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
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
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
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Foreign Policy
One of the most heated topics of debate in this year's Presidential Election is that of what our foreign policy should be. Should we have a humble foreign policy? Should we try to spread the American way of life? Do the two go together? How does our overall foreign policy philosophy fit into our foreign affairs of today?
Saying that I have mixed feelings toward these questions, particularly the last question, would be an understatement. To my admission, one reason I would consider it an understatement is because of ignorance. I do not know the entire situation of every country in the world, not that I really know a good chunk of it either. I can have an overall foreign policy philosophy, but determining how it plays into our position in the world today is really a tricky question.
As far as our place in Iraq, and whether we should have gone, should get out, and the like, I will pose the four basic viewpoints:
It was a mistake to go, but because we went, we should finish the job (stay in).
We needed to go, but we caught Saddam, so it's time to get out.
We needed to go, and we should finish the job (stay in).
It was a mistake to go, so it is a mistake to stay. Get out!
When I try to find some opinion on the matter, I really cannot make up my mind between those. On one hand, I want to finish the job, whether we should have gone or not. But on one hand I am ready to get out, because we are losing lives and seeing little progress of late. On one hand I tend to think that withdrawing would allow the terrorists a place to camp out, and they would soon follow us back here. On the other hand it seems that if the terrorists would follow us here if we left Iraq, then going to Iraq only means that they followed us to Iraq in the first place. If we go home and secure our borders, then we would be much safer.
I do want to make this point though: we have strayed from the foreign policy of our founding fathers, which I tend to think is the best foreign policy we can have. Our founders, particularly Washington, supported a humble foreign policy. History has dictated to us that things do not get better when we delve into the affairs of other nations. Not just this administration, but many administrations before have fallen from the foreign policy of Washington. Washington in his Farewell Address listed out several points that are often ignored, forgotten, or even denied today. One of these is that of a humble foreign policy. We should not force our will upon other nations. This would be like one family telling another family how to run a family life. Besides, we have our own problems to work out here at home.
But there are times for war, and that should not be ignored either. Our founders knew this. They just came from war, and they designated Congress the power of declaring war. But we should remember certain things about war, and what must happen to be in war. We must have
A just cause
A probable chance of winning, and
A proper declaration of some sort. Furthermore, it must be
A last resort.
We have fallen astray from these principles. And it is not just the Republicans. The Democrats have fallen astray, and perhaps to make the matter worse, they have turned the war into a political issue. When blood is on the line, the issue is no longer merely political. It is moral, sacred, all out hell.
But I do not believe that anyone against the war should be declared guilty of treason. A point can be made both for staying in Iraq, and for getting out. Ultimately, the question is about how we apply foreign policy philosophy to a world that has abandoned the philosophy. Should we have a mass pull out? Should we finish the course we are on, and then seek correction? Should we slowly but surely pull out? Answering these questions are hard and complicated, and I suppose that not many people really can answer the question with great evidence for their case.
Before leaving, I would like to make a few more points. I do believe that the acts of 9/11 were acts of war. We needed to go fight the war and win. Catch those behind attacks, and better secure the borders so no more terrorists gets in. They gave us hell and it was time to give them hell. However this does not mean we attack the entire Middle East. Many conservatives even then wanted a humble foreign policy, but they have been slowly changing since.
I would also rather be in no war than to be in a political war, and I see some Republicans making the war a political issue. If we are in the war, then we should fight it, win it, and not fiddle around with it.
Also, we should be making a move to return to the sound foreign policy of our founders. Be humble and friendly with other nations. Declare war when you should go to war. Win the war (or at least give a darn good effort). But do not "experiment" with other nations in war.
And certainly we should support our Troops, whether we agree with the war or not. Pray for those who risk their lives doing what their nation asks of them to do.
And the person I support for President is against the war. His name is Ron Paul, and he is a Republican Congressman from Texas. I would rather have someone who is against the war because of moral convictions and a strict interpretation of the Constitution, than I would have someone who is for the war for political reasons. Ron Paul is the best Constitutionalist running for President (at least of the major candidates), and can actually defend himself when questioned about his foreign policy. I would not deny the possibility that he may be a bit naive toward foreign policy, but I do agree with his long-term plan, and would put more confidence in someone like him than I would in those who make the war a political issue.
UPCOMING BLOGS: I will write a follow up on this declaring why I support Congressman Ron Paul. I call this a follow up, because it takes a whole separate blog to defend my support for an anti-war candidate to my fellow conservative friends. I then plan to write a four part series on building Christian theology. This will cover the ideas of predestination/free will, sacraments, salvation, and worship. I plan for each to build on each other.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
January 27, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Saying that I have mixed feelings toward these questions, particularly the last question, would be an understatement. To my admission, one reason I would consider it an understatement is because of ignorance. I do not know the entire situation of every country in the world, not that I really know a good chunk of it either. I can have an overall foreign policy philosophy, but determining how it plays into our position in the world today is really a tricky question.
As far as our place in Iraq, and whether we should have gone, should get out, and the like, I will pose the four basic viewpoints:
It was a mistake to go, but because we went, we should finish the job (stay in).
We needed to go, but we caught Saddam, so it's time to get out.
We needed to go, and we should finish the job (stay in).
It was a mistake to go, so it is a mistake to stay. Get out!
When I try to find some opinion on the matter, I really cannot make up my mind between those. On one hand, I want to finish the job, whether we should have gone or not. But on one hand I am ready to get out, because we are losing lives and seeing little progress of late. On one hand I tend to think that withdrawing would allow the terrorists a place to camp out, and they would soon follow us back here. On the other hand it seems that if the terrorists would follow us here if we left Iraq, then going to Iraq only means that they followed us to Iraq in the first place. If we go home and secure our borders, then we would be much safer.
