AA Hodge on Public Education

"I am as sure as I am of Christ's reign that a comprehensive and centralized system of national education, separated from religion, as is now commonly proposed, will prove the most appalling enginery for the propagation of anti-Christian and atheistic unbelief, and of anti-social nihilistic ethics, individual, social and political, which this sin-rent world has ever seen."

Archibald Alexander Hodge, principal of Princeton Seminary between 1878 and 1886.






.

Gun Control and Apologetics

Conservatives are outraged at the hypocrisy of people in heavily armed offices dictating that only gun-free zones will make you safe. We can easily see how foolish it is to pass more laws to stop lawbreakers who wouldn’t obey the first law. What does a gun free zone tell a criminal? It tells the criminal that the law abiding citizen has laid down their best weapon of defense.

When we engage unbelievers, being salt and light we are engaging in spiritual battle and they are wanting and expecting a “Bible free zone” of apologetic in the public square.  It goes something like “You can’t argue from the Bible because I don’t believe the Bible, so we must debate on common ground of what I consider to be good sound reason.”  They want you to give up your starting point but they get to keep theirs. You must abandon your worldview and engage their worldview FROM their worldview. They borrow Christian terms like “right” and “wrong” and “good” and “evil” that can only exist with a standard of right and wrong and good and evil. And if there is standard, where did that come from and why?

Let’s imagine you are awakened from dreaming about living in a free Republic to find you are being robbed. As a vigilant citizen you reach for your Smith & Wesson and proceed to engage the lawless and disobedient. Full of good courage, you play the man and catch the thief with his arms hugging your television. When confronted with superior firepower he says  with a furrow of anxiety upon the brow “I don’t believe in the right of a man to defend his home with a gun. I think this ought to be a gun free zone.” Would you reply “Oh, yes, certainly - allow me to holster my gun, since you don’t believe in it, and we will get on common ground.”

What has happened? You have conceded to his presuppositions. You have laid down your weapon because he doesn't like you having it or doesn't want you to use it. He may genuinely not like it and not believe in it – but should that stop you from using it?  The believer who attempts to argue apart from scripture has conceded that the unbeliever somehow is coming from a neutral position. You believe in the authority of God’s Word. He disagrees, but be sure he is not coming from an unbiased position.

If a person denies that the Bible is living and powerful, does that make it not so? Is the Bible quick and powerful regardless of what a person thinks about it? When we engage unbelievers who do not want to concede that God’s Word is truth, don’t voluntarily turn in your Sword to the proper authorities, who happen to have weapons of their own. I believe in divinely inspired Word of God. This leads to the next reason - since the Bible is divinely inspired, it is authoritative and I must bow the knee to God’s Word. And, as if I planned it this way, leads to a thirdly - I believe the Bible to be supernatural in power and sharper than any two-edged sword. That the Bible gets down to the meat & bones of the matter and discerns your thoughts and intentions. It is a powerful, spiritual weapon and our only weapon. Thus when engaging in spiritual warfare, don’t turn the debate into a Bible free zone.

Grace & Peace

Doug

Fighting Today's Battles

J.C. Philpot battled a great error that was gaining ground in his day - the denial of the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ. In his introductory remarks he answered the objections some had made to confronting that heresy in the first place. One group thought the battle was not necessary because they did not understand the full significance of the error. Some were persuaded by some “Big Guns” who had decided for themselves (and for their followers) what the Bible said and that settled the question once for all. A third group thought it was a fight over words and why cause a fuss over semantics and the question should never been waged in the first place.

When confronting error there are usually these separate battles that the truth must confront. Not only do you fight the error but sometimes you have to deal with those who should be on your side but for some reason or the other decided to sit this one out. Sitting it out wouldn’t be as bad, but often they cheer for the other team which stings a little.

Philpot said 

“Those who from self-interest, love of carnal ease, entanglement in error, or cowardice of spirit, wished things to remain quiet as they were, all lift their voice against the disturbers of the general peace.” 

