Wednesday, September 10, 2014
What is Calvinism?
Clearness of presentation demands that in this first lecture I begin by fixing the conception of Calvinism historically. To prevent misunderstanding we must first know what we should not, and what we should, understand by it. Starting therefore from the current use of the term, I find that this is by no means the same in different countries and in different spheres of life.
1. The name Calvinist is used in our times first as a sectarian name. This is not the case in Protestant, but in Roman Catholic countries, especially in Hungary and France. In Hungary the Reformed Churches have a membership of some two and a half millions, and in both the Romish and Jewish press of that country her members are constantly stigmatized by the non-official name of "Calvinists," a derisive name applied even to those who have divested themselves of all traces of sympathy with the faith of their fathers. The same phenomenon presents itself in France, especially in the Southern parts, where "Calviniste" is equally, and even more emphatically, a sectarian stigma, which does not refer to the faith or confession of the stigmatized person, but is simply put upon every member of the Reformed Churches, even though he be an atheist. George Thiebaud, known for his anti-Semitic propaganda, has at the same time revived the anti-Calvinistic spirit in France, and even in the Dreyfus-case, "Jews and Calvinists" were arraigned by him as the two anti-national forces, prejudicial to the "esprit gaulois." pp. 12-13
2. Directly opposed to this is the second use of the word Calvinism, and this I call the confessional one In this sense, a Calvinist is represented exclusively as the out-spoken subscriber to the dogma of fore-ordination. They who disapprove of this strong attachment to the doctrine of predestination cooperate with the Romish polemists, in that by calling you "Calvinist," they represent you as a victim of dogmatic narrowness; and what is worse still, as being dangerous to the real seriousness of moral life. This is a stigma so conspicuously offensive that theologians like Hodge, who from fulness of conviction were open defenders of Predestination, and counted it an honor to be Calvinists, were nevertheless so deeply impressed with the disfavor attached to the "Calvinistic name," that for the sake of commending their conviction, they preferred to speak rather of Augustinianism than of Calvinism.
3. The denominational title of some Baptists and Methodists indicates a third use of the name Calvinist. No less a man than Spurgeon belonged to a class of Baptists who in England call themselves "Calvinistic Baptists," and the Whitefield Methodists in Wales to this day bear the name of "Calvinistic Methodists." Thus here also it indicates in some way a confessional difference, but is applied as the name for special church denominations. Without doubt this practice would have been most severely criticized by Calvin himself. During his life-time, no Reformed Church ever dreamed of naming the Church of Christ after any man. The Lutherans have done this, the Reformed Churches never.
4. As a scientific name, either in a historical, philosophical or political sense. Historically, the name of Calvinism indicates the channel in which the Reformation moved, so far as it was neither Lutheran, nor Anabaptist nor Socinian. In the philosophical sense, we understand by it that system of conceptions which, under the influence of the master-mind of Calvin, raised itself to dominance in the several spheres of life. And as a political name, Calvinism indicates that political movement which has guaranteed the liberty of nations in constitutional statesmanship; first in Holland, then in England, and since the close of the last century in the United States.
In this scientific sense, the name of Calvinism is especially current among German scholars. And the fact that this not only is the opinion of those who are themselves of Calvinistic sympathies, but that also scholars who have abandoned every confessional standard of Christianity, nevertheless assign this profound significance to Calvinism. This appears from the testimony borne by three of our best men of science, the first of whom, Dr. Robert Fruin, declares that: "Calvinism came into the Netherlands consisting of a logical system of divinity, of a democratic Church-order of its own, impelled by a severely moral sense, and as enthusiastic for the moral as for the religious reformation of mankind." Another historian, who was even more outspoken in his rationalistic sympathies, writes : "Calvinism is the highest form of development reached by the religious and political principle in the 16th century." And a third authority acknowledges that Calvinism has liberated Switzerland, the Netherlands, and England, and in the Pilgrim Fathers has provided the impulse to the prosperity of the United States.' Similarly Bancroft, among you, acknowledged that Calvinism "has a theory of ontology, of ethics, of social happiness, and of human liberty, all derived from God."
Excerpt from Lectures on Calvinism
Biographical Notes of Dr. Abraham Kuyper
For handy reference about the man:
". . . in 1907, when his seventieth birthday was made the occasion of a national celebration, it was said: 'The history of The Netherlands, in Church, in State, in Society, in Press, in School, and in the Sciences of the last forty years, cannot be written without the mention of his name on almost every page, for during this period the biography of Dr. Kuyper is to a considerable extent the history of The Netherlands.'"
"During all these years his work was many-sided to an astounding degree. As has been said: 'No department of human knowledge was foreign to him.' And whether we take him as student, pastor or preacher; as linguist, theologian or university professor; as party leader, organizer or statesman; as philosopher, scientist, publicist, critic or philanthropist — there is always 'something incomprehensible in the mighty labors of this indefatigable wrestler; always something as incomprehensible as genius always is.' Even they who differed with him, and they were many, honored him as 'an opponent of ten heads and a hundred hands.' They who shared his vision and his ideals prized and loved him 'as a gift of God to our age.'"
"In 1897, at the twenty-fifth anniversary of his editorship of De Standaard, Dr. Kuyper said: 'One desire has been the ruling passion of my life. One high motive has acted like a spur upon my mind and soul. And sooner than that I should seek escape from the sacred necessity that is laid upon me, let the breath of life fail me. It is this: That in spite of all worldly opposition, God's holy ordinances shall be established again in the home, in the school and in the State for the good of the people; to carve as it were into the conscience of the nation the ordinances of the Lord, to which Bible and Creation bear witness, until the nation pays homage again to God.'"
"In his early years the religious life in his country was at a low ebb. 'Church life was cold and formal. Religion was almost dead. There was no Bible in the schools. There was no life in the nation,"
"But intimations of better things to come were not wanting. As far back as 1830, Groen van Prinsterer, a member of Parliament, began to protest against the spirit of the times. 'This brought about a revival of Gospel preaching — that by nature all men are sinners in need of the atoning blood of Christ. Great offense was taken at this. It was not long before Evangelicals could not be tolerated. It was not irreligion that was wanted, but religion such as would please every one, Jews included.'"
"Looking back upon this experience he writes: 'What my soul went through in that moment, I have only later fully understood; but yet in that hour, nay, from that very moment, I learned to despise what formerly I admired, and to seek what formerly I spurned. But enough. You know the lasting character of the impression of such an experience; what the soul encounters in such a conflict belongs to that eternal something, which presents itself to the soul years afterward, strongly and sharply defined, as though it happened but yesterday.'"
"But, under God, it was the simple country folk of his first parish that were instrumental in leading him into that fullness of spiritual life toward which his former experiences had pointed. As he ministered to them, they admired his talents; and soon they learned to love him for what he was; but they set themselves earnestly to united and individual prayer for his entire conversion to Christ. "And," as Kuyper writes afterward, "their faithful loyalty became a blessing to my heart, the rise of the morning star of my life. I had been apprehended, but I had not yet found the Word of reconciliation. In their simple language they brought me this in the absolute form in which alone my soul can rest. I discovered that the Holy Scripture does not only cause us to find justification by faith, but also discloses the foundation of all human life, the holy ordinances which must govern all human existence in Society and State."