I do want to make this point though: we have strayed from the foreign policy of our founding fathers, which I tend to think is the best foreign policy we can have. Our founders, particularly Washington, supported a humble foreign policy. History has dictated to us that things do not get better when we delve into the affairs of other nations. Not just this administration, but many administrations before have fallen from the foreign policy of Washington. Washington in his Farewell Address listed out several points that are often ignored, forgotten, or even denied today. One of these is that of a humble foreign policy. We should not force our will upon other nations. This would be like one family telling another family how to run a family life. Besides, we have our own problems to work out here at home.
But there are times for war, and that should not be ignored either. Our founders knew this. They just came from war, and they designated Congress the power of declaring war. But we should remember certain things about war, and what must happen to be in war. We must have
A just cause
A probable chance of winning, and
A proper declaration of some sort. Furthermore, it must be
A last resort.
We have fallen astray from these principles. And it is not just the Republicans. The Democrats have fallen astray, and perhaps to make the matter worse, they have turned the war into a political issue. When blood is on the line, the issue is no longer merely political. It is moral, sacred, all out hell.
But I do not believe that anyone against the war should be declared guilty of treason. A point can be made both for staying in Iraq, and for getting out. Ultimately, the question is about how we apply foreign policy philosophy to a world that has abandoned the philosophy. Should we have a mass pull out? Should we finish the course we are on, and then seek correction? Should we slowly but surely pull out? Answering these questions are hard and complicated, and I suppose that not many people really can answer the question with great evidence for their case.
Before leaving, I would like to make a few more points. I do believe that the acts of 9/11 were acts of war. We needed to go fight the war and win. Catch those behind attacks, and better secure the borders so no more terrorists gets in. They gave us hell and it was time to give them hell. However this does not mean we attack the entire Middle East. Many conservatives even then wanted a humble foreign policy, but they have been slowly changing since.
I would also rather be in no war than to be in a political war, and I see some Republicans making the war a political issue. If we are in the war, then we should fight it, win it, and not fiddle around with it.
Also, we should be making a move to return to the sound foreign policy of our founders. Be humble and friendly with other nations. Declare war when you should go to war. Win the war (or at least give a darn good effort). But do not "experiment" with other nations in war.
And certainly we should support our Troops, whether we agree with the war or not. Pray for those who risk their lives doing what their nation asks of them to do.
And the person I support for President is against the war. His name is Ron Paul, and he is a Republican Congressman from Texas. I would rather have someone who is against the war because of moral convictions and a strict interpretation of the Constitution, than I would have someone who is for the war for political reasons. Ron Paul is the best Constitutionalist running for President (at least of the major candidates), and can actually defend himself when questioned about his foreign policy. I would not deny the possibility that he may be a bit naive toward foreign policy, but I do agree with his long-term plan, and would put more confidence in someone like him than I would in those who make the war a political issue.
UPCOMING BLOGS: I will write a follow up on this declaring why I support Congressman Ron Paul. I call this a follow up, because it takes a whole separate blog to defend my support for an anti-war candidate to my fellow conservative friends. I then plan to write a four part series on building Christian theology. This will cover the ideas of predestination/free will, sacraments, salvation, and worship. I plan for each to build on each other.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
January 27, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Monday, January 21, 2008
Bronner Burgess
Maybe it seems a bit cliche` to publically mourn the death of someone famous, or would at any rate make the news, but I still can not help but to write a blog mourning for the Burgess family, and offering out my thoughts and prayers to the family, in light of the Saturday evening drowing of two-year-old Bronner Burgess.
In case you do not know, Rick Burgess is a popular co-host of the radio program Rick and Bubba, which airs on many different radio stations throughout different parts of the country. Rick has spent much time going out of his way to present and defend his Christian faith over the airwaves. He has also spent much time with Bill "Bubba" Bussy talking about his hectic family life. Now his two-year-old son, nicknamed "Cornbread," has died from an accidental drowing. Rick was speaking in Tennessee at the time, away from his Birmingham, Alabama home.
We should be sad hearing of any death, whether it pertains to someone famous or not. But given that Rick has been a proclaimed Christian, this really can affect the way many view Christianity. If Rick gets through this situation with even a stronger faith, then perhaps the world will see it and believe the Gospel. If he doubts the validity of his faith and doubts the power and will of God, then perhaps many people will simply see Christianity as a feel-good myth.
So we should keep the camily in our prayers. For Rick and his wife that no blame will be placed on each other from each other. For the entire immediate and extended family, that they will cope well with this tragic loss. And also for Rick especially, that he will continue to share his faith over the air, and perhaps even with greater strength.
In all ways, may God have all Glory, even when we do not understand why.
What do you think?
God bless America
Support our Troops
January 21, 2008
Ryan Hampton
In case you do not know, Rick Burgess is a popular co-host of the radio program Rick and Bubba, which airs on many different radio stations throughout different parts of the country. Rick has spent much time going out of his way to present and defend his Christian faith over the airwaves. He has also spent much time with Bill "Bubba" Bussy talking about his hectic family life. Now his two-year-old son, nicknamed "Cornbread," has died from an accidental drowing. Rick was speaking in Tennessee at the time, away from his Birmingham, Alabama home.
We should be sad hearing of any death, whether it pertains to someone famous or not. But given that Rick has been a proclaimed Christian, this really can affect the way many view Christianity. If Rick gets through this situation with even a stronger faith, then perhaps the world will see it and believe the Gospel. If he doubts the validity of his faith and doubts the power and will of God, then perhaps many people will simply see Christianity as a feel-good myth.
So we should keep the camily in our prayers. For Rick and his wife that no blame will be placed on each other from each other. For the entire immediate and extended family, that they will cope well with this tragic loss. And also for Rick especially, that he will continue to share his faith over the air, and perhaps even with greater strength.
In all ways, may God have all Glory, even when we do not understand why.
What do you think?
God bless America
Support our Troops
January 21, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Friday, January 18, 2008
Look What Just Hit Me!
