even if you disagree with his foreign policy, I would rather disagree with a principled man, than agree with a man (or woman) of no principles, who will probably change their mind when the time shows them benefits of doing so. I would rather be in no war than a war for merely political reasons.
And the issue of foreign policy is really very complicated anyway. While I do agree that we should go after our enemy (as Dr. Paul agrees with as well), we should be careful. And one thing I wonder: If there are terrorists who camp out in Iraq, then perhaps they are there because we are there. If they want to kill us, wouldn't they go where we go? And if getting out of Iraq means they would follow us here, then does it follow that going to Iraq or staying in Iraq means that they would follow us to or stay in Iraq? Maybe this logic can be explained away, but I do think they are at least a decent question to be asked.
I should probably mention the others who are running for President as well. I appreciate Mike Huckabee's Christian values, but he wants a big Central government (and he scares me be a slick Christian from Arkansas, as Clinton was). Giuliani is a bit liberal on social issues and does not have the best personal life either. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, has changed his political views over time, and does not have the best right now anyway. John McCain is just John McCain, and has been moderate-at-best on many issues. When it is said and done, Congressman Paul is the most principled man, the best Constitutionalist, and closest to my specific points of view.
So when it is said and done, I give support for Congressman Paul for these reasons: I believe he is the most principled man running for President; I believe that he will better secure the borders; I believe he will lower taxes accross the board; I believe his foreign policy, whether you agree with it or disagree with it, will be acted upon in principles, not for political purposes; he is pro-life and has spoken in favor of over-turning Roe vs. Wade; and finally, because he is the best Constitutionalist running for President, a principle much forgotten about today.
And one last quote about war that I just found yesterday...Warriors fight, not because they hate those in front of them, but because they love those who are behind them. -G.K. Chesterton
And one more...Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busy-bodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes
sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis
And to close it up, here is a link to Dr. Ron Paul's statement of faith:
http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm
For one, Congressman Paul is the most convicted man running I do believe. He has convictions that do not depend on the latest surveys or polls. Congressman Paul is a Christian, and incorporates this worldview into his political ideology. Even if you may have disagreements with some of his applications, it is fairly obvious that he is at least convicted in his thoughts, and has come to what he sees as the best conclusion.
In saying this, he has the most consistent record of anyone running, and in Congress is known as "Dr. No." If the proposed bill is unconstitutional, then you can almost bank all of your money that Congressman Paul will vote against it, if he does indeed vote on the matter. And I believe with little question that one of the key missing elements in today's political society is the Supremecy view of the Constitution, and the main reason we have a Constitution. The Constitution was formed to limit the role of the Central government, not the people of the nation.
But even in saying this, I agree with most of what Dr. Paul has to say about the applications of this philosophy. We have a big monstrous government that spends way too much. Not many politicians would speak against our dangerous system of fiat money as I believe it is, but Dr. Paul does. Not many politicians want to get the Central Government out of education (something that is unconstitutional) while I do, but Dr. Paul does. This list that seems all too "radical" can go on longer, but these are the more obvious issues that come to my mind.
On the more dominant issues we see, Dr. Paul is pro-life, and for tougher border security, wanting no amnesty for those who come here illegally. After all, should they come here and not pay the taxes legal citizens pay, only to take part in our government programs (which are unconstitutional often times anyway)? Dr. Paul also wants to abolish the Federal Income Tax (which was also originally unconstitutional). We are all over taxed, and perhaps Dr. Paul stresses that the most. Consider how much more the government takes from you against your will, compared to the ten percent you should freely tithe at church.
I write this, and have written little on the issue of foreign policy, which is perhaps the biggest issue that drive Congressman Paul apart from the conservatives. I wrote of this in the last blog, and briefly defended Paul. I do not deny the possibility that Dr. Paul is perhaps a bit naive, but at least he knows where he stands and why he stands there. Congressman Paul has been the most consistent in foreign policy, showing me that he is not just making this a political issues as many Democrats and Republicans do. Even if you disagree with his foreign policy, I would rather disagree with a principled man, than agree with a man (or woman) of no principles, who will probably change their mind when the time shows them benefits of doing so. I would rather be in no war than a war for merely political reasons.
And the issue of foreign policy is really very complicated anyway. While I do agree that we should go after our enemy (as Dr. Paul agrees with as well), we should be careful. And one thing I wonder: If there are terrorists who camp out in Iraq, then perhaps they are there because we are there. If they want to kill us, wouldn't they go where we go? And if getting out of Iraq means they would follow us here, then does it follow that going to Iraq or staying in Iraq means that they would follow us to or stay in Iraq? Maybe this logic can be explained away, but I do think they are at least a decent question to be asked.
I should probably mention the others who are running for President as well. I appreciate Mike Huckabee's Christian values, but he wants a big Central government (and he scares me be a slick Christian from Arkansas, as Clinton was). Giuliani is a bit liberal on social issues and does not have the best personal life either. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, has changed his political views over time, and does not have the best right now anyway. John McCain is just John McCain, and has been moderate-at-best on many issues. When it is said and done, Congressman Paul is the most principled man, the best Constitutionalist, and closest to my specific points of view.
So when it is said and done, I give support for Congressman Paul for these reasons: I believe he is the most principled man running for President; I believe that he will better secure the borders; I believe he will lower taxes accross the board; I believe his foreign policy, whether you agree with it or disagree with it, will be acted upon in principles, not for political purposes; he is pro-life and has spoken in favor of over-turning Roe vs. Wade; and finally, because he is the best Constitutionalist running for President, a principle much forgotten about today.
And one last quote about war that I just found yesterday...Warriors fight, not because they hate those in front of them, but because they love those who are behind them. -G.K. Chesterton
And one more...Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busy-bodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes
sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis
And to close it up, here is a link to Dr. Ron Paul's statement of faith:
http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