Come on, ye who troubleth Israel, if you were quiet, none of this would have happened (1Kings 18:17). It is amazing to see that the battles will change but the tactics and the positions of the enemies of truth rarely do. 

Considering one of the great fights of our day, which I believe is on Biblical marriage, we are starting to see these groups appear. There are groups that don’t understand what the fuss is all about. Others who think it’s better to live and let live. There are others that wish it was like it used to be and among conservative Christians we are most susceptible to the last excuse. Remembering the glory days when you didn’t have to give a definition for marriage  we can say that it should not be like this because it did not used to be like this. Both are true statements, but unfortunately, that line of argument is a useless defense of the truth because they say "so what?" and if we shrug and saunter away mumbling to ourselves away as to avoid the controversy because we did not get to pick the fight we lose the fight anyway.  

 Few who live in exciting times that we like to read about would choose the exciting time for themselves.  An old proverb went something like “blessed are the forgotten nations of history.” Why? Who wants to read a story about a country that lived in quiet peace for centuries.

There are fights in every generation that rise. Sometimes the fight is greater than we think that we can stomach. Sometimes it’s a fight we would rather not have at all. All who pick up the sword of truth wish that it needn’t be so and it grieves us that God’s Word is not obeyed. There shouldn’t be any that relish fighting – but that should not stop the men of God. We can look at the spiritual battles for truth about us and wish it were not so, wish for quieter times and peaceful seasons, but that is not for us to decide. God has placed you in this time to fight the battle that is going on now. It’s easy to be on the right side of a fight that is already over-the test comes when the battles just starting to get hot. Your story has been written, it is not for you to decide what times you live in – it is for you to decide how you will live.

Once more from Brother Philpot:

 “Old Mrs. Bigotry is dead and buried; her funeral sermon has been preached to a crowded congregation; and this is the inscription put, by general consent, upon her tombstone:

For modes of faith let graceless bigots fight;

He can’t be wrong whose life is in the right. 

But if to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints is bigotry, let us be bigots still; and if it is a bad spirit to condemn error, then let us bear the reproach rather than call evil good and good evil, put darkness for light and light for darkness, bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”

Ronald Reagan on Abortion

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan wrote this article on abortion for Human Events, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation..

This was AFTER President Reagan was elected. I stress this because modern Republicans are pro-life BEFORE the election, and it is a very important issue until the election is over.

Every legislator, every doctor, and every citizen needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to affirm and protect the sanctity of all human life, or to embrace a social ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not. As a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic and the "quality of life" ethic.

I have no trouble identifying the answer our nation has always given to this basic question, and the answer that I hope and pray it will give in the future. American was founded by men and women who shared a vision of the value of each and every individual. They stated this vision clearly from the very start in the Declaration of Independence, using words that every schoolboy and schoolgirl can recite:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I also appreciated Reagan's ability to see through the politics and bring the abortion issue down to the true issue, life and murder.

What, then, is the real issue? I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives — the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn't feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn.

I'm sure the republicans will elect another prime example of prim and proper post-modernity, who says the right things at the right time, who is polite, smiles a lot and eats apple pie. I would rather have an honest man, who speaks the truth, trusts in Christ and unapologetically stands for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, rather than political life, party lines and the pursuit of reelection.


______________________________________________________________________

Douglas Newell IV

Fantasic Mr. Fox

Fantastic Mr. Fox, the movie.

I know that I’m late to the party with this, but I just caught this movie on Netflix. The movie was based upon a childrens novel by Roald Dahl.

Good cartoons will have a simple story, loveable characters, a clear protagonist, and will have a captivating storyline that adults can enjoy the deeper struggles and themes of the movie that children might not yet fully grasp. UP! is an excellent example of such a film. Too often cartoon movies fall into either side of the ditch. They are either so childish and moronic that there is no story, but goofball antics and silliness, good for kids, bad for me and Momma on movie night. The other extreme is jokes that are over the child’s head, not because the child might not grasp the greater moral dilemma presented, but because the crude locker-room humor is lost on a young child, as well it should be. I think Dreamworks films are notorious for this.

