•

I've only really read about Obama/Wright(or Ayers) and McCain/Keating.

The Obama case is about what Obama believes.  Wright and Ayers are both radical leftists in their politics.  If sharing a belief in radical leftist political figures is an indication of one's own political leanings, it is very relevant.   If the experience with Wright helped shape Obama's political ideology, why would we not take that into account?

On the other hand, McCain/Keating is also very relevant - it is about what McCain has done.  The question I ask is "What did you learn and how have you changed?"  In the case of McCain, it was his dealings with Keating that was the trigger for his strong political beliefs and actions on campaign finance reform and governmental deregulation.  He (in an article I read not too long ago) said that he did nothing wrong(illegal), but that brush with Keating was a "light bulb moment" (my term).  In that moment, his ideology was formed.  If the experience with Keating helped to shape McCain's political ideology, why would we not take that into account?

The difference between Obama and McCain?  Obama says, "that's not the guy I knew" (as if he could sit in the guy's church for 20 years and not know...AND write about the political beliefs of Wright and not know about them).

McCain says, "it looked wrong, I should not have done it and because of my experience I'm going to work toward fixing the system.

It's not about "GBA".  It's about what formed the political ideologies, how close are the ideologies of the student to the ideologies of the mentor (which is how Obama has described Wright).

It is about "what have you learned and how have you changed?"

McCain has told us and shown us.  If Obama sat in Wright's church for 20 years and cannot tell us what he has learned and how it has changed him...that says volumes about Obama.

•

Yes.  I believe that Barack Obama's connection with William Ayers matters.  It matters a lot.

Yes, William Ayers was a member of a radical domestic terrorist group who bombed a number of buildings.  Yes, he is unrepentant.  Yes, Obama had to have known about Ayer's history.

But...is it really the connection between terrorism and Obama that is important (or even real?)  Not really.

Obama's connections to radical leftists of all sorts of flavors is the concern, whether or not they were "terrorists".

Barack Obama's list of radical, liberal associates is varied:

  • Jerehiah (God damn America) Wright
  • William Ayers
  • the "New Party"
  • ACORN

When one choose to have associations with radical left-wing people or groups, it is generally because one has idealogical commanalities.  The more you have in common with leftist idealogies, the more associations you have.

Ultimately, as with most elections, I think that the election will fall - not necessarily to Obama or McCain - but to the party that is liberal or conservative.

We tend to look beyond the problems with  "our" candidate - if we are relatively sure that the candidate will stick to the party line.

When looking at McCain, we ask, "what party line will McCain stick most closely to?

When looking at Obama, we can also ask, "what party line will Obama stick most closely to?" This is where his radical associations are most important, because they give the best clue into his idealogy.

• 1 Comment

•

This is funny...I can tell when history classes have a research paper due. How?

Google searches. One of the research papers I wrote that I had the most fun with was: Compare and contrast Martin Luther and Henry VIII. I put a few of my papers online and this one is there also. That is by far the most popular search that brings people to this blog.

Of the top 5 google searches on my sitemeter page, 4 of them are looking for...yep. And they're not in the same place.  The cities:

  • Dallas, Texas
  • Tallahassee, Florida
  • Staten Island, New York
  • Van Buren, Arkansas

And I just thought my professor was being inventive...

So...if you're googling for information...please don't plagerize; give credit where credit is due...and enjoy history.

•

I started October 2 pounds lighter than I started September.

My first bike ride was August 17 and 10 miles was a hard ride.

Since then

  • 45-50 miles is an average weekend ride
  • My longest ride was 65 miles
  • I rode 344.99 miles in the month of September.
  • I burned 12,485 calories riding my bike

After being sick for a week, I rode today (22 miles) and it was the worst average speed in a while.  I have a lot of work to do in two weeks (I'm still planning a ride to Big Rapids and back).

• 1 Comment

•

The "L" - "limited atonement" - AKA "definite atonement", "particular redemption".