Now that post-highschool life is approaching for me, I have spent the past year or so trying to decide what I will do, where I will go to college (or if I'll go to college), and the other questions that inevitabely arise. I have spent time sending in my application to Samford University, as well as applying for scholarships, etc.
And although I am looking foward to this side of life, it comes with much fear. Not so much the fear that I feel uncomfortable with what is to come, but moreover the fear of losing that to which I have become accustomed to.
So with this comes a couple of emotions into play. For one, I desire the good of humanity, and the family and friends around me. For two, I do want to live life to the fullest - not in a bad sort of way that justifies evil in the name of "personal freedom," but live it to the fullest in a God-fearing way. I try telling younger people not to underestimate these times in their life, and their happiness is at the chief of my concerns.
I realize that there are people not much at all older than me who are in the Middle East fighting in war. I have just recently registered to vote, and it seems odd that now I have a vote in determing who would be the President, among other things, of this nation. I am doing this all while I am stuck to the older days of my life, albeit elementary school or middle school. My how the times change, and my how they probably will in just a few (or so) months from now.
So I write this for a few basic reasons. I want to relate to those who feel the same way, and encourage them not to underestimate these times. I also encourage all of you to remember the memories that God has given you, and appreciate the future memories that are the realities of today. I encourage you all to have a firm foundation in what you believe. Remembering who you are - your core identity - is the chief foundation to knowing where you are going. For a Christian, it is to remember your Christian worldview and foundation.
People say I'm turning into an old man, and maybe to a degree I am. But old men are often the one's who act the most like children. So that's what I'll do while I can, but all the while be prepared for when reality comes. All of these emotions are really starting to hit me (now that I'm in the final semester of high school). But I would rather this than rather the realities of these emotions and inevitable facts to hit me in life. That is much more dangerous.
What do you think?
God bless America
Support our Troops
January 18, 2008
Ryan Hampton
And although I am looking foward to this side of life, it comes with much fear. Not so much the fear that I feel uncomfortable with what is to come, but moreover the fear of losing that to which I have become accustomed to.
So with this comes a couple of emotions into play. For one, I desire the good of humanity, and the family and friends around me. For two, I do want to live life to the fullest - not in a bad sort of way that justifies evil in the name of "personal freedom," but live it to the fullest in a God-fearing way. I try telling younger people not to underestimate these times in their life, and their happiness is at the chief of my concerns.
I realize that there are people not much at all older than me who are in the Middle East fighting in war. I have just recently registered to vote, and it seems odd that now I have a vote in determing who would be the President, among other things, of this nation. I am doing this all while I am stuck to the older days of my life, albeit elementary school or middle school. My how the times change, and my how they probably will in just a few (or so) months from now.
So I write this for a few basic reasons. I want to relate to those who feel the same way, and encourage them not to underestimate these times. I also encourage all of you to remember the memories that God has given you, and appreciate the future memories that are the realities of today. I encourage you all to have a firm foundation in what you believe. Remembering who you are - your core identity - is the chief foundation to knowing where you are going. For a Christian, it is to remember your Christian worldview and foundation.
People say I'm turning into an old man, and maybe to a degree I am. But old men are often the one's who act the most like children. So that's what I'll do while I can, but all the while be prepared for when reality comes. All of these emotions are really starting to hit me (now that I'm in the final semester of high school). But I would rather this than rather the realities of these emotions and inevitable facts to hit me in life. That is much more dangerous.
What do you think?
God bless America
Support our Troops
January 18, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The Origin of Economics
The following is an excerpt from a greater piece I am working on. This deals with looking at economics philisophically, and with a Christian worldview. May you enjoy.
The Origin of Economics
We have talked greatly about what economics is in relativity to the world today, but we have not really failed to grasp where the origin of economics comes from. To follow the logical coherence, we force ourselves to ask where the origin of life as we know it comes from, or the origin of the basic principles of human action, inaction, and relationships comes from, given that this is essentially what economics is the study of.
I remember once my younger sister asking the question to my Father, "Why do we have money?" She argued, "Why can't we have stores where people just go get what they want?" My Father answered her asking back, "How much is too much for the people? What if I get something I do not earn?" She answered back, "I guess that the they can make you get only a certain amount." When my Father asked her who "they" would be, my sister said, "I guess the government."
Although the economics my sister brought forth and proposed to my Father were full of fallacies, and was essentially communism, I do not wish for this little section to merely criticize her. She was young, and at least she was thinking about economics. Furthermore, her basic question really spawns us into the entire origin of economics altogether. The basic principles my Father argued against her answered her question, and the question of the origin of modern-day economics altogether (economics as the course of human nature, not the modern economic thought).
A (The Fall of Man)
The origin of modern-day economics, at least according to a Christian perspective, comes in the Garden of Eden. This is where the origin of human relations and actions and inaction as we know it began. But it did not begin at creation. After creation, there was another level that came to humanity, that changed our economic laws altogether. This was the Fall of man. The Fall in a way was almost an altering of the Natural Law that existed. Due to the Fall of man, our principles on government, justice, and economics have changed.
It is interesting that Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the forbidden Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, in order to become "like God." They ate the fruit to increase dominion and liberty. Even though there was an abundance of fruit, animals, and many other blessings of the world as they knew it, they wanted to increase their liberty the little more that they could. As a result, they fell into a world of pain and sorrow. The world essentially went from ever living to ever dying. Only by super human action to remodel creation could the world return to the stages of that it was in before the Fall. Even though man was in the world to remodel creation before the Fall as well, there was now much more work needed to be done. The world, in a way, needed resurrecting.
Because the world was ever dying, we entered a world of scarcity. That which Adam and Eve had was now scarce. Furthermore, it would be by the "sweat of [their] brow" that they would enjoy the fruits of the trees and all the other blessings. Now they must not only work, but they must work at the expense of giving up that which they want so that the world would be a better place, and they would be better people.
