election

Romney Attacks 47% of Americans

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what.” - Mitt Romney

A recent article has brought great attention to Romney’s “secret” views of Obama supporters. This is somehow supposed to be shocking, as if we did not already know that both presidential candidates do not have “flowery” views of those who vote for their opponents. As our blogger Alfredo pointed out, “What is the big deal? Have liberals never heard conservatives say they are welfare queens before?”. If you’ve been around the mainstream media long enough, it’s no surprise that they make a crying fuss out of everything. But leave it to them to applaud a blatantly false commercial that pictures Paul Ryan pushing an old lady off a cliff. It’s okay to picture republican politicians and voters in this way, but it’s not okay to think of liberals as welfare drama queens. I happen to agree with Romney on this one, but it’s not exclusive to democrats as we have our own share of blind voters.

It’s a proven fact that conservatives are happier than liberals (see here) due in part to their religious and ethical views. Liberals have a different state of mind than conservatives do. The former is more critical of religion because it considers it an obstacle to progress and a promoter of intolerance. They’re more likely to force religious institutions to provide condoms to advance this agenda, for example. Not surprisingly, at least half of them are against Jerusalem and God as the DNC proves. Not to mention that this 47% does not pay for taxes. They tend to be anti-intellectual or just woefully ignorant of the complexity of the issues at hand. The solution to our problems is more entitlements, more regulation, and more government. But this just creates a greater dependency, which opens themselves up to being more vulnerable to the claims that liberals make against people like Paul Ryan. Let’s just take one example of this mindset from Squashed:

According to Romney, if your income isn’t high enough to pay federal income taxes, you’re apparently not taking “personal responsibility and care” for your life. Is it reasonable for Romney to ask people to earn enough that they’re paying income taxes—or is this just an example of out-of-touch dickery?

Notice what Romney emphasizes in the quote that is being addressed here: “Forty-seven percent of people pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.” This makes sense if you think about it. If they don’t pay taxes already, how is a “low tax” message going to appeal to them? People like free stuff and that’s precisely what Obama offers. Most of these people are anti-intellectual or woefully ignorant of the complexity of the issues at hand. Romney’s not asking them to “earn enough” to care about his message, but they don’t because they act on their personal emotions, not on facts or principles. If the general public is stupid enough to base their facts on commercials, tidbits, and little nice-sounding slogans then I think that speaks more of how stupid americans can be. Does that sound offensive to you? Then you’ve fallen for the same liberal trap. Truth is truth no matter how offensive it is. To see this, all you need to do is compare the writing and speeches of someone like Abraham Lincoln to the speeches of Obama or Romney. People couldn’t stand Lincoln’s speeches today, which says a lot about their mental capacity. I think Romney is right on when he says,

“And in a setting like this, a highly intellectual subject—discussion on a whole series of important topics typically doesn’t win elections. And there are, there are, there are—for instance, this president won because of ”hope and change.”

That’s all that we’re reduced to – slogans and charades. This is what will ultimately decide the fate of America, and unfortunately, I do not think it will be a pleasant one. As Doug Powers pointed out, there are over 8.7 million american workers that are collecting federal disability insurance. That’s ridiculous! How could someone vote for a man that has brought insane increases to our deficit only to find that our US credit rating has been downgraded once again? It just surprises me that a blogger on First Things could make the same mistake as liberals. He claims that we need to ” think about how to empower people who are struggling to stay in the middle class rather than to write them off as “moochers.” but that’s precisely what republicans like Paul Ryan have done! Ultimately though, this outrage toward Romney fails to understand the state of mind that is being advanced in these people’s voting decisions and does not encompass a proper understanding of economics.

No More Chances

No More Chances

Would you give this man another chance? The level of incompetence, deceit, and arrogance in him is staggering. This man cannot even pass a budget without being absolutely disgraced. How he got into office in the first place still baffles me. Honestly, I think the world would be better off if he worked as a janitor scrubbing toilets instead. At least he’d actually be cleaning up something, because he’s so far failed to clean up our economy or our bureaucratic system. Those who know this and still plan to vote for him are out of their minds. If that’s you, please explain your support of Obama for us.

