Friday, October 8, 2010

The Kidnapping of Cheyenne Irish (Third Update, 10/11)

The Regime's youngest political prisoner.


"Happy birthday. You're property of the State."

This is the message that was given to Cheyenne Irish, the newborn daughter of New Hampshire residents Jonathan Irish and Stephanie Taylor, who was literally stolen from her parents hours after her birth on October 6. 


While there are reportedly some "very serious" criminal allegations involved in this matter, the focal point of the case should be this: Among the reasons cited by New Hampshire's child "protection" directorate as supposed justification for the seizure of Cheyenne was the fact that "Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the, [sic] `Oath Keepers,' and had purchased several different types of weapons including a rifle, handgun and taser."

"Whether or not the charges against Mr. Irish are true, this action is entirely unconstitutional and represents a very dangerous precedent," Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, a practicing defense attorney, pointed out to Pro Libertate.  "Using this man's political views and alleged affiliations to define parental suitability in any way is entirely illegitimate, and a direct threat to the rights of parents who are political activists of any kind." 


This is hardly the first time law enforcement officials and social workers have cited "political extremism" to justify severe and extra-constitutional sanctions against people who have not been convicted of an actual crime.


Just a few months ago, police in Salem County, Massachusetts arrested an innocent man named Gregory Girard on palpably fraudulent criminal charges because his wife -- acting as a dutiful collectivist drone -- reported that he had developed "extremist" political views. 

Those unsanctioned opinions, coupled with legal firearms purchases, led to Girard's arrest and detention as a "danger to the community" -- but he was never formally charged or prosecuted. He was simply taken into Soviet-style administrative detention while the local members of Lavrenti Beria's fraternity -- that is, the county prosecutor and judge -- tried to devise a criminal charge to justify his imprisonment. 

Political Prisoner Gregory Girard

After Girard spent four months in jail without a criminal charge,  his case was eventually "dismissed without a finding." He was designated a "ward of the court," compelled to undergo routine psychiatric evaluation and treatment, and notified that he could be arrested and subjected to indefinite detention at any time such action was deemed suitable by his persecutors.


This was done to Girard because he was classified to be what law enforcement organs in the Soviet Union called a "socially dangerous person." This same calculus appears to have been used to justify the government kidnapping of Cheyenne Irish -- a much graver crime, given that it involved not merely the seizure of a man's means of self-defense, but of his newborn child.



Cheyenne "wasn't even 16 hours old when they came in and stole her from us," reports her father Jonathan. The head of security at Concord Hospital "had a nurse come in while Cheyenne was sleeping [who] lied to us that they just wanted to take her to the nursery to see the doctor to be discharged. Even though I said NO to have the doctor come in the room they took her anyway.... I followed [them] out to the nursery because I didn't want my daughter out of my sight, as we were walking out I saw several gentlemen wearing suits with detective badges and my gut just started wrenching."


"They rushed her into the nursery and locked her in," Jonathan continues. "[W]hile I was talking to one of the other nurses the head of security comes up behind me, grabs my arm and starts walking me down the hall saying `you need to keep an open mind, you need to just hear them out' and he just kept repeating himself ignoring my questions as to who `they' were."
Cheyenne, shortly before her abduction.


How typical of an agent of government aggression to be accusing the victim of "intolerance" even as the crime is in progress. This little touch is a variation on the police tactic of bellowing "Stop resisting!" to a helpless victim at the bottom of a thugswarm.


"When he got me in Stephanie's hospital room and sat me down on the couch the police department and DCYF [Division of Children, Youth and Family services -- that is, the child-snatcher apparat] showed up. Three uniformed patrol officers and 3-4 detectives with 2 DCYF social workers walked in the room.... [One] of the patrolmen asked if he could pat me down. I said NO, not giving my consent.... The officer grabbed my wrist, bent it behind my back and stood me up and proceeded to pat me down anyway."


After seizing a pocketknife and cigarette lighter and asking if Jonathan had "any other weapons" -- officer safety uber alles, you know -- the childnappers "gave us a fabricated affidavit ... telling us they were taking custody of our newborn daughter."


Jonathan was then informed that he would be shadowed, Stasi-style, by a "security officer." When contacted by Pro Libertate at approximately 3:45 MST on October 8, Mr. Irish was being forced to leave the Concord Hospital parking lot pursuant to a "notice" he had been sent by the local police.


"I received a phone call a while ago telling me to go to a website" -- that is, a Facebook page -- "where a group of people had taken it on themselves to organize a protest and rally," Irish recounted to Pro Libertate. "I was then sent a document by the Concord Police that said I wouldn't be allowed to go inside the hospital, or even be in the parking lot, unless it involved a medical emergency, otherwise it would be considered `criminal trespass.'"


***

***


Irish refers to Cheyenne's mother, Stephanie Taylor, as his fiancee. The affidavit mentions that the couple had been under DCYF scrutiny "for approximately 21 months ... in a case involving two children of Stephanie Taylor; neglect petitions were filed on January 7, 2009 and a Termination of Parental Rights trial was recently concluded as to these two children...."


For reasons not specified in the document, Irish was "ordered to attend Ending the Violence with Scott Hampton; however, to date, has not completed this program." (Remember this point; we'll return to it anon.) The police complain that they have "responded to multiple calls" involving Irish and firearms, which resulted in "a pending charge for possession of a concealed weapon without a permit." It was in the context of that trivial paperwork matter that the affidavit mentioned Irish's "association" with the Oath Keepers, which was misrepresented in the affidavit as a "militia."


The Oath Keepers is an organization of current and retired law enforcement and military personnel who have pledged not to carry out patently unconstitutional orders. The group's founder, Stewart Rhodes, emphasizes that it encourages lawful, peaceful non-cooperation, rather than armed insurrection, as a way of interposing against the all-encompassing criminal assault by the Regime against individual rights. 


Had an Oath Keeper been present at Concord Hospital on October 6, he would have refused to be party to the criminal abduction of Cheyenne Irish.



The "association" referred to in that document consists of occasional involvement by Irish and his fiancee in an on-line discussion group involving the Oath Keepers. Mentioning this tenuous connection served the immediate interests of the child abduction bureaucracy, since it created a caricature of the father as a potentially dangerous "extremist." But it also serves the long-term interest of the Homeland Security bureaucracy by using Jonathan Irish as an indispensable defendant in a potentially precedent-setting case.


"I know practically nothing about Jonathan Irish," Stewart Rhodes of the Oath Keepers told Pro Libertate. "Whatever we learn about his problems, the real question is this: Why was such prominent mention made of his political beliefs and supposed affiliations?" 

If Mr. Irish is a legitimate criminal suspect -- as opposed to a troubled parent who is considered a political criminal -- why wasn't he taken into custody? Why was  he left relatively free, while his newborn daughter was wrenched from her mother and father through deliberate deception and the threat of lethal force?


