Borders will not carry magazine

Not because it's pornographic [they still carry Playboy], or advocates illegal activity [They still carry High Times], but because it has the cartoon making fun of Islam's Prophet. Free speech for everything but political speech...

Chesterton Quote

"Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God." - Christendom in Dublin, 1933

Fascism and V

In the west is has been true that totalitarian regimes try to kill God so that the government can become the god. It seems to be fairly effective. We do see some examples however of Islam being used as a tool of totalitarian regimes. So while I would argue that Islam is better suited for that end, it is not beyond imagination that Christianity could be twisted in that direction as well.
One reason I am excited about Goldberg's upcoming book
Liberal Fascism : The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton is because the record needs to be setstraight on fascism. It was not made up of evangelical Christians bent on ruling the world!

V for Very Verbose Vapor

The most touching moment in 1984, to me, was when the poet in prison explains that he just couldn't find any other word for his poem except "God." V for Vendetta on the other hand seems to be 1984 for liberals. The religious dimension just didn't make sense. 'Faith is Unity' is the new 'Love is Hate' or 'War is Peace' for an anti-Truth government. But if there was a God over government, there must be truth. God is truth, the unappeallable Judge. If government really wanted to destroy Truth, it must become the God. So philosophically, I just have to say 1984 seems more real than V for Vendetta. That is, unless you really do think we have more to fear from the pre-WWII threat of fascism than the post-modern threat of relativism/subjectivism and the intolerance of intolerance.

St. (Beef) Patty

Isn't that nice. Catholics have permission to eat meat tomorrow. Enjoy!!

Ok, lame post but I thought I should get one in before the month is over.

What happened to books?

A friend sent me this story. I suppose he found it provocative or something. All I could write was:

"How times have changed. Once "great authors" and "important people" wrote of current events in the medium of a book (i.e. Burke vs the French Revolution). But alas all the great men of this age can muster is a ramble at the Academy Awards or a cliche filled Editorial to the Tribune. When Keillor fills up 2 pages in Bartlett's with his Current Affairs wisdom, perhaps I will turn my head:

http://www.bartleby.com/100/276.html "

UPDATE: I guess I should try and establish Burke as a theologian to justify writing about him here so here's a random Burke thought on Religion: "Religion is essentially the art and the theory of the remaking of man. Man is not a finished creation."

Amyraldism?

It seems this is what "4-point Calvinism" can be called. Amyraldism prefers to define a universal atonement, but particular election. It does seem dangerous, however, to get away from Christ's substitutionary work on the cross. Christ died for our sins. And in the context of Romans 5:8b-9: "while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him." It seems those whom Christ died for are assured salvation. Then Christ died just for the elect, no?

Also interesting from the article:

"Amyraldism can be found among various evangelical groups, perhaps most notably among dispensationalists in independent Bible churches and independant Baptist churches."

Limited Atonement: Power or Possibility?

I'm less and less offended by the "L" in TULIP. As R.C. Sproul Jr pointed out, everyone limits the atonement: Calvinists limit its scope or membership, Arminians limit its power. A blogger posted this by John Owen (the puritan theologian):


FOR WHOM DID CHRIST DIE?
by John Owen

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

1. All the sins of all men;
2. All the sins of some men, or;
3. Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved;
2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth;
3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, "Because of unbelief.

"I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"