Santorum Destroys Romney

Rick Santorum has done it again. At a time when he was told to step down, at a time when people thought he would fade away, and at a time when when Romney thought he’d win these states like he did in the 2008 election, Santorum destroyed his fellow GOP candidates in all three states. It was such an unexpected turn of events that it could be described as nothing short of an epic fight. This is the kind of momentum that Santorum needed after losing in Florida as Newt and Romney took the center of attention by shooting each other in the foot. To realize the full of extent of this victory, Wintery Knight reports the results:

• Missouri: Santorum beats Romney 55-25: +30%.
• Minnesota: Santorum beats Romney 45-27: +18%.
• Colorado: Santorum beats Romney 40-35: +5%.

This is the publicity he needs to acquire more funding, media attention, and credibility as he continues to fight against the tide that pompously declares Romney to be the inevitable nominee. Rick is the kind of candidate that is trustworthy, politically rigorous, experienced, and respectable. He can bring about the kind of revolution that we need in our country. A revolution that not only promises to give us a brighter financial future but a moral future that supports a healthy responsibility for making our own decisions instead of depending on the government to do them for us. Today we live in an age that is intellectually and morally deficient. We have failed to live out the values that stand the test of time. If we continue in our current direction, we’ll pay the price for our immorality just as Greece and Rome did.

This is not a time to mess around playing softball. The fact of the matter is, Romney is not the right candidate for the change that this country truly needs. The success of a nation is not merely determined by its financial status, it is fundamentally determined by its moral status. Unfortunately, the other candidates do not have what it takes to fight for these values. Romney, for example, created the equivalent of Obamacare, was pro-choice, supported SSM, and voted for the wall street bailouts. Newt, on the other hand, just has too much moral baggage to even mention here. America was great for how it valued freedom, privacy, free markets and moral responsibility. It’s not great if we strip ourselves of all the things that made it great in the first place. Christians, it’s time to step up and show the world what a war for truth really means. It’s not about how we feel, it’s not about how we wish it to be, it’s about how we ought to be.

Be the light to a world that is in desperate need for it.

Calvinism and Molinism so far

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’ve recently started a study on molinism with hopes to try and secure a stance on soteriology and the issue of divine foreknowledge and our free will. I haven’t made a decision yet, but I think I am leaning towards molinism. There are a few things that I can’t really understand with regards to Calvinism and its soteriology.

The issue revolves around the idea that God genuinely desires to save all and the calvinistic notion of electing some while leaving others to their doom. If a calvinist affirms that God genuinely desires to save all, then I don’t think he can truly affirm the idea that God can save some but leaves the rest. Now, I’d like to be clear that I don’t intend to speak on behalf of all calvinists. I’m well aware that calvinists differ on their stance (e.g., Bruce Ware and Greg Koukl differ on their calvinistic views). So, I’m mainly targeting Calvinists who approach this issue under the assumption that God genuinely desires to save all, hence the conditional statement I offered.

Let’s think for a moment that it is my genuine desire to have everyone in my neighborhood come and live with me in my luxurious home. My home, for the sake of this little thought experiment, has an infinite amount of rooms and space so it cannot be the case that I do not have enough room to fit everyone. So, one day one of my neighbors is walking by in front of my home and I walk out and say to him, “You there! I would like for you to come into my house, and this is not an offer you cannot refuse. After all, my home is like heaven!” My neighbor happily agrees and he comes in. As I turn back around to walk into my house, many other neighbors storm out of their homes and sadly march up to my front porch. “And why can’t we come too?” They all ask. “Well,” I begin, “You see, I really want you all to come. I really do. But I just can’t do that.” With a perplexed look they retort, “Well why not?!” “Well, I just can’t. Besides, I’m not obligated to bring you into my home.” I give them a sad look and walk right back in my home as I left them out on my front porch.