"Thus began his Christian life. At the Cross he made the great surrender of himself to his Savior and to His service. 'To bear witness for Christ' became the passion of his life. That Christ is King in every department of human life and activity was the keynote which he kept ringing in all his writings, addresses and labors, whether as theologian or as statesman, as a leader in politics, as president of the Christian labor union, as promoter of Christian education, it was all done from the burning conviction, that: "Christ rules not merely by the tradition of what He once was, spake, did and endured; but by a living power which even now, seated as He is at the right hand of God, He exercises over lands and nations, generations, families and individuals."
"Thus the finding of some lost books, the reading of a novel, the teaching of uncultured folk, were experiences which explain in part Dr. Kuyper's great work."
"The fellowship of being near unto God must become reality, in the full and vigorous prosecution of our life. It must permeate and give color to our feeling, our perceptions, our sensations, our thinking, our imagining, our willing, our acting, our speaking. It must not stand as a foreign factor in our life, but it must be the passion that breathes throughout our whole existence."
"In pursuit of this ideal, Dr. Kuyper took time to add to his gigantic labors the writing of a devotional meditation every week. He wrote more than two thousand of them. They are entirely unique in character. They are well said to form a literature by themselves, and are in line with the best works by Dutch mystics, such as Johannes Ruysbroek, Cornelius Jansinius, and Thomas a Kempis."
Source: Excerpt from Lectures on Calvinism
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Calvinism as a Life-System
"In 1789 the turning point was reached. VOLTAIRE'S MAD CRY, 'DOWN WITH THE SCOUNDREL,' WAS AIMED AT CHRIST HIMSELF, but this cry was merely the expression of the most hidden thought from which the French Revolution sprang. The fanatic outcry of another philosopher, 'We no more need a God,' and the odious shibboleth, 'No God, no Master,' of the Convention;—THESE WERE THE SACRILEGIOUS WATCHWORDS WHICH AT THAT TIME HERALDED THE LIBERATION OF MAN AS AN EMANCIPATION FROM ALL DIVINE AUTHORITY. And if, in His impenetrable wisdom, God employed the Revolution as a means by which to overthrow the tyranny of the Bourbons, and to bring a judgment on the princes who abused His nations as their footstool, nevertheless THE PRINCIPLE OF THAT REVOLUTION REMAINS THOROUGHLY ANTI-CHRISTIAN, AND HAS SINCE SPREAD LIKE A CANCER, dissolving and undermining all that stood firm and consistent before our Christian faith."
"There is no doubt then that Christianity is imperilled by great and serious dangers. TWO LIFE SYSTEMS ARE WRESTLING WITH ONE ANOTHER, IN MORTAL COMBAT. MODERNISM IS BOUND TO BUILD A WORLD OF ITS OWN FROM THE DATA OF THE NATURAL MAN, AND TO CONSTRUCT MAN HIMSELF FROM THE DATA OF NATURE; while, on the other hand, all those who reverently bend the knee to Christ and worship Him as the Son of the living God, and God himself, are bent upon saving the 'Christian Heritage.' THIS IS THE STRUGGLE IN EUROPE, THIS IS THE STRUGGLE IN AMERICA, and this also, is the struggle for principles in which my own country is engaged, and in which I myself have been spending all my energy for nearly forty years. "
"From the first, therefore, I have always said to myself,—'IF THE BATTLE IS TO BE FOUGHT WITH HONOR AND WITH HOPE OF VICTORY, THEN PRINCIPLE MUST BE ARRAYED AGAINST PRINCIPLE; then it must be felt that IN MODERNISM THE VAST ENERGY OF AN ALL-EMBRACING LIFE-SYSTEM ASSAILS US, then also it must be understood that WE HAVE TO TAKE OUR STAND IN A LIFE-SYSTEM OF EQUALLY COMPREHENSIVE AND FAR-REACHING POWER. And this powerful life-system is not to be invented nor formulated by ourselves, but is to be taken and applied as it presents itself in history. When thus taken, I found and confessed, and I STILL HOLD, THAT THIS MANIFESTATION OF THE CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE IS GIVEN US IN CALVINISM. In CALVINISM MY HEART HAS FOUND REST. From Calvinism have I drawn the inspiration firmly and resolutely to take my stand in the thick of this great conflict of principles.
Source: An Excerpt from Abraham Kuyper's "Lectures on Calvinism", pp. 10-12
Monday, September 8, 2014
Benevolent Government
“Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, ‘See, if it weren’t for the government, you wouldn’t be able to walk’”. - Harry Browne
Calvinism and Revelation
I just want to share exchanges of ideas in a Facebook forum about Calvinism and revelation. I removed other inputs that I consider irrelevant, and included only three participants, which I used initials to hide their names: RP, NS, and RC.
---0---0---0---
RP: If you have time, please study.
Let's discover whether CALVINISM is a PERNICIOUS or a sound doctrine.
The texts of the Bible are symbols that altogether constitute DIVINE REVELATION. If Calvinism is a sound doctrine, it will certainly fit within as one of the subordinate themes of Divine Revelation. Let's check this out. No debate, let's just share knowledge or opinion and let the readers determine which knowledge or opinion is more reasonable.
Let's start at the proper starting point: WHAT IS DIVINE REVELATION?
RP2: The post above provides an opportunity for Calvinists to put within a proper Biblical framework their Calvinism - within the framework and context of Divine Revelation. If they fail to do it, that means Calvinism is an incoherent doctrine, indeterminate, or merely a construct of reason without definable value.
Please think. Do not simply believe like the cults or the ISIS (laughing!).
NS: RP, your reasoning is illogical. A failure of a "Calvinist" to put within a proper perspective.....if they fail means Calvinism is an incoherent doctrine..???? Again, please read the books I suggested to you...rightly dividing the word of truth....it is your reasoning that is incoherent RP...sorry to be brutally blunt...
RP: NS, with all due respect, you had been wildly commenting on my posts/threads from the standpoint of emotion, fanaticism and on the level of a personal diatribe. One thing more, you can never convince this discussant and our readers that just because you claim you have scanned too many a book that you need not reasonably argue anymore but simply be considered a pundit in declaring which doctrine is sound or not. That is not the norm in a marketplace of IDEAS Sir.
Now PROVE or DEMONSTRATE your claim that my preceding statement was incoherent: "The post above provides an opportunity for Calvinists to put within a proper Biblical framework their Calvinism doctrine --- within the framework and context of Divine Revelation. If they fail to do it, that means Calvinism is an incoherent doctrine, indeterminate, or merely a construct of reason without definable value."
I truly doubt if you can do it. I even doubt that, despite the many books you have read and despite the many "divine personalities" you claim you know, you can COHERENTLY articulate in measurable terms "what is divine revelation", and how you can fit Calvinism in it. Let us see now if you truly know how to ... "rightly divide the word of truth".