Somehow, someway, Fantastic Mr. Fox seems to have fallen on all three categories at the same time. The storyline is very simple and captivating from the start. I loved the stop action animation and it was a nice change of pace from CGI. Big stars with recognizable voices can take away from the movie, especially if they have a recognizable voice, but George Clooney did a great job as Mr. Fox. I couldn’t decide whether the movie was intended for children or hipster college kids who have finished a semester of philosophy; my guess, the latter. But, at the same time the absurdity of much of the movie is endearing to children. As far as the language, coarseness of the dialoged was unnecessary. Replacing expletives with the word “cuss” isn’t very clever, especially when the vulgarity is unambiguous.
The theme of the movie is my biggest problem. Mr. Fox sums up the theme for us. After suffering a midlife crisis, Mr. Fox is unhappy with his life. He has promised his wife that he would no longer steal chickens after a near death experience caught in a fox trap and learning that she was pregnant. Mr. Fox, feeling unfulfilled and unhappy says:

“Why a fox? Why not a horse, or a beetle, or a bald eagle? I'm saying this more as, like, existentialism, you know? Who am I? And how can a fox ever be happy without, you'll forgive the expression, a chicken in its teeth?”

The existentialism philosophy runs through the whole movie. Mr. Fox defined his life and his happiness by what he does and what he wants. By not being able to steal and lie and do all the things that are natural to him, he questions his purpose. When asked how he could lie to his wife he says “I’m a wild animal.” The philosophy of the movie teaches that we define what is right and wrong for us, we define truth and our existence and how we exist define who we are. When Mr. Fox had found a way to steal and be deceptive for the good of others, he was happy again, thus his life had meaning, for him. There was no redemption, only a shifting of the moral standard. Though the “evil corporations” to whom Mr. Fox was stealing their wares, were pouring out a ridiculous amount of wrath upon the animals to try and kill the fox, and had become obsessed with their vengeance; but they had every right to try and kill the fox. The enemy in the film is the enemy for protecting their property and the hero is the hero for saying that the end justifies the means. Class warfare at its most basic, yet so devilishly subtle, you almost miss it; because you need an antagonist. The only reason that farmers were hated was because they were rich. Rich = bad, poor = good; unless of course you are a filmmaker or actor, then it’s OK to be rich.

Without God and Jesus Christ, there is no meaning in life. Why a fox? Because God made him a fox. Why are you who you are? Because God made you who you are, and you were made to glorify God, not yourself. The emptiness Mr. Fox felt was because he was the center of his universe, and if you are the center of your universe, then you must do all that you can to make yourself happy. He could not be happy unless he was doing what he wanted to do, steal chickens. Doesn’t matter if that was right or wrong to steal, he wanted to, it was in his nature to, so in order to be happy, he had to fulfill all the desires of his heart, despite the consequences it had on anyone else. When confronted on this very issue, the answer was that he couldn’t help it, it was in his nature. Mr. Fox, in his atheistic, humanistic existentialism had ironically made himself a god who determines right and wrong for himself, while at the same time condemning others for being evil and unjust for living by the same rules.

Who am I, why am I here? The Bible tells us. We are here to glorify God, yet we have sinned and come short of God’s glory. Who am I? A sinner. God provided a way of Salvation and reconciliation in His Son, Jesus Christ, dying for our sins and giving us life. We have a reason to live, for His glory, we see the purpose of life, we see that life is not only about our existence and we are not the center of the universe, there is a right and a wrong, good and bad but we are not the judge of that, God is. The Bible shows us that in whatever state we are in, we can rejoice and be content because life is more that the possessions we have and the situation we are in because God is the center of all things.

I thought of the book of Ecclesiastes in light of this film. King Solomon and tried the existentialist lifestyle and provided himself with every possible pleasure and every possible way of happiness, but was left at the end depressed and unfulfilled. There is no true joy, happiness or fulfillment outside of God, in Christ Jesus. Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Long story short; the movie has a dangerous anti-christian worldview. I do not recommend it.