The Oath Keepers have been targeted by the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an immensely profitable leftist "watchdog" group run by the degenerate fraud named Morris Dees. Through an illicit relationship with law enforcement agencies, both federal and local, the SPLC has become deeply involved in an effort to indoctrinate police (as well as educators and social workers) regarding the ubiquitous menace of "anti-government extremism." Rhodes points out that the SPLC, a nominally private group that is unaccountable to the public, is a member of the "Homeland Security Advisory Council" (HSAC) which published a report on domestic "radicalization" and "extremism" last Spring.

A work in progress, the HSAC describes itself as striving to prevent  "violent crime that is motivated by extreme ideological beliefs" through "threat mitigation" and "community policing." That last term of art came into vogue during the early part of Bill Clinton's first term: Washington began to lavish funding on states and municipalities for the purpose of integrating the police with the social services bureaucracy, the better to create a seamless web from which no family could escape.


Before she presided over the Holocaust at Mt. Carmel as the federal Attorney General, Janet Reno was a forceful advocate of "community policing" in order to draw recalcitrant parents into the suffocating embrace of the omniprovident Nanny State.



"Community policing"; below, more of the same.

"They sit behind doors and they glare out at officialdom in whatever its form -- a building inspector, a Housing and Urban Development manager, a police officer -- and they don't believe that person," complained Reno in a 1993 speech to the Police Foundation. "They won't come out. They won't bring their child to the clinic ... because they are suspicious and unbelieving that government really cares."


That speech, incidentally, was given on April 9, 1993 -- just ten days before the government Reno served so eagerly displayed its "caring" nature by immolating the children of the Branch Davidian community. 


Reno, according to a Los Angeles Times summary, urged that local governments assemble teams of "community-friendly, highly respected police officers, social workers, public health nurses, [and] community organizers" to pry open the doors of people burdened with a healthy mistrust of the congealed mass of corruption called government. 


The group that carried out the abduction of Cheyenne Irish is a perfect example of a  Reno-style "community policing" strike force in action. 


Among the reasons cited for seizing Cheyenne was Scott Irish's refusal to attend a seminar taught by Dr. Scott Hampton, Director of an organization called Ending The Violence. Hampton and his organization offer "training and consultation ... to child protective workers, probation and parole officers, judges, attorneys, medical professionals, clergy, teachers, and law enforcement" as well as offering "expert witness testimony in both civil and criminal cases." Hampton has conducted hundreds of workshops and seminars throughout North America and Europe, and is past President of the National Supervised Visitation Network.


Most importantly, he is an unabashed proponent of totalitarian attitude reconstruction, the sort of social engineer C.S. Lewis referred to as an "official straightener." Although he eagerly cites the work of "tolerance" peddlers such as Morris Dees, Hampton believes that tolerance is inadequate. Unlike those who believe that only God has jurisdiction over the inner life of human beings, Hampton -- like others who would use the power of the State to tear windows into men's souls -- maintains that the government literally must reprogram the inner life of people who hold "bigoted" beliefs.


"Tolerance does not require that you give up your hatred. It just tells you how to act when you hate. Not good enough," sniffs Hampton in his new book Tolerant Oppression. "It is time that we teach people how not to hate." What this requires, of course, is court-ordered reconstruction of individual attitudes using whatever leverage may be necessary -- apparently up to and including child abduction.


The kidnapping of Cheyenne Irish on her birthday bears more than a passing resemblance to a November 2008 incident in Pascagoula, Mississippi. The newborn daughter of Cirila Baltazar Cruz, who was born at Pascagoula's Singing River Hospital, was abducted through deception and coercion by hospital officials and social workers. The child was placed in the custody of two attorneys who practiced "family law" before the same judge who approved the hasty transfer of custody.


Like Jonathan Irish, Baltazar Cruz was deemed an unsuitable parent on the basis of unproven allegations. An employee at a local Chinese restaurant, she had reportedly come to the United States as an illegal immigrant, and was accused of "trading sex for housing." Her immigration status would not justify the seizure of her child, and the prostitution charge was never investigated. Nevertheless, it took more than a year and a half for Baltazar Cruz -- working with a self-described "public interest law firm" -- to regain custody of her stolen child.


A federal lawsuit filed against the hospital and others responsible for this atrocity correctly condemns the "unconstitutional actions" of those who abducted Baltazar Cruz's child. Their unconscionable acts inflicted severe emotional and physical harm on the bereaved mother, alienated the newborn from parental affection, and "substantially interfered with [their] constitutionally protected right to family integrity," the lawsuit observes.


Exactly the same case can be made on behalf of Jonathan Irish, Stephanie Taylor, and their daughter Cheyenne. It's not likely, however, that the legal activist group that defended the parental rights of Cirila Baltazar Cruz -- the Southern Poverty Law Center -- will volunteer its services on behalf of Cheyenne and her parents, given that organization's distant but substantive role in the crime that was committed against them.

Update --

File this one under "The default setting is overkill":

"FBI bomb-sniffing dogs were at Concord Hospital on Friday after demonstrations gathered to protest a newborn being removed from her mother's care by the state. The hospital said there was no threat made, but it was taking precautions in part to reassure staff and patients.... The FBI left the hospital without finding anything threatening...."

No overt or tacit threat was made, yet the Feds were called in to treat this as a potential terrorist situation. That's SPLC-style "political profiling" at work.

Note the cringing euphemism employed here to describe what provoked the protest: The child was "removed from her mother's care by the state," the most delicate description I can imagine of kidnapping a newborn from her mother at gunpoint.

The domestic situation behind all of this is a mess. As noted above, Mr. Irish and his still-married "fiancee" have some baggage. The State insists that he's an abuser and she's a victim; they both stoutly deny the charges, and he's not being treated like a criminal suspect. Furthermore, their landlord maintains that Mr. Irish is "a very honorable person who loves his country. And I've watched the state and the police systematically hammer him."

As with the mass seizure of children from the FLDS polygamist enclave a couple of years ago, this case seems like a perfect illustration of H.L. Mencken's maxim that "the trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."


Second Update --

This video was shot shortly before Jonathan Irish and his fiancee were evicted from the parking lot at Concord Hospital (which was just a few minutes before I contacted him on Friday, October 8):




Third update --

Looking into some additional details in the Cheyenne Irish case, I'm struck by the fact that the overt act of "neglect" supposedly committed by her mother, Stephanie Taylor, was giving birth to the child.


This would mean the only way she could have avoided being charged with "neglect" at this point would have been to abort the baby.

 

Granted, there is a backstory here -- a very confusing and troubling one. As noted above, Mr. Irish and his still-married "fiance" have plenty of problems, some of which are, to some extent, of their own creation. We're still left to deal with the fact that the State claims the authority to seize a child who is a victim of "neglect" by virtue of being born -- and that those responsible for that act defended it, in part, by referring to the political views of the child's biological father.