RC: Personally, this thread offers a good start to discuss Calvinism. However, on the onset, let us first clarify the scope of Calvinism. Usually, the term is used synonymously with Reformed theology, and I directly heard a Ph. D. candidate who confidently claims that Paul Tillich and Karl Barth also adhere to reformed theology. The difficulty is that, they have different concepts about revelation. It is better to limit discussion about revelation from the perspective of classical Reformed; I mean John Calvin, Benjamin Warfield, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, Louis Berkhof, and Cornelius Van Til. And I also want to add that the subject of revelation is not only confined Catholicism or Protestantism. The subject is critical in the existing intellectual battle.
RC2: So from Classical Reformed theology, there are three ways to answer the question "What is divine revelation?" - concise, exhaustive, and in between the two. As a concise answer, I think the Institutes of Christian Religion is the safest. For John Calvin, there are two types of the knowledge of God, Creator and Redeemer, and these two are related to the two ways God revealed himself to man, creation and redemption. This kind of concept of revelation was followed by Benjamin Warfield, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, Louis Berkhof, and Cornelius Van Til. Berkhof's Systematic Theology offers us the simplest explanation of these two kinds of revelation. In the case of Cornelius Van Til, his contribution, "Nature and Scripture" in 1946 Westminster Symposium is the answer I consider in-between. You can read this in the book, "The Infallible Word". However, if you are searching for an exhaustive answer, I think the most qualified is Herman Bavinck in his lecture, "Philosophy of Revelation" in Princeton during the academic year 1908-1909. He explained revelation in relation to philosophy, nature, history, religion, Christianity, religious experience, culture, and the future.
NS: RC, thanks for quoting those Reformed champions. I will pray as the Lord uses you in His ministry here for Reformed explanations ....erstwhile you read Cornelius Van Til , renowned for Apologetics...Thanks!
RC: NS, I believe that Van Til's synthesis of the Dutch reformed and American reformed needs to be heard as represented by Abraham Kuyper and Benjamin Warfield.
NS: Thanks for standing up for Calvinism...I just react went people state a sweeping statement without checking the two sides of the fences...though..I should exercise utter humility and prudence as this is what the Reformed Doctrines are partly about...a Sovereign God in the midst of His people whom he foreloved before time..thanks
RP: Gentlemen, my post above certainly invites a dialogue of various views on the subject Divine Revelation, while at the same time taking a swipe at Calvinism which I personally perceive to be fallacious. My point is, for Calvinism to have a Biblical/theological sense, it must have both a framework and an ontological context. A discussion on the subject Divine Revelation could perhaps provide us a wider scope of reference, considering that the gist of Calvinism is "man's estrangement from God (total depravity)" vis-a-vis "God's sovereignty and prerogative". Tillich, Fromm, Hegel, Marx are a few of the existentialist philosophers whose views could contribute to our better understanding of human estrangement as one of the primary Biblical themes of Divine Revelation.
Certainly we have our respective synthesis of the various presuppositions of Philosophers we come across in our respective studies, let's play Bingo of them in this forum (laughing!).
Let's enjoy as we learn and learn as we enjoy!
What is Divine Revelation gentlemen? What are the primary themes of the Bible?
RC: NS, as for me, my interest changed. There are far bigger issues that the Reformed community must face than its soteriological differences from Arminianism. I remember during our early years in the seminary, we always debated. It's just shameful to rrealize later that our perspective of Calvinism was too narrow.
RC2: Though I do not understand what RP means by "gist", as for me, I understand the word as the essence of things that you want to describe. If this is the meaning of the term, I think saying that the gist of Calvinism is "man's estrangement from God (total depravity)" vis-a-vis "God's sovereignty and prerogative" is a misrepresentation. For even the entire TULIP, if you compare Calvinism to an iceberg, but you only focus on soteriology, you are just looking at the peak of an iceberg. Discussing Calvinism is difficult because the meanings attached to it are different. Personally, even though I do not like a school of thought, I am still cautious about misrepresentation for the 9th commandment is serious about the use of tongue, and maligning a person or a school of though that in the first place you know nothing about.
So if you want to know the "gist" of Calvinism, I think it is better to look at it not in a sectarian, confessional, and denominational perspectives, but scientifically, which includes the historical, philosophical, and political elements. In this sense you will see Calvinism as a life-system, and the Stone Lectures of Abraham Kuyper in Princeton on 1898 will help us see this. In those lectures, Kuyper explained the scientific meaning of Calvinism as a life-system in relation to religion, politics, science, art, and the future.
RP: (laughing!) Perhaps RC, you haven't seen yet that the scope of Calvinism in terms of Biblical themes and Divine Revelation is too narrow. One of my proofs is NS personal attacks instead of focusing on the issue. And second, I find Calvinism as a distortion of the thoughts of many texts of the Scriptures thus it is pernicious to the mind of those who are not trained in doing proper exegesis.
RP2: RC, you define a thing according to its nature, properties and by means of causes. The essential property of Calvinism is definitely its position with regard to human spiritual estrangement (total depravity) vis-a-vis God's sovereignty and prerogative. All other themes and assertions of the calvinism belief system are subordinate to what I have just said. You can prove me otherwise on that one.
Now, as you wish to take our understanding of Calvinism on the praxis level, I may as well argue that Calvinism obscures the believers understanding of the purpose of human existence - or the individual "life-system" if I may use your terms. Not only that, calvinism makes a mumbo-jumbo of the important themes of the Bible, like GRACE, ELECTION, REDEMPTION, SALVATION, REGENERATION and the ultimate eternal FATE of both the children of God and the unbelievers.
Going back to my post, let's discuss the topic Divine Revelation. Let's see how Divine Revelation is broken down into primary themes in the Bible. What are the Primary Themes of the Bible that constitute Divine Revelation RC or NS? Is Calvinism, as John Calvin sees it, one of the revelatory themes of the texts of the Bible?
Our readers may be interested to know this.
NS: RP, I believe that the reason I perceived Calvinism is because God opened my eyes. Among many of us who encountered Calvinism in 1982, only few of us embraced it not because we are good. As for me, to argue in this forum is close to uselessness. A Calvinist may answer but it is like "answering a fool according to his folly!" Attitude for me is very important. You may answer , defend, contend, and even sound like an angel ( with all the highfalutin and pompous words ) but if your attitude borders on braggadacio - that to me borders on being a busybody. Pardon me this is my opinion. I know it can be a forum to contend for the truth that was once revealed to the saints. RC here quotes men like Kuyper, Bavinck, Berkhof, BB Warfield, Van Til, etc..and to add John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, AW Pink, AA Hodge, Dagg, and even CH Spurgeon. Please read them and may the good Lord remove the scales from your eyes and you might see the beauty of God's sovereignty and be like the Bereans! Thanks!
RP: (laughing!) Again that's just another irrelevant personal attack NS. It's like you are simply following the same tack the elders of the Roman Catholic church have used when Martin Luther criticized the religious conventions of his time. It's your bragging of this and that; that is odious. (laughing!). The issue in the post NS is not about you or me, but about Divine Revelation and how should we fit within it the Calvinism belief system. Are you admitting that while you confidently believe that Calvinism is a sound doctrine, you are not sure whether it is one of the revelatory themes of the Bible? Let's be honest in our exchanges if TRUTH is truly what you wanted to come out in the end. If you can't understand some of my terms, you may look for its meaning in the net instead of feeling offended.