B (Our Economic Purpose)
All of this is consistent with the New Testament teachings of Paul and Jesus. Our liberty comes from our bondage to God. I have quoted 2 Corinthians 3:17 much before, stating, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Furthermore, the act of giving up something for something greater in return in also Scriptural. Christians are supposed to give their all for the sake of God's Kingdom, to enjoy in His righteousness and glory.
By this same token, the only way to decrease the scarcity of that which is on earth is to give up a portion of that which we have, in order to get it all back and more. Without sin, our economics would be different. The sinless descendents of Adam and Eve would not take the property of others. It would be immoral, and man would not be immoral creatures. But also, there would be abundance in the world, so why should we steal property in the first place? We would claim what we have, and give up much less for our rewards. Having real "money," though perhaps not being non-existent, would have less reasons for its existence.
In the grand scheme of things, we are equal partakers of the world with certain unalienable Rights (Natural Rights). This is something that did carry through over the Fall. Among these Rights is the Right to property. My sister was actually (even in her very flawed economics) getting to a good point. We are equal partakers of this world. Therefore, that which we earned, we went and got ourselves. But we did not go get it from a store. We got it from the world and claimed it.
But if it is claimed by someone else already, it is not ours. Not unless we trade. This is why we have money. We work hard for something, only to give it up to another person. But we do this to have something even better for us. We do this privately, helping ourselves, with only us as the attention. But in the grand scheme of things, we each help society in this. Ultimately, Christian economics is really the study of reclaiming what we had before the Fall of man. It is restoring the Christian way. Through this, we give up what we want, in order to have something even better. This is both personal and public.
C (The Purpose of Government)
Along with the Fall of man, we required a necessity for government. Now, government exists to protect our natural Rights, including the Right to property. This is why we punish those guilty of theft. The government, at some level, has the Right to stop of us from totally destroying the planet and defeating the purpose of restoring that which we had before the Fall. Government is force, and even my sister realized this in saying that the government would tell us when too much stuff from the store was "too much" (even though this is an unnecessary use of force, so that part of her logic is flawed). But far too often today, the government in the politically correct name of "environmentalism" defeats the purpose. They fail to understand that in order to have that which we want, we must give up that we have - even if it is scarce. Cutting down trees gives us a use for our natural recourses. Through this use, we may perhaps find something that accomplishes the same goals as cutting down trees, but does it more efficiently and economically. This enables us to restore ourselves to that day in which our economics is full of abundance and pleasure.
Fortunately, we see some of the blessings of good economic policy today (even with a big government). This is called technology. We are constantly coming up with new ways and better ways to do things, making the world less and less scarce. These things are essentially a great aspect of the American Dream, and are done mostly without government.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
January 13, 2008
Ryan Hampton
The Origin of Economics
We have talked greatly about what economics is in relativity to the world today, but we have not really failed to grasp where the origin of economics comes from. To follow the logical coherence, we force ourselves to ask where the origin of life as we know it comes from, or the origin of the basic principles of human action, inaction, and relationships comes from, given that this is essentially what economics is the study of.
I remember once my younger sister asking the question to my Father, "Why do we have money?" She argued, "Why can't we have stores where people just go get what they want?" My Father answered her asking back, "How much is too much for the people? What if I get something I do not earn?" She answered back, "I guess that the they can make you get only a certain amount." When my Father asked her who "they" would be, my sister said, "I guess the government."
Although the economics my sister brought forth and proposed to my Father were full of fallacies, and was essentially communism, I do not wish for this little section to merely criticize her. She was young, and at least she was thinking about economics. Furthermore, her basic question really spawns us into the entire origin of economics altogether. The basic principles my Father argued against her answered her question, and the question of the origin of modern-day economics altogether (economics as the course of human nature, not the modern economic thought).
A (The Fall of Man)
The origin of modern-day economics, at least according to a Christian perspective, comes in the Garden of Eden. This is where the origin of human relations and actions and inaction as we know it began. But it did not begin at creation. After creation, there was another level that came to humanity, that changed our economic laws altogether. This was the Fall of man. The Fall in a way was almost an altering of the Natural Law that existed. Due to the Fall of man, our principles on government, justice, and economics have changed.
It is interesting that Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the forbidden Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, in order to become "like God." They ate the fruit to increase dominion and liberty. Even though there was an abundance of fruit, animals, and many other blessings of the world as they knew it, they wanted to increase their liberty the little more that they could. As a result, they fell into a world of pain and sorrow. The world essentially went from ever living to ever dying. Only by super human action to remodel creation could the world return to the stages of that it was in before the Fall. Even though man was in the world to remodel creation before the Fall as well, there was now much more work needed to be done. The world, in a way, needed resurrecting.
Because the world was ever dying, we entered a world of scarcity. That which Adam and Eve had was now scarce. Furthermore, it would be by the "sweat of [their] brow" that they would enjoy the fruits of the trees and all the other blessings. Now they must not only work, but they must work at the expense of giving up that which they want so that the world would be a better place, and they would be better people.
B (Our Economic Purpose)
All of this is consistent with the New Testament teachings of Paul and Jesus. Our liberty comes from our bondage to God. I have quoted 2 Corinthians 3:17 much before, stating, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Furthermore, the act of giving up something for something greater in return in also Scriptural. Christians are supposed to give their all for the sake of God's Kingdom, to enjoy in His righteousness and glory.
By this same token, the only way to decrease the scarcity of that which is on earth is to give up a portion of that which we have, in order to get it all back and more. Without sin, our economics would be different. The sinless descendents of Adam and Eve would not take the property of others. It would be immoral, and man would not be immoral creatures. But also, there would be abundance in the world, so why should we steal property in the first place? We would claim what we have, and give up much less for our rewards. Having real "money," though perhaps not being non-existent, would have less reasons for its existence.