 




Thank you so much for helping to keep Pro Libertate on-line! God bless. 












Please be sure to tune in to Pro Libertate Radio each Saturday night from 8:00-11:00 Mountain Time on the Liberty News Radio Network.










Dum spiro, pugno!





66 comments:

QB said...

Outrageous! This should be front page news all across the country.

We'll see how much attention it gets. How long until that miscreant Mark Potok shows up on television defending the kidnapping?

Mister Spock said...

Mind boggling, Will. Maybe they kidnapped Cheyenne to get her started early on this:

http://snapscouts.org/

It's what all the cool kids will be doing "to earn tons of cool badges and prizes while competing with [their] friends to see who can be the best American."

I'm pretty sure it's a parody, but I haven't been able to find out for sure - but definitely where we are heading.

Amanda said...

thanks so much for picking this story up. i always enjoy your lew rockwell articles so i'm delighted you are carrying this story.

i met with the parents today at the protest outside Concord Hospital and they seem 100% legit to me. they are not violent people, which is what most people assume. they are also not drug addicts, another thing people have been assuming about why the state would take their children.

the neglect accusation is the result of a caretaker's abuse of one of their older children.

the neglect accusation is crazy in itself... almost 2 years ago, they left their children with someone they trusted, who then hurt one of the children, and 'child protection' decided to charge the parents with neglect and remove the children! although 'charge' isn't really the right word for this because, so far, no one's been arrested.
and if i understand correctly, based on a poor caretaker pick, the state has denied them 'parental rights' and this is apparently extended to all unborn children. WOW.

this agency is totally out of control. this is sick sick sick.

they have court in dover, NH on thursday. mr. grigg you will be interested in this tid bit - the family courts in fabulous NH have NO jury, allow NO media or public attendance, and will not make any information about their decisions public. look up the 'termination of parental rights' law for NH. :(
so while we do plan to rally outside the courthouse on thursday (if the family invites us), we will not be able to witness or record anything that happens.

SICK.

'like' Free Baby Cheyenne on facebook! facebook.com/freebabycheyenne

liberranter said...

Mister Spock:

That "parody" is damned close to what the REAL Boy Scouts have degenerated into!

Will:

It's interesting that your two most current articles goverment detail crimes and corruption in two states (Montana and New Hampshire) that so many misguided libertarians believe to be "free states." When will these people learn that no geographical region of the United Fascialist State of Amerika is "free," nor will any be made free by mass migrations of people to them who are determined to make them so? (Chuck Baldwin, are you listening?)

Concerning the topic at hand, I really, truly look forward to the day when state-employed thugbots attempting to abduct a child from their parents are met with lethal force. That's what the residents of the Morman El Dorado compound in Texas last year should have done (and would no doubt would have done, had they not already been co-opted and compromised by the state).

Anonymous said...

as much as i hate to say it, but know it the right thing to do, we need to pray for both sides.

there is something in this that God wants us to see, so we cannot let our anger blind us to the truth He wants us to learn.

having a child out of wedlock? hey, the wages of sin is death. God punishes us in all kinds of ways. the sad thing is that we think He just...forgets. perhaps this is a wake up call to the couple? who knows.

i hope they get their daughter back. i'm sure they will. and be assured that God will then punish those who kidnapped their child. i think that once this couple forgives those who did this to them, then the tide will turn their way. i ain't saying to forget what they did, but forgive what they did. heck, i want those cops dead myself this is so bad.

rick

Lemuel Gulliver said...

This is sickening. Revolting. Vile. Evil beyond belief.

If there is one thing we learn from this, it is that the State KNOWS it is committing violence against us, and is AFRAID of us. We may be peaceful and completely non-violent, but if we express unhappiness of any kind, the State assumes we will react violently to the violence done to us, and pre-emptively reacts accordingly. Even to the extent of taking good-behavior hostages from among our children, like barbarian tribes used to do 2,000 years ago.

The only way around this is to NOT join any organization or any group of dissidents. NONE. These groups give the State apparatchiks the willies. These are groups of people who DO NOT KNOW EACH OTHER. All of them have been penetrated by the spies of State Security. Rather, we MUST keep our own counsel, and do whatever we need to do, quietly and privately. This also, sadly, includes being circumspect when it comes to close family and friends. These people can turn on us at any time, or chatter unthinkingly, and unleash the violence of the State upon us. Remember, anything you tell another person - ANYBODY - must be assumed to be public knowledge.

So keep your opinions and intentions to yourself, because the President himself has assumed the right to assassinate American citizens at will, extra-judicially and without charges. Remember that. It means that nothing you possess, up to and including your life, is yours in the eyes of the State. Everything you poseess, your property, your children, your life, may be taken from you at the whim of the State.

Face this fact. Think about it deeply. Get used to it. And remember to keep your mouth shut around people you have not known for a long, long time.

While Russia becomes more and more free, America is becoming daily more like the Soviet Union used to be. Do not be foolishly naive - one day the State will no longer let us leave, just like the Soviets did with their people. We are building a fence along our southern border - it can one day just as easily keep people in as keep them out. Remember Chief Joseph. Fleeing to Canada was not permitted to him and his people. And that was 130 years ago! If you don't like it, prepare NOW a plan of escape, before the doors slam shut.

My suggestion is to check out storage facilities where you can prepay for a year or two and store your possessions you want to keep. (If that occasion arises, use a false name and pay in cash.) Stockpile small silver and small gold coins, as many as you can afford, even at today's prices. Keep fit. Buy a shotgun and a supply of 00 shells. (You can miss with a handgun or rifle, but not with a shotgun. It is still legal to saw off the barrel down to 19 inches. And shotguns are cheap.) Train yourself to hike overland. Get a good supply of pepper spray against bears. Compass. Maps. Cigarette lighters. Good boots. Lightweight tent. Knife. Check the maps of the Canadian border - and NOT at Niagara Falls. Remember, crossing rivers may be impossible. Prepare a menu of dried food on which you can live for a month. Get a water purification apparatus. Every ounce of weight is vital. Get the lightest stuff possible. Do enough of this for you and whoever else you would take with you - but DO NOT tell them, unles you are very, very sure of their goodwill and confidentiality. Then wait quietly for the occasion of need. And lastly, pray it never comes.

- Lemuel Gulliver.

Anonymous said...

The really sad part to me is that so many people think this all A-ok and how things should be. The benefit of the doubt is always given to government and not the individual.

I guess that's what happens when a country replaces God with their government, and now government replaces the head of the household too. Everything makes perfect sense if you look at it like that.

Nowadays, being a parent is a privileged just like having a drivers license, or owning and carrying a gun, all subject to the whim of the national head of the household, government.