TRUTH hurts, but let TRUTH be truth.
RC: I see your point there NS, but before I leave this thread, I just want to ask RP in relation to his last post.
"You define a thing RC according to its nature, properties and by means of causes. The essential property of Calvinism RC is definitely its position with regard to human spiritual estrangement (total depravity) vis-a-vis God's sovereignty and prerogative. All other themes and assertions of the Calvinism belief system are subordinate to what I have just said. You can prove me otherwise on that one."
Can you cite at least one major representative of Calvinist school of thought that asserts this? Or is this just your interpretation of "Calvinism"?
"Now, as you wish to take our understanding of Calvinism on the praxis level, I may as well argue that Calvinism obscures the believers understanding of the purpose of human existence - or the individual 'life-system' if I may use your terms. . . "
One can say anything about a school of thought, but understanding it first is the basic rule. Building a straw man does not advance theological discussion. You have to cite passages from major proponents of Calvinism, and argue from there. And by the way, Calvinism as a "life-system" are Kuyper's terms, not mine.
"Going back to my post, let's discuss the topic Divine Revelation. Let's see how Divine Revelation is broken down into primary themes in the Bible. What are the Primary Themes of the Bible that constitute Divine Revelation RC or NS?"
How can you proceed to the breaking down of primary themes of the Bible if in the first place the meaning of the word "revelation" is not clearly defined?
RP: RC, I already made a categorical assertion in the thread with regard to the "gist" of the Calvinism belief system, whether the classical one or the neo one. The gist of Calvinism is all over the net if in case you still wish to know them well. It is now for you to demonstrate that my assertion is erroneous.
Saying that I am building a straw man argument RC is to imply that the readers (and my fellow discussants in this thread) are ignorant of the issues that I have raised in the post except me - that's the implication of it sir. (laughing!). You have not even presented any formal argument yet pertaining to the subject divine revelation and the relevance of Calvinism to it, and neither have I refuted any of your non-existent view yet, it is perhaps because Calvinism does not have any ontological reference at all. We have no formal exchanges of views but all personal attacks, so a straw man argument could not possibly emerge yet.
Now if you are asking me to say what I mean for the term "revelation", in the Biblical context, I would say that revelation or divine revelations are the ACTS and the WILL OF GOD as recorded or disclosed in the Bible.
So, did God perform an ACT to predestine the human race unto either salvation or damnation? Nothing of that sort is disclosed in the Bible. Was it the WILL of the Creator to create man and cause him to fall into sin because He could just save him anyway, and then consign some to hell and others to heaven? Nothing of that sort is disclosed in the Bible.
What are the PRIMARY ACTS of God that constitute divine revelation RCl?
RC: I am glad RP that you presented your understanding of revelation. In the first place, the reason why I commented on your thread is that I believe that revelation is a very important subject that has implications beyond the confines of the church into larger society. So if this is the direction of the thread, I think this is beneficial for the readers.
Now, as a response to your last post:
"RC, I already made a categorical assertion in the thread with regard to the 'gist' of the Calvinism belief system, whether the classical one or the neo one. The gist of Calvinism is all over the net if in case you still wish to know them well. It is now for you to demonstrate that my assertion is erroneous."
So you are referring to this as the "gist" of Calvinism: "man's estrangement from God (total depravity)" vis-a-vis "God's sovereignty and prerogative". And your basis "is all over the net . . . ." Ok, if that's your understanding of Calvinism, I respect that. However, from my framework, I see that as a small portion of Calvinism. Perhaps, we may say that that is part of soteriology. How about prolegomena, theology proper, anthropology, Christology, ecclesiology, and eschatology? Your "gist" can be justified if you are referring to Calvinistic soeteriology, not Calvinism itself. And even these different branches of theology cannot be qualified as the whole of Calvinism. It may be taken from a sectarian, confessional, and denominational point of view, but it is so limited for it remains confined within the ecclesiastical boundary. This is the reason I mentioned the scientific concept of Calvinism as life-system, which includes the historical, philosophical, and political elements. This is the standard understanding of Calvinism, at least during Kuyper's time. But if you still insist in your understanding of Calvinism that even these scientific elements are subordinate to your "gist", I can do nothing about it.
"Saying that I am building a straw man argument RC is to imply that the readers (and my fellow discussants in this thread) are ignorant of the issues that I have raised in the post except me - that's the implication of it Sir."
Of course, you are free to make your own conclusion from my statement, but I don't want to put it that way. I see it as a straw man because none of the major proponents of Calvinism claim that the gist that you mentioned is the essence of Calvinism.
"(laughing!). You have not even presented any formal argument yet pertaining to the subject divine revelation and the relevance of Calvinism to it, and neither have I refuted any of your non-existent view yet, it is perhaps because Calvinism does not have any ontological reference at all."
You are asking for a definition of divine revelation. I just simply mentioned the limitation that to my mind is necessary in defining the term for to include Tillich and Barth's concept of revelation, I think requires long period of time and serious study. So you are right that I did not present any formal argument for that is not my intention. Concerning the absence of Calvinism's ontological reference, I think if the answer of Cornelius Van Til is not sufficient for you, I don't know if you can still find a Calvinist response that will satisfy you.
"Now if you are asking me to say what I mean for the term 'revelation', in the Biblical context, I would say that revelation or divine revelations are the ACTS and the WILL OF GOD as recorded or disclosed in the Bible."
I thank you for this definition. This provides the right start for the discussion. However, in the history of the meaning of revelation, various definitions have emerged throughout history. I just wonder if you have a room for natural revelation in your theological system. If my reading is right, the relationship between natural revelation and special revelation is crucial in theological debate about revelation.
RP: RC, I hope you don't feign ignorance of Calvinism just so you can scrutinize the extent of my knowledge of it, it being a belief system based largely on John Calvin's teachings and practices, with its main points more aptly summed up by the "TULIP". Now, for brevity in this forum, I need not give a commentary with respect to how Calvinism interrelates with other branches of systematic theologies that you have mentioned above, nor cite advocates of any of its variants, thus I simply pointed out its "gist" or central theme: "man's estrangement from God (total depravity)" vis-a-vis "God's sovereignty and prerogative".
Now, it's fine with me if you prove me wrong if I insist that the "gist" of Calvinism is about God as predicated of His sovereignty and prerogative vis-a-vis man as predicated of his supposed 'total depravity'. You can present your version of its gist sir if you wish to. I may as well say that a flawed theological theory like Calvinism could never have a definable scientific value or sustainable scientific application.
Now pertaining to the subject "divine revelation", I'm glad that you've shown keen interest of it RC. I have floated this subject matter in this forum several times but nobody seems to understand or realize that the foundations of LOGIC, SCIENCES and TECHNOLOGIES are the ACTS and the WILL of God as recorded or disclosed both in the Bible and in the REAL ORDER OF THINGS (natural revelation).