In the grand scheme of things, we are equal partakers of the world with certain unalienable Rights (Natural Rights). This is something that did carry through over the Fall. Among these Rights is the Right to property. My sister was actually (even in her very flawed economics) getting to a good point. We are equal partakers of this world. Therefore, that which we earned, we went and got ourselves. But we did not go get it from a store. We got it from the world and claimed it.
But if it is claimed by someone else already, it is not ours. Not unless we trade. This is why we have money. We work hard for something, only to give it up to another person. But we do this to have something even better for us. We do this privately, helping ourselves, with only us as the attention. But in the grand scheme of things, we each help society in this. Ultimately, Christian economics is really the study of reclaiming what we had before the Fall of man. It is restoring the Christian way. Through this, we give up what we want, in order to have something even better. This is both personal and public.
C (The Purpose of Government)
Along with the Fall of man, we required a necessity for government. Now, government exists to protect our natural Rights, including the Right to property. This is why we punish those guilty of theft. The government, at some level, has the Right to stop of us from totally destroying the planet and defeating the purpose of restoring that which we had before the Fall. Government is force, and even my sister realized this in saying that the government would tell us when too much stuff from the store was "too much" (even though this is an unnecessary use of force, so that part of her logic is flawed). But far too often today, the government in the politically correct name of "environmentalism" defeats the purpose. They fail to understand that in order to have that which we want, we must give up that we have - even if it is scarce. Cutting down trees gives us a use for our natural recourses. Through this use, we may perhaps find something that accomplishes the same goals as cutting down trees, but does it more efficiently and economically. This enables us to restore ourselves to that day in which our economics is full of abundance and pleasure.
Fortunately, we see some of the blessings of good economic policy today (even with a big government). This is called technology. We are constantly coming up with new ways and better ways to do things, making the world less and less scarce. These things are essentially a great aspect of the American Dream, and are done mostly without government.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
January 13, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Rethinking Ethics
The following is a piece on ethics, as apart of a greater piece I am working on:
ETHICS
Albeit abortion, homosexual marriage, drugs, prostitution, gun rights, etc., the government has failed in the proper handling of ethics. The notion of state's rights is obscured, and the basic means of government protecting our freedom is largely done away with.
i. Abortion
Roe vs. Wade was a Supreme Court decision in 1973 which ruled that abortion was a natural right for all women. No state could even take it away, except on a few precise measures that were spelled out by the Supreme Court. Many conservative pro-lifers consider this ruling as one in which the government fails to do what it should do, that it, the government is allowing for abortion, when it should be keeping abortions from being done. Although this is the case in many respects, we should also look at this in light of the greater cultural war that has been going on from quite some time. This cultural war, which brings forth much problem in the Central Government today, is the diminishing of state's rights, and the degrading view of the Constitution.
Let us go back to the way Jefferson viewed the Constitution. Jefferson wanted to build schools and roads, but did not see these things permitted in the Constitution. He therefore did not carry through these things. The Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion, leaving us to believe it is up to the states. If the Central Government did rule in the case of abortion, it should be done by an amendment. Furthermore, it would make since to make abortion illegal, if they did indeed rule in the case, given that it is the government's job to protect our liberties, which include life.
The question does become a question of "where does sacred life begin?" This question is scientific, religious, moral, and philosophical. Science can give us reason to believe in some sort of real human life, and when it begins. Consider this logical analysis:
Matter can not be created or destroyed.
I am matter.
I am human.
I have not always been human.
Therefore, there was a time in which my physical substance became human.
Science can answer this question, but only to a point. Science might could tell us that the right cells and DNA joined together in a place suitable for survival, making a real living being - in the case of human reproduction, a human. But as far as science is concerned, there is no real basis to defy human life as any more sacred than the life of a dog, for instance. This is where philosophy, religion, and morality come into play, all under the notion of natural law.
Some would argue that the government should not rule in deciding where sacred life begins. Supposedly, since this is a sacred question, in one respect, it would join government and religion together to have the government answer the question. But ultimately, government can not answer the question. Either life is sacred or it is not. The government is here to protect that which is sacred. If we reach a conclusion by science and natural law that sacred life begins in a human womb, then it should follow that abortion, at some level, should be illegal, so that the sanctity of human life may be preserved. Still, they do not answer the question - natural law does. Arguing that the government should not decide what life is sacred or not, is like arguing that the government should not decide if pigs could fly.
If it is concluded that abortion should be illegal, the next question is, "what level of government should make it illegal?" County government, state government, Central Government, the United Nations? The best possible solution would be that it come from the state government, as they have their own laws on murder, theft, etc. However if the Central Government did rule in the case, it should be done by a proper amendment to the Constitution to outlaw abortion. Now let us consider how Roe Vs. Wade was done. Did it pass the test?
The Central Government should be silent on the issue of abortion (Fail).
If the Central Government does rule in the case, it should make abortion illegal (Fail).
If the Central Government declares abortion a natural right, it should at least be done by a proper amendment to the Constitution (Fail).
The Supreme Court failed on all of these issues. This shows great ignorance for the Constitution and natural law on apart of the Judges in Roe Vs. Wade. This was a bad form of government.
ii. (Homosexual Marriage)
Homosexual marriage is a much heated topic in today's world, though there are little rulings to show for it. There is not infamous ruling on the issue as there is for abortion. Still the handling of the issue and the interpretation of the issue, shows great ignorance again for our Constitution and for natural law.
Fortunately, any ruling on the issue shows support for an amendment to the Constitution. The question becomes whether or not there should be that amendment. Like abortion, the Constitution is silent on the issue, leading us to believe it should be left up to the states.