And the people seem to like it like that.

Anonymous said...

I've read so many boot-licking slavish comments, on other web sites, about how governmental agencies are in the right, that it boggles the mind. That you would find drones willing and complicit in regards to these criminal acts is then, sadly, no small surprise.

I remember our midwife telling us long ago that you really had to watch out about having your child born at a hospital. That there was no faster way for social services to swoop in under some false argument and steal your kid than have one born at one of these facilities. I was in disbelief, then, but now I see it actually happens.

Lemuel Gulliver said...

We live in interesting times. We are watching the collapse of a civlization. What a privilege.

Just as it took a few centuries for Rome to collapse, and 50 years from 1914 to 1964 for the British Empire to collapse, similarly it will take a while here. It won't happen overnight. But the process is well underway, and has been ongoing for about the last 30 years. I give it 10-15 years more. (And then what? See below.)

Since 9-11-01 there have been NO genuine terrorist threats to this nation, only fake ones and ones instigated, aided and abetted by the FBI. Even 9-11-01 itself was not a terrorist action - it was planned and organized by the elite powers in this very country.

The entire apparatus of Homeland Security, militarized police, so-called law courts, and FBI/CIA/NSA/DHS has only one purpose, and it is not to defend the American people from terrorists. Rather it is to defend the American elite oligarchs, plunderers and robbers from the American people.

Face this fact: This land is not your land. This land is not my land. This land is the land of the super-rich and their servants who suck at the tits of the public purse. Resist them at your peril.

Just as a cancer grows fat while the rest of the body wastes away until the host and the cancer both die, the oligarchs will grow fatter and fatter, and richer and richer, and their oppressions more and more vicious, and the working classes poorer and poorer, until both they and the American people perish together.

The rot has become so deep, and the cancer of power, greed and corruption has metastasized so profusely, that no cure is now possible. The only solution, the inevitable end, is the death of this Republic, along with probably several millions of its citizens. The oligarchs and their servants will only go down when we all of us go down.

I'll tell you a secret. You know why this all makes me laugh? Becuse they have so much more to lose than we do. Pure justice. Their shit stinks just like mine, and their evil black hearts will one day cease to beat, just like mine. But I will go peacefully and without regret, while they will fight death to their last breath, longing with all their soul to hang on to all that money for just a few years, a few days, a few minutes more. Too bad. Ding! Ding! The bell rings, and they're dead.

Now, children doesn't that cheer you up?

- Lemuel Gulliver.

AvgJoe said...

This isn't about the "state" as much as it is about parasites who have hijacked the "state" to insure they get their easy tax feeder ride. We the hard working citizens of America are being slowly enslaved by government parasites to serve them. Free thinking citizens are seen as a threat to that easy tax feeder ride for the parasites. So the parasites will abuse the power entrusted in them to make examples of people to do not tow the line and work to serve the tax feeders.
The situation with the SPLC is this group has found a way of getting a free ride by offering support so tax feeders to keep them in power. Fact of the matter is, tax feeders know very well that they do no have the ability to earn anything close to what they get as tax feeders in the private sector. With US economy as it is we will see the parasites abuse their entrusted power and destroy many more lives of decent citizens to make examples out of them to scare the masses into complying as slaves to serve the tax feeders.

RU4Tyranny said...

Will, I'm starkly reminded of the treatment 'Alex' received at the hands of his "straighteners" in the movie (book) "Clockwork Orange" by Stanley Kubrick.

Anonymous said...

This may be all it takes.
The Coming Middle-Class Anarchy

http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2010/10/coming-middle-class-anarchy.html

Posted on Facebook by Mark Glenn.

Mister Spock said...

Wow. Two posts from LG, and I basically agreed with both of them - perhaps because he was able to make two posts in a row without blaming the Jews.

But I primarily wrote to correct anonymous @1:15. God punishes no one for having a child out of wedlock (or any other sin.)

I had it explained to me once this way:

What caused the Spirit of God to depart from Adam? Sin.
When He was on the cross, what caused the Spirit of God to depart from Jesus? Sin.
What is the only thing that could cause the Spirit of God to depart from you? Sin.
Where are your sins? Behind the back of God, never to be seen again.
Were your sins judged? Yes, at the cross.
What was the verdict? Guilty.
What was the punishment? Death.
Who took it? Jesus.
How much of it did He take? All of it.
So how much of it is left for you? None.
So why can't/doesn't the Spirit of God depart from you when you sin? Because the sin issue was dealt with once, for all time, at the cross.

While we need to call sin sin, and recognize that there are natural consequences to sin in our world (whether that's dying from a drug overdose, current or future problems related to having a child out of wedlock, incarceration for stealing, capital punishment for murder, whatever), from God's perspective, the sin issue has been dealt with once and for all.

That is why you don't lose your salvation when you sin and don't have to get saved again - and why Jesus doesn't have to die again, since without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.

Remember: "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation." 2 Cor. 5:18,19

That's an amazing verse - God is not counting our sins against us!!!! We have been reconciled - past tense - and our ministry is to carry that message to the world.

Due to space limitations, and can't say all I would like to, but I hope that makes sense.

Sans Authoritas said...

Mr. Spock wrote: "So why can't/doesn't the Spirit of God depart from you when you sin? Because the sin issue was dealt with once, for all time, at the cross."

Mr. Spock, if what you said is true, what does St. Paul mean in Philippians 2:12? "Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling."

More importantly, if what you said is true, why would Paul say,

"But I discipline my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."

Mister Spock said...

Just noticed some bad editing on my last sentence. I actually started to say something about due to space limitations, and Will most likely not wanting to turn this into Theology Corner, I was going to limit what I was going to say on the subject. So, to answer SA's question, it's up to Will - do you mind if we discuss tangential issues?

Jerry said...

I think Mr. Irish needs to watch this video. It has some very interesting legal notes about this case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1O1jpDld9U

Ex-JBS said...

Mister Spock ... It appears that you don't believe there is a hell.

I'm afraid you MAY be buying into the lies and distortions preached on TBN and the mega-church preachers like Joel Osteen and his ilk.

What about the sanctification of the believer following his conversion? God changes the hardened heart of those He chooses to save, so that their desire then is to seek after and please God.

Prior to that 'heart change', they are in rebellion to God and are only restrained from total evil by common grace.

Yes, those God has chosen to save do still have unredeemed flesh, which tempts them to sin ... but their desire is to please God, and not just go around sinning thinking that they'll get into heaven anyway! That is the attitude of an unchanged heart!

Mr. Grigg may not want this to become a theological discussion, but I couldn't let your erroneous post regarding salvation go unanswered.

Mister Spock said...

Ex-JBS: Mister Spock ... It appears that you don't believe there is a hell.

Au contraire (that's French for you must be kidding.) Jesus said more about Hell than He did Heaven.