The LOGOS is no less the externality of the ACTS and the WILL of the MIND of God, which in turn, from the human vantage point, these acts and will of God are altogether called Divine Revelation. With all due respect, what I gave is not just a DEFINITION of Divine Revelation sir but, firstly, its precise MEANING as expressed in the Bible and at the same time its GENETIC DEFINITION.
All the ACTS and the WILL of God, as disclosed in the Bible, can be classified into three PRIMARY THEMES. These themes constitute revelations that are already MEASURABLE. And if only Calvinists are aware of them, they would certainly realize that CALVINISM is a deviant theme. Not only that, it likewise obscures the said primary themes.
You ask the Calvinists what are the primary themes of the Bible (that serve as the immediate subordinate species/themes of the genus divine revelation) and certainly they will reply with extensive rhetorics that further expose their ignorance of them. Theirs is zeal not of knowledge, or sheer fanaticism, not a pursuit for truth.
I hope this time we can open a new thread on Divine Revelation where discussants would discuss the subject matter more intelligently and with all honesty and sincerity. Certainly I have some groundbreaking nuggets of knowledge that I wish to share only to those who show interest.
RC: I thank you RP for your response. Perhaps, this is my last post on this thread. I just want to say "Thank you!" for raising the question for I was able to consolidate information that has something to say about revelation. If I have written anything that offends you, I give you my apology.
And now my response to your last post:
"You can present your version of its gist sir if you wish to. I may as well say that a flawed theological theory like Calvinism could never have a definable scientific value or sustainable scientific application."
"You ask the Calvinists what are the primary themes of the Bible (that serve as the immediate subordinate species/themes of the genus divine revelation) and certainly they will reply with extensive rhetorics that further expose their ignorance of them. Theirs is zeal not of knowledge, or sheer fanaticism, not a pursuit for truth."
Before giving the "gist" and the core themes that all Calvinists share, I would like to respond first to your rejection of the scientific significance of Calvinism. To my mind, such an assertion does not only betray the lack of knowledge of the political and philosophical contributions of Calvinism in the development of Western civilization, but also a denial of the history of Reformation. Never forget that the Protestants who were called "Huguenots" in France, "Beggars" in the Netherlands, "Puritans" in the Great Britain, and "Pilgrim Fathers" in North America were all Calvinistic in their origin. I just wonder if apart from you, you can also cite other authority figures that share the same assertion. In claiming Calvinism in its scientific sense, Kuyper mentioned at least four authorities, which of course, personally, I am not familiar with these authors and their writings. The first three are from the Netherlands, and the last one is an American.
The first authority is a certain Dr. Robert Fruin who declares that "Calvinism came into the Netherlands consisting of a logical system of divinity, of a democratic Church-order of its own, impelled by a severely moral sense, and as enthusiastic for the moral as for the religious reformation of mankind."
The next one is a Dutch historian, Reinier Cornelis Bakhuizen Van Den Brink. He writes: "Calvinism is the highest form of development reached by the religious and political principle in the 16th century."
The third authority is Conrad Busken Huet. He acknowledges "that Calvinism has liberated Switzerland, the Netherlands, and England, and in the Pilgrim Fathers has provided the impulse to the prosperity of the United States."
And the last authority is an American historian, George Bancroft. He too acknowledged that Calvinism "has a theory of ontology, of ethics, of social happiness, and of human liberty, all derived from God."
Based on the testimonies of these four authorities plus Abraham Kuyper himself, let the readers decide whether the use of Calvinism in its scientific sense is really justified or not.
Returning to the "gist" of Calvinism, at least it is fair if your claim is similar to Kuyper's: "Thanks to this work of God in the heart, the persuasion that the whole of a man's life is to be lived as in the Divine Presence has become the fundamental thought of Calvinism. By this decisive idea, or rather by this mighty fact, it has allowed itself to be controlled in every department of its entire domain. It is from this mother-thought that the all-embracing life system of Calvinism sprang" (Lecture on Calvinism, pp. 25-26). Expanding on this mother-thought, John Richard de Witt identifies at least 7 core belief shared by all who adhere to Calvinism or the Reformed faith, which are as follows:
1. High view of the Bible. "Only the Scripture, the total Scripture". In the Scripture we hear Christ speaking with all authority in all aspects of life. Not even the church could interfere in this absolute authority of Christ. The Scripture’s authority does not rest on any human institution, neither human reasoning nor any human documents. Its authority rests on its own testimony.
2. God’s sovereignty in creation, providence, government of the world and human history.
3. Power of God's grace.
4. New life in Christ. The Christian life is a holistic kind of life. It is opposed to any dualistic tendency or a neo-platonic kind of life. It does not condole mysticism, asceticism, and legalism on the one hand and it opposes licentiousness on the other hand. It respects both body and soul, honors the present existence here on earth and expects eagerly for the life to come.
5. Inseparability of law and gospel.
6. Relationship between the kingdom of God and the world. Cultural mandate plays a central role in this relationship, not only because Calvinists are interested in humanities and the culture of the world, but have realized that God has given them a task to transform the kingdoms of this world. Personal piety that results to social impotence and calloused conscience to the sufferings of this world is alien to the mindset of a Calvinist.
7. High view of preaching and its relationship to life and ministry of the Church. Preaching is perceived as faithful exposition of the word, practical, proclamation, and characterized with freedom and confidence.
Now among these seven core beliefs shared by all Calvinists, is there any one of them that you reject?
"Now pertaining to the subject divine revelation', I'm glad that you've shown keen interest of it RCl. I have floated this subject matter in this forum several times but nobody seems to understand or realize that the foundations of LOGIC, SCIENCES and TECHNOLOGIES are the ACTS and the WILL of God as recorded or disclosed both in the Bible and in the REAL ORDER OF THINGS (natural revelation)."
I already mentioned the reason why I am interested on this subject of divine revelation. It is also good that you provided not only the "definition", but also the "precise meaning" and its "genetic definition". However, I assume that you will accept that the debate about revelation did not start on this thread here in FPF. It has a long history. To my knowledge, there are at least 9 answers given to this question, and to add your answer, we have now at least 10. I am just curious to know if your answer is really original or just a repetition of one of those 9 answers as we closely examine each of them. Among those 9 answers, one of them is the Calvinistic response. I will repeat myself again that in answering this question from the perspective of Calvinism, there are at least 3 ways to do it: small, medium, large or concise, fair, and extensive.
The overview of Calvin's Institutes and Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology provide the shortest response. Cornelius Van Til's contribution to the Westminster Symposium, "Nature and Scripture" is fair and judicious. But if you want an indepth and extensive treatment of the subject, go for Herman Bavinck's "Philosophy of Revelation". In this thread, all I can give is the shortest response. Van Til's and Bavinck's treatment of revelation requires a considerable period of time. I already mentioned the overview of Calvin's Institutes, let me mentioned the 9 different answers based on Berkhof's Systematic Theology and my paper on revelation during my graduate studies:
1. Scholastics - They believe that natural revelation provides the data to construct a natural theology by way of human logic. However, natural revelation does not supply "mysteries" like the Trinity, the incarnation, and redemption. This is where supernatural revelation is needed. But the data provided by supernatural revelation cannot be rationally demonstrated. It must be accepted by faith.