Some would argue that ruling against homosexual marriages, basically outlawing them, would join the government more and more in with the church. But what we should really consider is if the government has a hand in marriage at all. Currently, the state issues marriage license for people getting married. If marriage is defined as a sacred covenental union between one man and one woman, then the government contradicts itself by issuing a legal documentation of marriage between two people of the same sex. However if the state was out of the issue entirely, not even to issue a marriage license, then two people of the same sex could live together, sleep together, and call it marriage, when in reality, it may not be marriage at all, given that it contradicts the definition of marriage. Marriage itself is sacred, and if two people have a partnership that defies the sacred definition of marriage, then it is no marriage at all.
With this said, Americans, including their politicians, seem to have a hard time understanding how government fits in to the issue of homosexual marriage, or if it even does at all. We forget that states have their rights to make the laws regarding these issues, and we forget the very nature of marriage itself. If two men want to sleep together, I would rather see the dollars I freely tithe go to help these men repent, than see my tax dollars go to having the FBI police their bedroom.
iii. The War on Drugs
The War on Drugs is another issue that is misunderstood. Many people see drugs as something that should be stopped, and they want it stopped by the Central Government. This can essentially invite the government into your home to see if you have drugs.
Do not misunderstand this to presume I make any point to morally justify drugs, or even to take away the right of a state to issue a war on drugs, although on state issues, it could even be argued that the state should be out of the drug issue.
Some illegal drugs can actually, in rare but existing circumstances, be used for beneficial medical purposes. But so long as these drugs are outlawed, law-abiding doctors and nurses will not obtain the beneficial illegal drug for the patient.
On the other hand, however, the drug-addicts will still go after drugs. They will get them from Mexico, from robbery, even from murder. A war on drugs actually increases crime. Prohibition led to more crime, so it can easily follow that prohibiting drugs, especially at the level of the Central Government, can lead to more crime. Results has shown that it has.
In saying this, an employer has every right to ask an employee or potential employee for a drug test, and deny them a job or fire them if they fail. If I was an owner of some sort of business, I would probably not want drug dealers working for me. But I would also not want the government telling me that they can't.
The drug war is like the gun war in many respects. Outlawing drugs reducing crime is about as likely (or unlikely) as outlawing guns would reduce crime. There will still be drugs out there, and the criminal will even go to the point of murder to get them.
It could be argued, and I would strongly support it, that there should be laws (at a local or state level), against the selling of drugs to minors. A six-year old may not really understand the effects of drugs, and anyone who causes this person to try the drug, except for medical purposes, shall be punished. At the same time, if drugs become rampant in one community, then it could be argued that drugs should become illegal at that local level. But they should never be outlawed on the level of the Central Government.
iv. Gun Control
Although there is no law against the possession of guns, the movement for it has become rampant. Gun control is perhaps one of the sillier of ideas. At least in Roe Vs. Wade the Judges claimed some honor for the Constitution, and even defended their ruling based on the Fourteenth Amendment (although it is a lame defense). The right to keep and bear arms is listed in (out of all places!) the Bill of Rights - even the Second Amendment. Out of all the things our Founding Fathers wanted to secure most, the right to keep and bear arms was listed just behind the freedom of the press, and denying a national religion or church. Owning guns not only protects the people against other citizens who take away life and property, but even against government that tries to take away their right to life and property, et al.
Beyond this, gun control laws do not help reduce crime. In fact, cities with the toughest gun control laws actually have higher crime. When people are free to own guns, criminals are scared. Many criminals actually say that they are scared of the people owning guns more than the government.
It could even be argued that no state shall pass a law against the owning of guns, and that the Central Government should secure this, given that it is deemed as a natural right. But at any rate, outlawing guns should certainly not come from the Central Government.
What do you think?
God Bless America
Pray for our Troops
God Bless You
January 10, 2008
Ryan Hampton
ETHICS
Albeit abortion, homosexual marriage, drugs, prostitution, gun rights, etc., the government has failed in the proper handling of ethics. The notion of state's rights is obscured, and the basic means of government protecting our freedom is largely done away with.
i. Abortion
Roe vs. Wade was a Supreme Court decision in 1973 which ruled that abortion was a natural right for all women. No state could even take it away, except on a few precise measures that were spelled out by the Supreme Court. Many conservative pro-lifers consider this ruling as one in which the government fails to do what it should do, that it, the government is allowing for abortion, when it should be keeping abortions from being done. Although this is the case in many respects, we should also look at this in light of the greater cultural war that has been going on from quite some time. This cultural war, which brings forth much problem in the Central Government today, is the diminishing of state's rights, and the degrading view of the Constitution.
Let us go back to the way Jefferson viewed the Constitution. Jefferson wanted to build schools and roads, but did not see these things permitted in the Constitution. He therefore did not carry through these things. The Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion, leaving us to believe it is up to the states. If the Central Government did rule in the case of abortion, it should be done by an amendment. Furthermore, it would make since to make abortion illegal, if they did indeed rule in the case, given that it is the government's job to protect our liberties, which include life.
The question does become a question of "where does sacred life begin?" This question is scientific, religious, moral, and philosophical. Science can give us reason to believe in some sort of real human life, and when it begins. Consider this logical analysis:
Matter can not be created or destroyed.
I am matter.
I am human.
I have not always been human.
Therefore, there was a time in which my physical substance became human.
Science can answer this question, but only to a point. Science might could tell us that the right cells and DNA joined together in a place suitable for survival, making a real living being - in the case of human reproduction, a human. But as far as science is concerned, there is no real basis to defy human life as any more sacred than the life of a dog, for instance. This is where philosophy, religion, and morality come into play, all under the notion of natural law.
Some would argue that the government should not rule in deciding where sacred life begins. Supposedly, since this is a sacred question, in one respect, it would join government and religion together to have the government answer the question. But ultimately, government can not answer the question. Either life is sacred or it is not. The government is here to protect that which is sacred. If we reach a conclusion by science and natural law that sacred life begins in a human womb, then it should follow that abortion, at some level, should be illegal, so that the sanctity of human life may be preserved. Still, they do not answer the question - natural law does. Arguing that the government should not decide what life is sacred or not, is like arguing that the government should not decide if pigs could fly.