I'm afraid you MAY be buying into the lies and distortions preached on TBN and the mega-church preachers like Joel Osteen and his ilk.

Nope. I don't have anything to do with Osteen, Hinn, or any of those other frauds on The Blasphemy Network

What about the sanctification of the believer following his conversion? God changes the hardened heart of those He chooses to save, so that their desire then is to seek after and please God.

Prior to that 'heart change', they are in rebellion to God and are only restrained from total evil by common grace.

Yes, those God has chosen to save do still have unredeemed flesh, which tempts them to sin ... but their desire is to please God, and not just go around sinning thinking that they'll get into heaven anyway! That is the attitude of an unchanged heart!


How is anything in your last three paragraphs related to anything I said? All I was commenting on was the misconception that God punishes people for their sins and the need for forgiveness after salvation. I addressed none of the issues you mentioned.

Mr. Grigg may not want this to become a theological discussion, but I couldn't let your erroneous post regarding salvation go unanswered.

I don't wish to put words in your mouth, either, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you are a Calvinist and have an incorrect or incomplete understanding of salvation. Most Christians (including Calvinists, Arminians, and those that are neither - yes, there those that are neither contrary to what Calvinists teach) think it's just getting your sins forgiven, and that's not even close. So, following your example, I'm replying to your post since I don't wish your errors to go uncorrected, and I'm still waiting to see if Will deems it ok to go down this road. Will?

William N. Grigg said...

My friends, feel free to thrash this out. I won't countenance deliberate blasphemy -- but that shouldn't be a concern here, I suppose. :-)

Mister Spock said...

Well, cool. I have the day off Tuesday, so if I can't get to a longer post by then, I'll do it Tuesday.

Ex-JBS said...

Mister Spock, your post @ 1:58 PM read as though you believe in Christian universalism - that everyone will be saved. You were admonishing Anonymous @ 1:15 AM, who had suggested that the couple suffering these abuses was perhaps being punished by God because of their out-of-wedlock status. Since their relationship to Christ wasn't mentioned in Will's blog, your statements about sins being hidden and forgotten indicated you believed this applies to everyone. I'm glad to hear that was not your intention.

As for my Calvinist beliefs, it would be a stretch to think that anyone could completely discuss salvation in a few short paragraphs ... and since you have an obvious bias against Calvinism, I certainly won't waste any time trying to do so. Suffice to say that anyone who thinks that Calvinists are mostly just about "getting your sins forgiven" sure hasn't hung around many Calvinist discussion groups! Thanks for the laugh!

Oh, and there was certainly no need to interpret "au contraire" for me. After all, I am Ex-JBS and heard Robert Welch say that more times than I care to remember.

Anonymous said...

Folks, I'm surprised that the issue at hand, that being a child taken from her parents, is overshadowed by your nit-picking over theology! For the love of all that's holy you sound like a bunch of childish Pharisees. It reminds me of the stupidity within Jewish circles on whether putting coffee crystals in water, during the Sabbath, was considered WORK!!! As I recall pouring water onto the crystals was "making" coffee but placing the crystals into hot water... the crystals "became" coffee... Damn it all. Don't you see just how stupid such log-in-eye musings become once you've lost sight of the original argument?

Anonymous said...

as for the video...

you know, when i was in germany, i had a friend who had something akin to this...just a wee bit. it deals with who is the father. before i go on, let me say that i do not endorse the kidnapping, but i see where the state folks are "deriving" (to use a non-applicable word) their authority.

when in germany, my peer was seeing another woman. she was getting divorced, but the paperwork was not done yet. after some time she became pregnant with his child. unfortunately, she had an IUD? and it tore at the placenta. even though the child still developed, his lungs did not fully develop. i remember getting back into germany for R&R from iraq and seeing my buddy at the airport in rhein mein with me. i was like, "how the hell did you get here?! i just left you a few days ago at the FOB?" he then mentioned that his infant son, who had just been born, was dying. his son did eventually die. here's the kicker: the german govt would not give the infant his (my friend's) last name. since the woman was still married, the child's last name was the name of the husband, and not the paternal father. my friend later showed me the funeral photos of his son. he was pissed, but not hyper angry. on the tomb stone, was the first name he and his wife (he later married her) had given their son, but the last name was the last name of the husband.

while writing this something came to mind. this couple needs to research what the law in their state says in situations like this--WHO HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CHILD.

i know i mentioned God earlier in one of my post but i think that may have been misconstrued as this whole incident being punishment for having a child out of wedlock. honestly, i don't know if it is. no one does. and to MoT...the only thing we do know is had that union not taken place out of wedlock, then this would have never have happened. that's an indisputable fact. so no, you cannot leave God's morality out of this. adultery is a sin, and in this case, the consequences of their actions immediately came into play. but you know what? since i do not have a heaven or hell to put them in, i'm not throwing a stone.

***break***

this case has some good points to it, it allows people to see what "the state" thinks and how it operates in this area...and may even be an opportunity to get it in stone that the citizenry will not tolerate these actions. albeit, "the state" is nothing more than a a group of people--passing through bureaucradom--who think they can lord themselves over others since they can now do things that any person not in the govt employ cannot do.

rick (part 1)

Anonymous said...

what gets me here is what Will said about how if the father had committed a crime, then he should have been arrested. taking the child from the mother?! that makes no sense unless she was unfit. but who makes that determination?

i think if this couple digs deep, they will find that the local govt screwed up. if they are reading this, then here are a few suggestions:

1) who notified the authorities concerning your child and what do they do for a living, and with whom is that person affiliated?

2) who has parental rights in your state in this kind of situation? the biological mother? the biological father? the husband? bottom line, you're dealing with adultery laws here so what do those laws say?

3) under what circumstances can child protective services take a child, and when?

4) are there any statutes on the books that allow CPS to do what they did if they cite "the child is in imminent danger!"? if so, what EVIDENCE initiates that statute? did CPS have that evidence? most importantly, upon whom is the burden of proof?

we all see this as a kidnapping (and it is IMO), but what does the law say? so what if the law is an ass? what does it say? so what if it's unconstitutional! what does it say? as Larry Becraft once told me (to paraphrase him), "there are certain arguments that do not work in court [no matter how sound]".

rick (part 2)

Anonymous said...

The entire practice of family law is corrupt beyond reform. It must be eliminated in its entirety. The government has no legitimate authority to be in the interpersonal relationship business - period.

While this case is an extreme example, this kind of crap has been foisted on tens of thousands of fathers in this nation for decades. No one wants to listen when it is a father being plundered in the family courts, access to his children restricted to every other weekend, forced to endure the indentured servitude of lavish alimony/child support. No, under those circumstances probably a good number of the posters here are A-OK with it.