2. Thomas Aquinas. Of course, Thomas Aquinas belongs to Scholasticism. However, his answer diverted on one point from the majority of the scholastics. For Aquinas, he agrees that the "mysteries" of supernatural revelation do not require any logical demonstration. However, he does not see any conflict between natural and supernatural revelation.
3. Rationalists. The rationalists exalted natural revelation "at the expense of supernatural revelation." They refused to submit to the voice of authority coming from supernatural revelation. Some "maintained that natural revelation was sufficient to teach men all necessary truths." Others might consider the authority of supernatural revelation, but it content must be logically demonstrated.
4. Deist, an offshoot of rationalism. "Deism in some of its forms denied, not only the necessity, but also the possibility and reality of supernatural revelation."
5. Schleiermarchian. No more "distinction between natural and supernatural revelation." "The term 'revelation' is still retained, but is reserved as a designation of the deeper spiritual insight of man." He does not believe in the existence of a "fixed body of revealed truth, accepted on authority, that stands opposed to the truths of reason."
6. Karl Barth. He rejected the Schleiermarchian view of revelation. Barth denies the existence of natural revelation. He also considers it "a mistake to regard the Bible as God’s revelation in any other than a secondary sense." Instead, "It is a witness to, and a token of, God’s revelation." Barth does not believe that humanity is "in possession of any infallible revelation of God." Mankind has knowledge of revelation "only through the testimony of fallible witnesses."
Barth is difficult to understand. Even a great thinker like Gresham Machen did not attempt to respond to Barth's theology. He was convinced that Cornelius Van Til was more equipped than him. And so Barth's view of revelation is not easy to digest. In Church Dogmatics, he discussed revelation under the doctrine of the word of God. So for him, the word of God is a bigger category than revelation. He understands the word of God in at least three ways: revelation, the Bible, and proclamation of the church.
From a broader perspective, revelation for Barth has Trinitarian foundation, Christological aspect, and Pneumatological aspect. In terms of details, Barth's concept of revelation is explained in various ways:
"Revelation is always God in action, God speaking, bringing something entirely new to man, something of which he could have no previous knowledge, and which becomes a real revelation only for him who accepts the object of revelation by a God-given faith."
"Jesus Christ is the revelation of God, and only he who knows Jesus Christ knows anything about revelation at all."
"Revelation is an act of grace, by which man becomes conscious of his sinful condition, but also of God’s free, unmerited, and forgiving condescension in Jesus Christ."
"Barth even calls it the reconciliation."
"The revelation of God was given once for all in Jesus Christ: not in His historical appearance, but in the super historical in which the powers of the eternal world become evident, such as His incarnation and His death and resurrection."
The revelation of God is continuous "in the sense that God continues to speak to individual sinners, in the existential moment of their lives, through the revelation in Christ, mediated by the Bible and by preaching."
7. Paul Tillich. Tillichian concept of revelation is also difficult. I have no intention to give it here. I consider it sufficient to mention that there are at least 6 things to elaborate to understand Paul Tillich's concept of revelation.
8. Post-modernist - I assume that you all know the concepts of post-modernism about revelation. ? ? ?
9. Calvinist. As represented by Benjamin Warfield, revelation is understood in two ways: general and special. In history, they are expressed in other terms: natural and supernatural, revelatio realis and revelatio verbalis, immediate and mediate revelation. Through time, Warfield's terms gained wide acceptance among Calvinists or reformed thinkers. As for the summary of Calvinist's concept of revelation, note the following:
They "rejected the dualism of the Scholastics and aimed at a synthesis of God’s twofold revelation."
"They did not believe in the ability of human reason to construct a scientific system of theology on the basis of natural revelation pure and simple." And this is because of two reasons:
1. "As a result of the entrance of sin into the world, the handwriting of God in nature is greatly obscured, and is in some of the most important matters rather dim and illegible.
2. "Man is stricken with spiritual blindness, and is thus deprived of the ability to read aright what God had originally plainly written in the works of creation."
To remedy this situation, God did two things:
1. "In His supernatural revelation He republished the truths of natural revelation, cleared them of misconception, interpreted them with a view to the present needs of man, and thus incorporated them in His supernatural revelation of redemption."
2. God "provided a cure for the spiritual blindness of man in the work of regeneration and sanctification, including spiritual illumination, and thus enabled man once more to obtain true knowledge of God, the knowledge that carries with it the assurance of eternal life."
Definition of 2 Types of Revelation and Their Biblical Basis:
General Revelation is "addressed generally to all intelligent creatures, and is therefore accessible to all men. Its aim is "to meet and supply the natural need of creatures for knowledge of their God. It is "rooted in creation, is addressed to man as man, and more particularly to human reason, and finds its purpose in the realization of the end of his creation, to know God and thus enjoy communion with Him." - Ps. 19:1,2; Acts 14:17; Rom. 1:19, 20.
Special Revelation is "addressed to a special class of sinners, to whom God would make known His salvation to rescue broken and deformed sinners from their sin and its consequences." It is "rooted in the redemptive plan of God, is addressed to man as sinner, can be properly understood and appropriated only by faith, and serves the purpose of securing the end for which man was created in spite of the disturbance wrought by sin." - I Kings 17:13: Ps. 103:7; John 1:18; Heb. 1:1,2.
Friday, September 5, 2014
About defenders of tariffs . . .
"The defender of tariffs is a collectivist. There is no escape from this. He is a collectivist because he wants to use the state's power of coercion to interfere with the decisions of property owners. He does so in the name of a supreme entity: the nation."
". . . The defender of tariffs says he believes in the free market, but he begins with a mercantilistic concept of the nation. He begins, not with the concept of private ownership, but with the sovereignty of the state over the terms of exchange. He does not begin with the individual, as Adam Smith did. He begins with the concept of the state and nation that Adam Smith opposed in his book."
"What amazes me is the extent of the self-delusion of free enterprisers who call for tariffs in the name of the nation, and then insist that they believe in libertarianism. If you begin conceptually and methodologically with the sovereignty of the state over economic affairs, you are at best a mercantilist, at worst a communist, and always a statist. You are a welfare statist, because you believe in the forced redistribution of wealth by the state. You believe in this principle: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.'"
"But it is worse than this. The protectionist really means this: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by hoodwinking the voters.'"
"In what way does the protectionist hoodwink the voters? By coming to the voters in the name of the nation, when he in fact is an advocate for inefficient, uncompetitive manufacturers who cannot persuade customers to buy their goods."
What do you mean by "nation"?
"How is it that the interests of a handful of manufacturers that cannot persuade customers to buy from them, for whatever reason, are the best interests of the nation?"
"Why is it that the interests of this collective entity known as the nation are best understood by a group of politicians who have the support of a small minority of manufacturers who are in direct competition with manufacturers outside the country? . . ."
"How is it that the relatively few special-interest groups that are in competition with foreign manufacturers possess a special position as representatives of the collective entity known as the nation, despite the obvious fact that the vast majority of people who live in the nation do not work for these companies, invest in these companies, own these companies, or even know the names of these companies? Who has designated them as the representatives of the people? Politicians, of course."
About socialism . . .