If it is concluded that abortion should be illegal, the next question is, "what level of government should make it illegal?" County government, state government, Central Government, the United Nations? The best possible solution would be that it come from the state government, as they have their own laws on murder, theft, etc. However if the Central Government did rule in the case, it should be done by a proper amendment to the Constitution to outlaw abortion. Now let us consider how Roe Vs. Wade was done. Did it pass the test?
The Central Government should be silent on the issue of abortion (Fail).
If the Central Government does rule in the case, it should make abortion illegal (Fail).
If the Central Government declares abortion a natural right, it should at least be done by a proper amendment to the Constitution (Fail).
The Supreme Court failed on all of these issues. This shows great ignorance for the Constitution and natural law on apart of the Judges in Roe Vs. Wade. This was a bad form of government.
ii. (Homosexual Marriage)
Homosexual marriage is a much heated topic in today's world, though there are little rulings to show for it. There is not infamous ruling on the issue as there is for abortion. Still the handling of the issue and the interpretation of the issue, shows great ignorance again for our Constitution and for natural law.
Fortunately, any ruling on the issue shows support for an amendment to the Constitution. The question becomes whether or not there should be that amendment. Like abortion, the Constitution is silent on the issue, leading us to believe it should be left up to the states.
Some would argue that ruling against homosexual marriages, basically outlawing them, would join the government more and more in with the church. But what we should really consider is if the government has a hand in marriage at all. Currently, the state issues marriage license for people getting married. If marriage is defined as a sacred covenental union between one man and one woman, then the government contradicts itself by issuing a legal documentation of marriage between two people of the same sex. However if the state was out of the issue entirely, not even to issue a marriage license, then two people of the same sex could live together, sleep together, and call it marriage, when in reality, it may not be marriage at all, given that it contradicts the definition of marriage. Marriage itself is sacred, and if two people have a partnership that defies the sacred definition of marriage, then it is no marriage at all.
With this said, Americans, including their politicians, seem to have a hard time understanding how government fits in to the issue of homosexual marriage, or if it even does at all. We forget that states have their rights to make the laws regarding these issues, and we forget the very nature of marriage itself. If two men want to sleep together, I would rather see the dollars I freely tithe go to help these men repent, than see my tax dollars go to having the FBI police their bedroom.
iii. The War on Drugs
The War on Drugs is another issue that is misunderstood. Many people see drugs as something that should be stopped, and they want it stopped by the Central Government. This can essentially invite the government into your home to see if you have drugs.
Do not misunderstand this to presume I make any point to morally justify drugs, or even to take away the right of a state to issue a war on drugs, although on state issues, it could even be argued that the state should be out of the drug issue.
Some illegal drugs can actually, in rare but existing circumstances, be used for beneficial medical purposes. But so long as these drugs are outlawed, law-abiding doctors and nurses will not obtain the beneficial illegal drug for the patient.
On the other hand, however, the drug-addicts will still go after drugs. They will get them from Mexico, from robbery, even from murder. A war on drugs actually increases crime. Prohibition led to more crime, so it can easily follow that prohibiting drugs, especially at the level of the Central Government, can lead to more crime. Results has shown that it has.
In saying this, an employer has every right to ask an employee or potential employee for a drug test, and deny them a job or fire them if they fail. If I was an owner of some sort of business, I would probably not want drug dealers working for me. But I would also not want the government telling me that they can't.
The drug war is like the gun war in many respects. Outlawing drugs reducing crime is about as likely (or unlikely) as outlawing guns would reduce crime. There will still be drugs out there, and the criminal will even go to the point of murder to get them.
It could be argued, and I would strongly support it, that there should be laws (at a local or state level), against the selling of drugs to minors. A six-year old may not really understand the effects of drugs, and anyone who causes this person to try the drug, except for medical purposes, shall be punished. At the same time, if drugs become rampant in one community, then it could be argued that drugs should become illegal at that local level. But they should never be outlawed on the level of the Central Government.
iv. Gun Control
Although there is no law against the possession of guns, the movement for it has become rampant. Gun control is perhaps one of the sillier of ideas. At least in Roe Vs. Wade the Judges claimed some honor for the Constitution, and even defended their ruling based on the Fourteenth Amendment (although it is a lame defense). The right to keep and bear arms is listed in (out of all places!) the Bill of Rights - even the Second Amendment. Out of all the things our Founding Fathers wanted to secure most, the right to keep and bear arms was listed just behind the freedom of the press, and denying a national religion or church. Owning guns not only protects the people against other citizens who take away life and property, but even against government that tries to take away their right to life and property, et al.
Beyond this, gun control laws do not help reduce crime. In fact, cities with the toughest gun control laws actually have higher crime. When people are free to own guns, criminals are scared. Many criminals actually say that they are scared of the people owning guns more than the government.
It could even be argued that no state shall pass a law against the owning of guns, and that the Central Government should secure this, given that it is deemed as a natural right. But at any rate, outlawing guns should certainly not come from the Central Government.
What do you think?
God Bless America
Pray for our Troops
God Bless You
January 10, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
The Greatest War of All
Whether you are pro-war, anti-war, liberal, conservative, etc., there is always one war that will be going on. It will go on in your personally, through you corporately, and will always be the ultimate World War.
What is it? This war is the war between the City of God and the City of Man. Every single person is a member of either of the two cities. If we were to divide every single person in the world into one of two groups, it would be those of the City of God and those of the City of Man.
What are the differences? We should not believe that the difference between the two cities is that the City of God is of good people and that the City of Man has bad people. The difference is that the people of the City of God understand that they are sinners, and seek the forgiveness of God. Those in the City of Man look to the mind of man to free them of any problems in the world, but would never blame it on the sin of man - or at least not their own.