Now see what it has grown into - it is the same apparatus tried and tested on fathers now deployed for new purposes.

In Male Fide
Sic Semper Tyrannis

Anonymous said...

I have read the news paper reports. I have even heard seen the crowd gathering outside the hospital. I have watched all the news reports and the Youtube.com postings....

But let me ask a couple questions then give you a little background of other cases the State of New Hampshire really screwed up and then think....

1. Has anyone seen the police reports? I just don't mean one, I mean the 17 different reports filed in several different towns in New Hampshire. Some of them by Stephanie Taylor herself against Johnathon Irish. Google them, they are all there....

2. Do any of you personally know these two people?

3. Have any of you had a child taken away by the state. Oh, my family has....

4. Who reported this couple to DHHS and CWPS? The law states (especially since the Mass office of CWPS gave that kid bad to his father and step mother and he turned up dead) the Child Welfare and Protective services must by Law follow up on on charges.

First ask yourself those questions and now let me give you a back story on my family's issues with the State. I will make it short.

My sister at age 27 gave birth to a little boy. Biological father ran off. My sister was Bipolar and also had a numerous criminal record for Larceny, ID Theft and the list goes on. My sister then got involved with a town police officer. He too committed crimes and finally went to jail but my sister stayed out and still had my nephew. Year after year my sister took advantage of many people broke the law and was on the run but still the state wouldn't do a thing. Then three days after my nephew's 15th birthday she tried to commit suicide. And still the state didn't move in to take her.

My nephew did not have to go thru this hell. The state could of came in at anytime and removed her from her mother. My mother was a school teacher and my father was a police officer. But still the State would not do anything to help my nephew.

I am sorry, the State of New Hampshire does crap. There is no way they would just move in to take an infant just because they wanted to add another expense of a child to the State's budget that is already in the red.

Oh and by the way... my sister has committed numerous other crimes in New Hampshire and throughout the US and here is the statement the New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Aoyette said "This sounds like a domestic dispute. The state doesn't get involved with that. If she has committed a crime that is more the $50,000.00 in theft then it must go to the FBI." Then the Portsmouth office of the FBI said "Oh she is too small for us to get involved with, she at least has to do $250,000.00 to look at this case."

Basically the State of New Hampshire will not get involved unless it is REALLY bad.

So before we start pointing fingers at State or Federal government we should really take a look at who is involved. Because as we all know, bad people can give birth to good kids.

Ex-JBS said...

MoT, I can appreciate your frustration with having a theological discussion pop up amidst comments about the horrific tragedy of this baby's kidnapping ... but our theological perspective affects how we perceive things and interpret events. The late theologian, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, said that everyone is a theologian - and that even the neighbor who believes that 'you only go around once in life, so grab all the gusto you can get' is expressing a theological viewpoint, albeit a poor one.

When confusing statements are made concerning eternal salvation, these sorts of things demand clarification - for obvious reasons.

My two sons, who are theologians in their own right, have been following this discussion with interest. The younger one sent me the following insights today, which I have pasted in below with his permission. -

"It appears that Mister Spock believes that after the Cross, there's no longer any divine sanction when saved people sin, in time & history (temporal sanction) or in eternity. Therefore, in Spock's viewpoint, the only sanctions that occur are "natural" sanctions due to acting contrary to God's purposes in creation. This is essentially a denial of the perseverance of the saints through an easy-believism, once-saved-always-saved soteriology. Calvinists believe that the saints persevere, not because of any goodness in man, but because God takes an active roll in conforming believers to His image ethically through grace. Spock seems to believe that the saints persevere because God ignores our sins or otherwise doesn't see them. A study of "the sin unto death" discussed in the New Testament offers ample evidence that divine sanctions are still in place even for saved men (where a saved man's sins are so grievous that the Lord puts him to death to avoid continued damage to the Church, and to the witness he should provide to the character of his Lord)."

JdL said...

What a travesty! Not only did this happen in the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave", but in the "Live Free or Die" state, thus illustrating the complete bankruptcy of government at all levels in the U.S.

I'm curious, however, about your inclusion of the Elián González affair (via that famous photo). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Elián was returned to the custody of his father. Was that the wrong thing to do? Does the fact that the father lives in Cuba mean it's all right to kidnap his child and hold him by force in the U.S.?

Anonymous said...

"The state could of came in at anytime and removed her from her mother." But of course, as the parent and god of everyone that is to be expected.

And anyone in the care of the State is always provided a safe a secure environment with loving governmental care that only the government can provide. Such care is never worse than the broken home they are taken from, there aren't any news stories out there proving otherwise.

Submit, obey, and yield.

Anonymous said...

to anonymous @ 1212,

you have some very valid points, but the state is not the solution--the family is. when in iraq--for the second time--we had murders in our AO left and right. in every instance, when someone was left parentless, the next of kin stepped in. the state did not force this, the state...heck, there was no CPS to be seen except the local orphanages. we had one incident where a baby girl's parents were killed because her parents were sunni and shia. the killers then threw her in a garbage can where some soldiers later found her. it was not long before the next of kin came in to take care of the child. i mean it was automatic. no frills, no questions. "she's family."

we have a lot to learn from the arabic/muslim culture. western culture used to be this way. what happened?! it reminds me of the scene in braveheart when WW learns of his fathers death. his uncle takes him in.

the family has been replaced by big govt (which has become God). the church needs to step up and put an end to this crap and assume its proper role--showing a lost world what right looks like...but i don't see this happening.

and by the way, can you take your nephew in? not an easy decision, but family always trumps the state. like in iraq, you keep searching/going until there is family who can take in the child.

and to mister spock: did God punish king david for his sin with bathsheba and the subsequent murder he committed? yes he did. he cursed him for it. He even killed the child.

rick

Anonymous said...

How did CPS/cops/etc. know that Irish was a member of an online discussion group?

If they were tracking him online, it points to an even bigger problem: his internet use and his speech were used to build this flimsy case against him.

Lemuel Gulliver said...

It is NOT just the State that sets itself up as Mommy and Daddy and Uncle Sam and God Almighty. It is everybody.

EVERYBODY, almost without exception, in this benighted country seems to be looking for whom they can boss around and make them beg and grovel before their "Authoritah."

Police officers, SWAT teams, Public Prosecutors, judges, security guards, meter maids, City Councils, bureaucrats behind glass partitions in city offices, hospital staff, bosses, underbosses, and supervisors in the workplace, schoolteachers, university professors who hand out grades, school boards, PTA's, editorial boards of magazines and publishers, DHS agents, IRS agents, TSA agents, DEA agents, FBI agents, Homeowners Associations, apartment rental offices, condo associations, country club boards, Welfare workers, Social Security workers, Child Welfare workers, Food Stamp workers, Congressmen, aides to Congressmen, Senators, Cabinet Secretaries, Vice Presidents, and the President of the United States.