The essence of the socialist outlook is this: individual self-interest cannot be trusted, because it leads to exploitation of the weak. In order to defend the weak, the socialist claims that the civil government must interfere with private property rights, and plan society from the point of view of the nation as a whole, or the people as a whole, or the vanguard of the proletariat, or whatever group is identified as representing the best interests of the nation.
On mercantilism . . .
"Mercantilism is the system in which politicians gain control over the state, and then use the state to grant monopolies of trade to special interest groups."
"To the extent that people say they believe in Adam Smith's concept of the free market, they ought to oppose mercantilism. The problem is this: the mercantilist mentality is best represented in the defense of tariffs. Tariffs are sales taxes imposed on imports of foreign-made goods. Yet most people who insist that they are defenders of the free market, meaning defenders of Adam Smith's economics, are overwhelmingly in favor of tariffs. They think they are free marketers, but they are mercantilist. They think they are defenders of private property, when they are in fact defenders of the welfare state."
- Gary North
"How is it that people who claim to be free market advocates, and who even claim to be libertarians, join with the special-interest groups to persuade Congress to pass sales taxes on imported goods? How is it that all of this is done in the name of the free market, when it is clearly a form of mercantilism, which was the target of Adam Smith's critique in 1776? How is it that modern mercantilists have deluded themselves to such an extent that they deny that they are mercantilists, and insist they are defenders of the free market, when in fact they hold the position that Adam Smith rejected? (As for someone who argues this way in the name of Austrian school economics, my mind boggles. But there is at least one such person.)"
About Adam Smith
"Smith was not the greatest defender of free markets, nor was he anywhere near the greatest defender of economic theory. But he was unquestionably the most famous and most influential early defender of free trade and free markets. . . ."
"Smith did make one claim that, in his day, was the most important claim that he made. It laid the foundation of modern economic theory. He claimed that the free market system is autonomous. It would exist apart from legislation by the state. He called this "the system of natural liberty." He described how the free market would work if the state did not intervene to pass special-interest legislation that benefited one group or another."
"The system of natural liberty would maximize the wealth of nations, he said, but far more important, it would maximize the wealth of individuals. The central idea of Adam Smith's book is this argument: the pursuit of individual self-interest, when pursued by all the residents of the nation, will result in an increase of the wealth of the nation. His link between the pursuit of individual self-interest and the maximization of the wealth of their nation is the essence of Smith's logic, and it is also the essence of the argument of most free enterprisers."
"Mercantilism is the system in which politicians gain control over the state, and then use the state to grant monopolies of trade to special interest groups. It was against this outlook that Adam Smith wrote his book."
"To the extent that people say they believe in Adam Smith's concept of the free market, they ought to oppose mercantilism. The problem is this: the mercantilist mentality is best represented in the defense of tariffs. Tariffs are sales taxes imposed on imports of foreign-made goods. Yet most people who insist that they are defenders of the free market, meaning defenders of Adam Smith's economics, are overwhelmingly in favor of tariffs. They think they are free marketers, but they are mercantilist. They think they are defenders of private property, when they are in fact defenders of the welfare state."
About Christian Economics . . .
"In my view of economics, I begin with God as the final authority, but as I have spent the last 45 years attempting to show, the God of the Bible is overwhelmingly the defender of private property rights. This is encapsulated in the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal.' I keep contrasting this concept with the assertion of all modern welfare-state economists: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.'"
On libertarianism . . .
"There are many ways to defend the free market economy, including its efficiency, but the starting place, according to libertarian theory, is the moral and legal right possessed by an individual to own property, which implies the right of an individual to disown property. It is ownership and disownership that serve as the foundation of libertarian social theory, and also serves as the foundation of free-market economic theory."
"The collectivist begins with the concept of the state as the final authority. Libertarian theory begins with the concept of the individual as the final authority."
About statists . . .
"The difference between the statist and the libertarian has to do with methodology. The statist begins his discussion of the economy from the perspective of the collective enterprise known as civil government. He equates the state (the monopoly of coercion) and society (voluntary institutions). He also identifies the state and the nation. He sees the state as the agency which alone legally represents the nation. In some cases, he actually believes that the state is the same as the nation."
On autarky . . .
"Where there is free trade, foreign competition would even in the short run frustrate the aims sought by the various measures of government intervention with domestic business. When the domestic market is not to some extent insulated from foreign markets, there can be no question of government control. The further a nation goes on the road toward public regulation and regimentation, the more it is pushed toward economic isolation. International division of labor becomes suspect because it hinders the full use of national sovereignty. The trend toward autarky is essentially a trend of domestic economic policies; it is the outcome of the endeavor to make the state paramount in economic matters." -- Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government(1944), p. 4.
About China . . .
"During the period in which China was under the rule of Comrade Mao, it had virtually no foreign trade. It had no products that could find markets in the West. The nation could barely feed itself. In some time periods, it could not feed itself. It had nothing of value to export. It had no foreign exchange reserves. It had no large-scale industrial production at all. It was a Third World nation. The only thing it could produce in large quantities was weaponry. It did not export anything to the West."
"Today, China is a major competitor in Western markets. Its economy is basically Keynesian. Its workers can move wherever they want. We are seeing the largest migration in the history of man from rural poverty to urban middle-class living. Hundreds of millions of people have moved from the rural countryside to large cities. This is not slave labor; this is free labor. There are no government restrictions on the movement of laborers. There are very few government restrictions on hiring these workers. There is almost no social welfare system imposed by the state. The Chinese labor market is vastly freer than labor markets in the West, which are dominated by trade unions that have gotten government support, meaning the threat of violence, to support the demands of union members. This is one of the reasons why Western manufacturers are having so much trouble competing against Chinese workers."
"Chinese workers are free to move from job to job, and Chinese employers are legally allowed to hire anyone they want. Under these conditions, it is the Western workers who are closer to slavery than Chinese workers are. Western workers who are not trade union members in Western Europe are forced to take less desirable jobs, because labor union members have locked out competition from nonunion workers. Unions have used the government to send out people with badges and guns to prohibit employers from hiring nonunion workers. This is not the free market; this is a government-rigged market."
"So, the next time you hear someone argue that Western workers need to be protected against foreign goods produced by slave labor, point out to him that the reason why Western workers want protection is because they are the slave laborers. They are finding it increasingly difficult to compete against workers who live in a nation that honors the principle of the free mobility of labor and voluntary contracts between employers and employees. China is a fierce competitor, not because it is a slave labor society, but because it is competing against workers who live in a regime of government-rigged labor markets."
About stable money . . .
"What strengthens the nation's domestic population is a predictable currency. This makes forecasting easier. It reduces people's concern about fluctuating currency values. But you cannot get a predictable currency internationally, because other nations are constantly tampering with their currencies, almost always by expanding the money supply. In other words, foreign central banks inflate. So, a domestic currency that is in fixed supply is going to appreciate in relationship to those foreign currencies. In other words, there will be an increase in purchasing power. . . ."