I know what the doctrine means, but there are folks out there who can put it much more simply than I can.  From wiki:

The doctrine states that Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross is limited in scope to those who are predestined unto salvation and its primary benefits are not given to all of humanity but rather just believers.

Removing the "predestination" language, which is a debate all unto itself, we can "universalize" that definition.

Some folks define "predestined" to mean "those who God knew, from eternity, who would (in the future) believe).  That's fine...for the purpose of explaining "limited atonement", we can use "those who will believe".

If I try to simplify, what I come up with is

"Limited atonement" means that Christ's suffering and death on the cross made atonement only for those who believe."

(my brain is working at half-speed - thank you, nyquil)

If we want to define "limited atonement", we need to define "atonement".  Here we can get into a spiral:  atonement = expiation = atonement, etc...(it is here I go off on a tangent, reading Anshelm...Subsitutionary vs. Satisfaction - which for the purpose of definition doesn't seem to matter much)

I found a "definition" of "atonement" that is more of a graphic than a definition.

"atonement" = at-one-ment.  Sort of romantic, actually.

Who has the suffering and death of Christ on the cross made "at one" with God?  Whose sins are paid for?

If the sins of all the people in all the world are paid for, how can God justly send anybody to hell?  They've been bought and paid for by the blood of Christ.

In the end, everybody except Universalists limit the scope of the atoning blood of Christ.

Outside of Universalism, both sides limit the effectiveness of atonement (atonement being the actual payment - either Christ being the our substitute on the cross OR Christ satisfying our debt to the Father on the cross).  In unlimited atonement, the death of Christ does not pay the penalty for the sins of the unsaved; they go to the grave still owing the debt.  In unlimited atonement, Christ is not the substitute

If atonement is limited to those who believe, then Christ's blood paid the penalty in a very effective way and it does exactly what it was meant to do:  purchase souls.

If atonement is universal (for every person who every lived), then Christ's blood effectually purchases nothing, it merely raises the possibility of salvation.

Either atonement is limited, and only the sins of some are paid for; some are saved, or atonement is unlimited, and all sins are paid for and none will go to hell.

Has the suffering and death of Christ on the cross made all "at one" with the Father?   Is the scope of effectiveness of the payment limited to those who believe?

OR

Is all of mankind "at one" with the Father?  All are bought and paid for, all have been purchased and all will find eternal life?

I started this post with an eye toward 1 John 2:2.

  • Does the "whole world" mean every person who is living or who has ever lived?  Is the scope of atonement unlimited?
  • Or does "whole world" have a meaning that is pointed at "people groups" - Jews vs. the "whole world" (Gentiles).

Unless Universalism is true and all people, of all times are bought and paid for, if their sins are covered, and all will go to heaven, then atonement is limited...the question is:  who limits it.

• 4 Comments

•

The "L" part of TULIP..."Limited Atonenent".

Also known as "definite atonement" or "particular redemption".

Now...I'm going to take this post in an entirely different and political course.

On another blog, I'm hearing about our "Christian" Bible calling Jews "children of the devil" and I'm hearing about the sinful history of the persecution of Jews by Christians.

Yes.  It happened.  Yes.  It was sin.

The popular epitaph is "Christ-killer".

Who took Christ's life?

John 10:17-18 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

My first question:  if Christ had not been crucified, where would we be?  The "religious Jews" were instruments of God, prophecied.   Jesus' death was the necessary sacrifice, ordained by the Father from the beginning of time.  If God had demanded the sacrifice, are the people who brought that sacrifice about to blame?

Now...on to "the L".

From a Reformed perspective, who is responsible for the death of Christ?   When I was an Arminian, my answer would have been "all of us".

But if I buy into the "L", that is not the right answer.

The short definition of "limited atonement" is: Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them.

If Christ's redeeming work was intended to save only those who would believe on Christ the Saviour, His blood in not on the hands of the Jews, it is not on the hands of unbelievers.

The blood of Christ is on my hands.  My hands...the hands of a believer.

Romans 5:8-11  But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!  For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

That is the "L".   The "L" lays the blame of Christ's death on me.