What are the effects? The effects of this war affect you personally and corporately; spritual, emotionally, mentally, and even physically; it affects you in almost every way. We should not believe that if you are a member of the City of God then you will never think like a member of the City of Man. But in the end, all of God's people will call upon His name. Consider the following personal and worldly aspects of this war (can especially be very personal):
Lust vs. Love
Popular before man vs. Humble before God
Individualistic Inward piety vs. Corporate worship
Theft and Murder vs. A respect for the property of others
Natural Selection vs. Natural rights, and, above all,
The love of money vs. The Love of God.
What is best for man in the long run? Lust does not forgive the imperfections of that being lusted after. Love, true, love, would forgive imperfections. Popularity comes with many prices and can easily be lost. God accepts us for walking humbly (Man's fluctuating acceptance compared to God's eternal acceptance). Individualism (some forms of it) often will not forgive one's mistakes, and is apart from the forgiveness and love God shows through others. Corporate worship strengthens even the worst of sinners, and through it God can enable us true acceptance even among men. Theft and Murder against someone can result in someone else robbing or murdering you. Natural selection accepts and deny's people by standards one can not help. Natural rights affirms everyone certain God-given and unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The love of money is never satisfied, and always wants more money. The Love of God enables us to rest in confidence for the greatest treasure of all.
But even yet, the glories of the City of Man seem so great at first. Money, popularity, and the like seem so attractive. But how many people in Hollywood, with so much money, so much fame, and seemingly perfect bodies really seem happy in the end? Not many.
Ultimately, money, acceptance among men, and happiness, will come by faith in God, and participation in the City of God. Matt. 7:13 says, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it."
And in the end, it will be the City of God who wins. We are told that the gates of Hell can not even prevail against the Rock on which God builds His Church. Matt. 16:18 says, "...on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Hells gates, the guard of the City of Man, will not be able to offend the City of God, nor be able to defend against the offense of the City of God. Ultimately, it's a blow-out. Hell has no chance, and the winner of the war is predestined.
So as a New Year's Resolution, I encourage you to examine your life, and see how you are living. Are you living as someone who understands that you are a sinner, and one who seeks the forgiveness of God? Or, are you living as someone who does not care about the way you live your life, or the only care you do have is popularity, fortune, fornication, and many other things or sins that seem to have so much glory, but who's path only leads to destruction? Do you even realize that there is this war, that affects you personally, corporately, and in every way of your life? Or do you ignore this war? If you do understand this war, if you do seek the forgiveness of God and seek to live better, then you can rest assure that the City of God will win, the City of Man only leads to destruction, and you will be apart of eternal glory.
God bless His Church
For all the Saints
God bless you
Lift High the cross
Janurary 2, 2008
Ryan Hampton
What is it? This war is the war between the City of God and the City of Man. Every single person is a member of either of the two cities. If we were to divide every single person in the world into one of two groups, it would be those of the City of God and those of the City of Man.
What are the differences? We should not believe that the difference between the two cities is that the City of God is of good people and that the City of Man has bad people. The difference is that the people of the City of God understand that they are sinners, and seek the forgiveness of God. Those in the City of Man look to the mind of man to free them of any problems in the world, but would never blame it on the sin of man - or at least not their own.
What are the effects? The effects of this war affect you personally and corporately; spritual, emotionally, mentally, and even physically; it affects you in almost every way. We should not believe that if you are a member of the City of God then you will never think like a member of the City of Man. But in the end, all of God's people will call upon His name. Consider the following personal and worldly aspects of this war (can especially be very personal):
Lust vs. Love
Popular before man vs. Humble before God
Individualistic Inward piety vs. Corporate worship
Theft and Murder vs. A respect for the property of others
Natural Selection vs. Natural rights, and, above all,
The love of money vs. The Love of God.
What is best for man in the long run? Lust does not forgive the imperfections of that being lusted after. Love, true, love, would forgive imperfections. Popularity comes with many prices and can easily be lost. God accepts us for walking humbly (Man's fluctuating acceptance compared to God's eternal acceptance). Individualism (some forms of it) often will not forgive one's mistakes, and is apart from the forgiveness and love God shows through others. Corporate worship strengthens even the worst of sinners, and through it God can enable us true acceptance even among men. Theft and Murder against someone can result in someone else robbing or murdering you. Natural selection accepts and deny's people by standards one can not help. Natural rights affirms everyone certain God-given and unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The love of money is never satisfied, and always wants more money. The Love of God enables us to rest in confidence for the greatest treasure of all.
But even yet, the glories of the City of Man seem so great at first. Money, popularity, and the like seem so attractive. But how many people in Hollywood, with so much money, so much fame, and seemingly perfect bodies really seem happy in the end? Not many.
Ultimately, money, acceptance among men, and happiness, will come by faith in God, and participation in the City of God. Matt. 7:13 says, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it."
And in the end, it will be the City of God who wins. We are told that the gates of Hell can not even prevail against the Rock on which God builds His Church. Matt. 16:18 says, "...on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Hells gates, the guard of the City of Man, will not be able to offend the City of God, nor be able to defend against the offense of the City of God. Ultimately, it's a blow-out. Hell has no chance, and the winner of the war is predestined.
So as a New Year's Resolution, I encourage you to examine your life, and see how you are living. Are you living as someone who understands that you are a sinner, and one who seeks the forgiveness of God? Or, are you living as someone who does not care about the way you live your life, or the only care you do have is popularity, fortune, fornication, and many other things or sins that seem to have so much glory, but who's path only leads to destruction? Do you even realize that there is this war, that affects you personally, corporately, and in every way of your life? Or do you ignore this war? If you do understand this war, if you do seek the forgiveness of God and seek to live better, then you can rest assure that the City of God will win, the City of Man only leads to destruction, and you will be apart of eternal glory.
God bless His Church
For all the Saints
God bless you
Lift High the cross
Janurary 2, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