"So, a stable money economy benefits a majority of citizens, who are constantly able to buy at ever-lower prices. Defenders of mercantilism argue that this is a bad policy. They are convinced that the subsidy involved to the export sector from the central bank that is inflating the currency is a greater value to the nation than the reduced quantity of goods and services that are available to domestic customers. The defenders of mercantilism never discuss the economics of redistribution. They never point out that a majority of citizens experience economic losses, when compared to the gains that they would have made, had they been able to buy foreign goods at ever-lower prices."
"The world is adopting policies of competitive monetary depreciation. This is going to work to the disadvantage of the vast majority of citizens in every nation. They will not be allowed the benefit of having a strong domestic currency, which would enable them to import more goods from abroad. They would be able to get the goods and services they want, at an ever-declining price, if the domestic currency were based on a gold coin standard. If they had full gold coin redeemability on demand -- if they could go to a bank and get a fixed quantity of gold coins in exchange for digital money -- they would experience an ever-rising living standard. But they do not understand economics, so they consent to policies of mercantilism. This ultimately means monetary debasement. It steals from the masses for the benefit of the exporters. It sends desired goods to foreigners."
On central banking . . .
"We are now in a situation in which central banks around the world are expanding their holdings of government debt. They are doing this by creating money out of nothing. That is what central banks do. So, there is the so-called race to the bottom. All the nations are inflating, so that their exporters will not suffer from an appreciating currency. Central bankers regard appreciating currency as a disaster. They are mercantilists."
"I think the central banks of the world are now trapped. I do not think they can go back to anything like the conditions in 2007 or earlier without creating a huge recession. I really do think there is what appears to be a race to the bottom. I also think that, before the bottom is reached in industrial countries, central banks will cease inflating. That is when we will get the Great Default. But, for the moment, the race is on."
About economic ignorance . . .
"The people who believe that tariffs are good for the nation are literally incapable of deductive economic reasoning. This argument has been used by mercantilists ever since the late 17th century. Adam Smith'sWealth of Nations is a refutation of the mercantilist position. Nevertheless, people who are incapable of following a line of economic argumentation, and who get patriotic when they hear the word 'nation,' rush to promote tariffs. Thus, the combination of an ignorant patriotism and an ignorant economic analysis produces the statement: 'Protectionism is good for the nation.'"
"Unfortunately, so few people understand economic logic, that this subsidy from the majority to the minority is not understood as being a coercive wealth-transfer program for the benefit of the minority. Very few Americans understand this. Very few Chinese understand it. Whenever a nation adopts mercantilism, which is approximately 100% of the time, it does so on the basis that almost no one understands that the policy inflicts damage on the vast majority of citizens, and it benefits only a minority who are in the export sector of the economy."
"It is a shame that most people do not understand economics, but not a shame for favored exporters, who benefit from the theft of purchasing power. You cannot get something for nothing. A minority group of exporters get a lot. The masses get rising prices for almost everything."
Thursday, September 4, 2014
On just war . . .
"There are various views of war, but there simply has not been too much exegesis on the topic in our circles. A common phenomenon, therefore—and which I think is a result of that relative neglect—has been the acceptance of the status quo standing army, warmongering, interventionist foreign policy, etc., that is common among establishment types and neoconservatives. There has even been expressed an outright 'crusade' view of warfare—aggressive foreign policy, conquest—by some in the Reformed world."
"Dr. Bahnsen begins by noting the deficiency of rational, biblical thought on this issue: 'There is far too much emotional rhetoric and knee-jerk responses, too much sloganizing, too little analytical thinking, and above all, too little biblical thinking.'”
"Thus, as theonomists, we must acknowledge that God is sovereign even in warfare. All civil and earthly authorities will give account to God for how they conduct war. This means that we must take seriously how the Bible places real constraints upon how we conduct warfare: 'The biblical ethic is not an ethic of any means to the end as long as the end is a good one. Even the means toward a good end must be good.' A just war, if we can use that phrase, must not only have a just cause, but a just conduct."
"It is our job, therefore, to distinguish between those parts of God’s Law that were given as special directive to Israel in the land of Canaan, and those parts which abide for all nations and times."
"In the end, Bahnsen turned to scripture for the laws of military and warfare. He found very specific Laws from God. These laws calls us to war only in just causes, for defensive wars only, with voluntary militias, only after every possible avenue of peace is exhausted, only in measured responses, only when feasible physically and financially, and only where we have legitimate jurisdiction to do so. These laws, according to Bahnsen, forbid standing armies, wars of aggression, and interventionism. Bahnsen’s non-interventionist principle would have us as a nation, most of the time, minding our own business, pursuing peace, and sending missionaries instead of soldiers."
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
On fiat money . . .
"Within the next twenty years, the most profound changes in all of economic history will sweep the globe. The economic chaos and turbulence we are now experiencing are merely the opening salvos in what will prove to be a long, disruptive period of adjustment. Our choices now are to either evolve a new economic model that is compatible with limited physical resources, or to risk a catastrophic failure of our monetary system, and with it the basis for civilization as we know it today."
"When we started our exponential monetary system, initiated by the Bank of England around 1700 but kicked into high gear in 1971 with the international abandonment of gold settlement, nobody ever thought that the day would come when we’d find our ball park filled nearly to the brim. . . ."
"We are leaving a legacy of debt to our children, born and unborn. Just as the direct printing of money favored by Wiemar Germany in the 1920s destroyed German’s purchasing power, so, too, does America’s debt accumulation promise to ruin our economy. . . ."
"Your job, your savings, your investments, and your future prospects and standard of living depend on the continuation of an unsustainable system now drawing to a close. You owe it to yourself to get ahead of the immense changes that are coming like water roiling up the steps towards the bleacher seat to which you are chained."
On inflation . . .
"With the massive increases in federal spending, inflation is one of the risks that awaits us. To protect us from the political demagoguery that will accompany that inflation, let's now decide what is and what is not inflation. One price or several prices rising is not inflation. Increases in money supply are what constitute inflation, and a general rise in prices is the symptom. As the late Nobel Laureate Professor Milton Friedman said, 'Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, in the sense that it cannot occur without a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.'"
"Thinking of inflation as rising prices permits politicians to deceive us and escape culpability. They shift the blame saying that inflation is caused by greedy businessmen, rapacious unions or Arab sheiks. Instead, it is increases in the money supply that cause inflation, and who is in charge of the money supply? It's the government operating through the Federal Reserve Bank and the U.S. Treasury."
On American problem . . .
"The problem is not China. It is not India. It is not imports. The problem is the endless call from each special-interest group for the government to Do Something to Save America. The problem is that the government has done way to much for too long, all in the name of Doing Something to Save America." - Gary North
On reduction of bureaucracy . . .
" State and local governments all over the country are dead broke, and an atmosphere of austerity is sweeping the nation. Right now state and local governments are slashing jobs at an unprecedented rate."
"This is bad? The states are firing people? This means less bureaucracy. I see this as one of the greatest developments in my lifetime. The states' payrolls are shrinking."
"In the past, government jobs were considered to be very secure and they definitely paid a lot higher than average. But now that era is coming to an end, at least on the state and local government levels."
"According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, state and local governments have eliminated more than half a million jobs since August 2008. UBS Investment Research is projecting that state and local governments in the U.S. will cut 450,000 more jobs by the end of 2012."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)