The first thing that may strike you as odd is if I really and genuinely wanted them all to come into my home, then why didn’t I just invite them in? It seems a bit disingenuous to say that I want them all to come, yet I don’t extend them all the invitation. Unless it’s the case that I really don’t want them all to come. Now if I don’t want them to come, then fine. I’m not obligated to invite people into my home. But I think when it comes to God (The Christian God), this cannot be the answer.

God is not obligated to save anyone at all, and I would agree that that is true. Greg Koukl gave me a similar answer when I called him a few months back asking him about salvation and original sin. God doesn’t have to save anyone because we’re all guilty, and if He were to not offer salvation and see to it that we’re all marched off to pay for our sins in hell, then He would be justified and we’d be getting what we deserved.

I’ll concede this, because God, I suppose if He wanted to, can do that. God isn’t obligated to do so, but He chose to offer himself as a sacrifice to the world, and I think scripture tells quite a different story. 2 Peter 3:7-11 writes, “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. “

The much quoted John 3:16-17 also affirms how much God cares for His creation that He was willing to give “his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”

This issue is nothing new, and it’s been one that Calvinists have regrouped to answer multiple times. Some offer a sort of hidden will that God has. I am well aware that the 2 peter verse is referring to the Lord’s second coming and not to salvation per se. However, Scripture, I think, reveals to us that the character of the Christian God is one in which He cares deeply about us and wishes that we all see salvation.

What can we learn about God’s character from this verse? If we take this scripture to apply universally, i.e., God wishes none to perish in any way, then we could make a good case that God doesn’t want anyone to perish with regards to going to hell. It would be weird to say that God doesn’t wish any to perish when He returns but He’s ok with individuals perishing in hell. Prima facie, I think we are justified in applying this universally, and thus revealing something very telling, and beautiful, about God’s character.

Another scripture that seems to confirm this about God’s character is Ezekiel 33:10-11. Scripture records, “And you, son of man, say to the house of Israel, Thus have you said: ‘Surely our transgressions and our sins are upon us, and we rot away because of them. How then can we live?’ Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?”

So I’d like to comment on the conditional statement I raised at the beginning of this post–If a calvinist affirms that God genuinely desires to save all, then I don’t think he can truly affirm the idea that God can save some but leaves the rest. Arguing with modus ponens:

  1. If God genuinely desires to save all, then a calvinist cannot truly affirm the idea that God can save some but leaves the rest
  2.  God genuinely desires to save all
  3. Therefore, a calvinist cannot truly affirm the idea that God can save some but leave the rest

The calvinist might deny the second premise and say that God doesn’t genuinely desire to save all, but we know this to be a problem since it seems to stand in stark contrast to scripture and God’s character. The calvinist might also say that the first premise is false because the consequent doesn’t follow from its antecedent. The calvinist may appeal to God’s hidden will in solving the issue as to why God won’t save some and not others and leave it at that. But this, too, I think is problematic and Kenneth Keathley explains why. Keathley, in his book Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach, suggests that God’s character is marred in a way that suggests that God is a hypocrite (57). In greater detail he explains,

The hidden/revealed wills approach appears to make God out to be hypocritical, which is a fifth problem. God universally offers salvation that He has no intention for all to receive. Reformed soteriology teaches that the gospel is offered to all, but efficacious grace is given to the elect. The limits of salvation are set by the sovereign and secret choice of God. Numerous times–through the prophets, the Savior, and the apostles–God publicly reveals a desire for Israel’s salvation while secretly seeing to it they will not repent. (57)

It’s purely blasphemous to say a holy God is a hypocrite, and I don’t think God is one. I think the calvinist is in a tight pickle here. Either he affirms God doesn’t genuinely wish the salvation of all, or the calvinistic soteriology is leaving something out.

Those are my thoughts so far. It focused mostly on calvinism because that’s the view that I encounter the most. Molinism looks promising, but I’m not giving it my full allegiance yet.

 Scroll to top