All of them ooze pre-cum in their panties every time they have the opportunity to make some poor sorry-assed supplicant for their favors grovel in abject humility before their "Authoritah." For them, it is a pleasure as great as sex, to have the opportunity to mentally and emotionally rape someone less fortunate than them, who needs the largesse they can dispense, or who wants to escape the pain and misery they can inflict. Using your badge or your title or your position to inflict misery on your fellow human beings is the National Sport of the United States.

Welcome to America.

The only time in this country when someone is civil to you is when you have money in your hand that they want you to hand over to them (unless they have the Authoritah to take it from you by force,) and then, only then, will you be treated with respect. Once you have handed over your money, forget it. You are just another sorry slob to be walked all over.

(Ever tried to get your car serviced properly? You ask yourself, are THESE the SAME people who sold me this piece of CRAP?!? They seemed so NICE!.... Ever tried to talk sense into your apartment rental manager? Those same Lovely People who were so HAPPPEEE to have you come and join their Lovely Rental FAMILY, now that you have signed a lease, have morphed like Dracula in dark of night, into Josef Mengele, the Death Angel of Auschwitz.)

Money talks. Christian goodwill walks. Screw Christian goodwill. Sorry, Mr. Spock and friends. Wake up and smell the coffee. Christian goodwill and a dollar fifty will get you on the New York subway. As the Lord said: "My kingdom is not of this world."

Once upon a time, people in this country carried large, .45-caliber revolvers on their hips. In THOSE days, everyone was civil and polite, because they never knew how short a fuse the man in fromt of them had in his brain, which might explode upon any occasion of provocation and result in the abdominal ventilation of the offending asshole.

Perhaps those days will come again.

Soon.

- Lemuel Gulliver.

Anonymous said...

I have always had a gut-level distrust of Oathkeepers. You judge them by their fruits. I have heard virtually nothing of them in the past year but there was a big buzz around the time the group was formed.

Oathkeepers is an excellent way to get the names of information of military and police who are patriotic Americans and who intend to uphold the Constitution and our nation against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Who exactly is Stewart Rhodes, and what are his TRUE objectives? Is he REALLY trying to defend the US Constitution, or is he merely going through the MOTIONS while ACTUALLY running a CIA counterintelligence operation to gather intel on Patriots, on people who oppose the New World Order while actually serving as a GATEKEEPER on information?

I think it is really suspicious that Rhodes has started a fund for the mother and child in this story.

Anonymous said...

to Ex-JBS... Yes, I do get frustrated about how a "thread" will get hijacked on points of parliamentary and religious minutiae. Those debates should be sidelined for another time and another thread. When, as an example, two people are arguing over sports stats I don't jump in and steer their conversation towards gourmet cooking or fashion trends for homosexuals. It would be absurd! Likewise the points raise, although worthwhile, do not serve to clarify the issue at hand but only speak to the interests of the commentators. Having once set up and moderated my own forums I've found that trying to steer the commenting public is like herding cats.

Anonymous said...

I too was intrigued by the fact that Mr Irish's posts on the OK discussion board were "discovered" by the "proper" authorities.
I agree with Lemuel - during these dark times the best thing to do is avoid group orientation, watch what you say, remain anonymous on all discussion threads and use good cryptography ( yes it will cost money) for your web surfing needs. The best way to "starve" these Nanny State swine is to deprive them of information about how you live and what you think

Anonymous said...

to anon @ 2117,

no, good encryption is free. try Trucrypt. and for secure VOIP, try Zfone.

....and then move to montana!

rick

Anonymous said...

Avoid Trucrypt, the source code isn't available for examination, meaning that it could very well have a backdoor.

Chip Saunders said...

What I have not heard addressed is this: If the one child was at risk and in need of abduction,...why were the other two children not similarly "rescued"?

Mister Spock said...

Point by point refutation in Will's forum is just not practical – it often takes paragraphs to answer one sentence. Nor can every single question asked be answered here. But hopefully my post will point you in the right direction and I'm willing to discuss the "minutiae," as MoT calls it, with anyone via email. But a few comments before I get to my main post about sin/salvation/forgiveness, which will be later today.

Ex-JBS: As for my Calvinist beliefs, it would be a stretch to think that anyone could completely discuss salvation in a few short paragraphs

It would just annoy everyone if we discuss the unbiblical beliefs of Calvinism here (which is usually pointless based on my past experience with Calvinists.) But I would suggest a book if you ever choose to question the man-made philosophy through which you interpret scripture: Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views by Dave Hunt and James White. (And I was predestined to tell you that. :-))

Oh, and there was certainly no need to interpret "au contraire" for me. After all, I am Ex-JBS and heard Robert Welch say that more times than I care to remember.

Honestly, I didn't know he said that (but I should have.) I first heard the joke somewhere else.

MoT: Folks, I'm surprised that the issue at hand, that being a child taken from her parents, is overshadowed by your nit-picking over theology!

I don't consider it nit-picking, but even if it is, how does not discussing theology return the child to her family?

Ex-JBS' son: This is essentially a denial of the perseverance of the saints through an easy-believism, once-saved-always-saved soteriology.

Typical Calvinist condescension and arrogance. I believe in the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith. Does your son make fun of that?

Anon: and to mister spock: did God punish king david for his sin with bathsheba and the subsequent murder he committed? yes he did. he cursed him for it. He even killed the child.

Prior to the cross. The New Covenant didn't go into effect until Jesus died. More later.

MoT: Yes, I do get frustrated about how a "thread" will get hijacked on points of parliamentary and religious minutiae. Those debates should be sidelined for another time and another thread.

The thread was not hijacked. Did you not see where I asked Will's permission to discuss the "minutiae?"

Anonymous said...

Not pointing a finger at you specifically Spock.... See what has happened. I respect your opinion none the less.

Anonymous said...

Crypto Hippie is probably one of the best but its not free.

Bill said...

That video from the Concord Hospital protest is an unauthorized, uncredited excerpt from my 9m29s original, which can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpJUgkIOx5o or http://adventuresinthefreestate.com/2010/10/oppression-by-oath.html

Lemuel Gulliver said...

Mr. Spock,

I respect and admire your faith and your commitment to it. We do differ on our attitude towards Zionism. I have no quarrel with Jews, who are mostly very nice, smart, socially conscious people. I also have no quarrel with basic Judaism, which is a great religion. (As well as the foundation of Christianity, although Judaism does not recognize the legitimacy of Christ's message and the new Covenant.)

I do have a problem with Zionism, as do a great many Jews themselves (Go look up the website of Neturei Karta,) and its imperial ambitions, and the myriad vile human atrocities committed in furtherance of Zionist ambitions. And I do have a problem with certain things said in the Talmud about Christians and other non-Jews.