______________________________________________________________________

Douglas Newell IV

A Case Against Government Education

Proverbs 13:20 He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.

I know that there are a great many godly school teachers that have a positive effect on the lives of thousands of young souls who are fortunate to enter into your classroom. There are good Baptist teachers, I know many, who may be the only Christian influence on a child in their whole life. I thank God for you, and pray that you use the opportunity you have for the glory of God. This article is not directed toward those Christian teachers (who are few and far between) but the government system of education itself. I also know that there are many who will read this, and will want to tune out every thing I say because they send or sent their children to a government school for education. All I ask is that you prayerfully consider my position.

Sending our children to government schools puts us in the position of putting education, money, and jobs ahead of everything else. What is our primary responsibility to our children? Certainly we desire that our children learn, and be productive members of society, and we desire the best for our children, but does this necessarily mean that the government is the only institution that can provide such education? If we stand back, and look at the course of the history of this world, do we imagine that the government now has the best educational system in the history of the world? There are certainly other options to education. So please do not think this is intended on devaluing education in the least bit, but what we are sending our children into five days a week. In my opinion, homeschooling our kids in this day in age is the safest, and best for our kids, but if that is not an option, sending our kids to good Baptist schools where the bible is taught and everything else is taught from a biblical perspective, and biblical morals are enforced with guidance of Christian educators, that is also a good choice.

I desire my children to be wise, not fact memorizing machines. The bible speaks much about wisdom, and that is what I desire for my children. We are told by some that the problem with our children and educational system is that we are not starting young enough, and that programs are being developed for a 0-5 ‘pre-school’ system for the building blocks of government education. I agree that the problem is the foundation, but the solution is not more of the same. Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. It is the fear of the Lord that is the beginning of knowledge. The government schools are saturated with ungodly theories about man and God’s creation, while under the guise of separation of church and state eliminate the very foundation of knowledge, the Word of God. Those who direct the socialistic and evolutionary educational programs despise wisdom and instruction, but yet are in charge of developing our children’s minds. Our duty, as Christian parents, is to instruct our children and to give them the foundation of true knowledge, not to be taught by fools. Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. The Knowledge of the holy is understanding, that is what we desire for our children. Homeschooling, or Christian schools can not only provide the educational needs of our children, but do a better job at it, with the fear of the Lord being the foundation of all learning.

We Need Creek Swimming, Brier Cutting Men

BH Carroll was right on when he described the need of the Lord's men to act like men. Baptist churches need men to act like men. We need creek swimming, brier cutting men today. Men who will stand up and fulfill their roles God has called them to, namely to act like men. In I Corinthians 16:13 it says "Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong." God has challenged us, to BE A MAN.

"It is the creek-swimming men that shake the world—the brier-cutting men who will not allow obstacles to keep them from doing what God wants them to do.

Let a congregation get the idea of their pastor that he is pink of perfection, can beat anybody in town tying a cravat [neck tie], and wears the nicest little shoes, knows how to fasten a nose-gay in his vest, and how to enter a room and entertain company; carries an umbrella so as not to burn his delicate skin, then what will be his power to awaken and save the lost? An umbrella is all right in its place, but what I want to impress is this—that a stalwart man, a real man, will accomplish more of the great things in the work than all of these little fellows. He will not stop to consider a thousand things that absorb the mind of the trivial man, but will go right straightforward to the accomplishment of his great purpose. I have heard these dainty essayists preach. I have gone to their churches hungry and tried to -get something—and failed.


It reminds me of the story of a preacher who tells this of himself: During the civil war he went to a house to get some supper. Army rations were poor, and he was very hungry. They had just a little butter and they all wanted to make it go as far as possible, so each one tried to hurry through in order to get another chance at the butter before it disappeared. He said that he could not get rid of the butter in his plate. He even tried to sop it up with his bread, but it did not have any taste to it. At last he looked up and saw through knot-hole in the roof over his head that the moon was shining down through into his plate, and that all the time he had been sopping moonshine.”