BUT, many "holy" scriptures contain things which are regretful - there are some things in the Koran and the Hadith (commentaries by Mohammed's circle of followers, which is like a Muslim Talmud,) which are plain barbaric and violently hostile to other faiths, and which contradict the words of Mohammed himself.

As far as the"Holocaust" or Shoah, ("holocaust" is a Greek word meaning a burnt offering or sacrifice, which is not a proper way to describe mass murder,) which is THE central fact of modern Judiasm and Jewish life and attitudes, there is a very strong argument that the Shoah was caused by the attitudes and actions of the Zionist Jews themselves, who in fact ADVOCATED the Nazi anti-Jewish laws of 1933-1939, as a means to encourage sophisticated, educated German Jews to leave Germany and emigrate to Palestine. I am sure, had they known what would be the "final solution," the Zionists would not have been so happy to see Jews persecuted in Nazi Germany.

Unfortunately, before all the German Jews could be induced to emigrate, a war happened and all international civil travel was ended. Those who had not emigrated already suffered terribly.

Also unfortunately, there are always - ALWAYS - unintended consequences to corrupt and evil political actions - evil means used for supposedly good ends. It ALWAYS backfires. We in America are ourselves living through the unintended consequences of the Bush Administration's evil means - lies, terrorism, illegal wars - which were no doubt undertaken for the most worthy of ends.

Can we agree on any of this?

Yours respectfully,
Lemuel Gulliver.

Lemuel Gulliver said...

Mr. Spock,

I respect and admire your faith and your commitment to it. We do differ on our attitude towards Zionism. I have no quarrel with Jews, who are mostly very nice, smart, socially conscious people. I also have no quarrel with basic Judaism, which is a great religion. (As well as the foundation of Christianity, although Judaism does not recognize the legitimacy of Christ's message and the new Covenant.)

I do have a problem with Zionism, as do a great many Jews themselves (Go look up the website of Neturei Karta,) and its imperial ambitions, and the myriad vile human atrocities committed in furtherance of Zionist ambitions. And I do have a problem with certain things said in the Talmud about Christians and other non-Jews.

BUT, many "holy" scriptures contain things which are regretful - there are some things in the Koran and the Hadith (commentaries by Mohammed's circle of followers, which is like a Muslim Talmud,) which are plain barbaric and violently hostile to other faiths, and which contradict the words of Mohammed himself.

As far as the"Holocaust" or Shoah, ("holocaust" is a Greek word meaning a burnt offering or sacrifice, which is not a proper way to describe mass murder,) which is THE central fact of modern Judiasm and Jewish life and attitudes, there is a very strong argument that the Shoah was caused by the attitudes and actions of the Zionist Jews themselves, who in fact ADVOCATED the Nazi anti-Jewish laws of 1933-1939, as a means to encourage sophisticated, educated German Jews to leave Germany and emigrate to Palestine. I am sure, had they known what would be the "final solution," the Zionists would not have been so happy to see Jews persecuted in Nazi Germany.

Unfortunately, before all the German Jews could be induced to emigrate, a war happened and all international civil travel was ended. Those who had not emigrated already suffered terribly.

Also unfortunately, there are always - ALWAYS - unintended consequences to corrupt and evil political actions - evil means used for supposedly good ends. It ALWAYS backfires. We in America are ourselves living through the unintended consequences of the Bush Administration's evil means - lies, terrorism, illegal wars - which were no doubt undertaken for the most worthy of ends.

Can we agree on any of this?

Yours respectfully,
Lemuel Gulliver.

Mister Spock said...

Part 1 re sin, salvation and forgiveness

Often Christendom teaches that our problem is that we are sinners, we need to get our sins forgiven, and salvation is getting our sins forgiven. That's not true. If just getting our sins forgiven was the issue, why did Jesus have to die? There was already a system for getting your sins forgiven. Why not stick with that? Why would God humble Himself and become a man and die on a cross for our sins if He had already instituted a method for getting sins forgiven? Stop and think about that for a minute before you read past this paragraph. If someone asked you why God became a man and died for your sins when He had already given us a system for getting forgiveness, what would you say?

Our problem isn't that we need forgiveness; our problem is that we are dead. The Bible is clear that because of Adam's sin we are born spiritually dead:

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins Ephesians 2:1

even when we were dead in our transgressions Ephesians 2:5

When you were dead in your transgressions Colossians 2:13

through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men Romans 5:12

For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one Romans 5:17

For the wages of sin is death Romans 6:23

the law of sin and of death. Romans 8:2

For since by a man came death 1 Corinthians 15:21

For as in Adam all die1 Corinthians 15:22

Mister Spock said...

Part 2

Get the idea? What does a dead man need? Forgiveness? What's the point of being a forgiven corpse? A dead man needs life, not forgiveness. But Jesus had to deal with the forgiveness issue once and for all, or, as I mentioned previously, you would lose your salvation and have to get saved again. Why? Because as Romans 6:23 says, and Anonymous reminded us, the "wages of sin is death." If the sin issue wasn't dealt with once and for all, every time you sinned you would lose your salvation, and have to get forgiven again. And you would never have the certainty of your salvation. What if you forgot to confess that one last sin (or ten thousand) before you died?

But the Bible tells us that to get any more forgiveness, Jesus would have to die again, because "the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." (Hebrews 9:22) Is Jesus going to die again? Nope. Why not? Because He dealt with the sin issue once and for all.

When Jesus died, the New Covenant went into effect. If you read through the book of Hebrews, especially chapters 7 through 10, it explains all of that. The point is that under the New Covenant, God has said He has forgiven our sins, and will remember them no more. (Hebrews 8:12) Why? How is that possible?

Because Jesus' sacrifice did what animal sacrifice could not do:

"The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." Hebrews 10:1-4

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. Hebrews 10:11

The point? Under the Old Covenant, animal sacrifices could not make you perfect, and could not take away sins. Temporarily cover them? Yes - that's atonement. Take them away? No.

Mister Spock said...

Part 3

Now look at what it says about Jesus, our High Priest:

But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. Hebrews 10:12-14

For how long? All time. How many sacrifices? One. And then what? He sat down. Why? His work was finished - just as He said on the cross.

"The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin." Hebrews 10:16-18

Note: "have been forgiven." That's past tense. It's a done deal. Note also there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. Why? It's over. One time, done. Tetelestai. He forgave us completely, and His sacrifice took away our sins:

All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name. Acts 10:43

I write to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name. 1 John 2:12

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. 1 Peter 3:18

But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. 1 John 3:5

Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. Hebrews 9:28

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! John 1:29

Mister Spock said...

Part 4

We are told in Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2 and 4:17, that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins. That means God was totally satisfied with His sacrifice. The debt is paid in full.

So is this salvation? No. This was God dealing with the sin issue. What it did was take away the barrier between man and God:

All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 2 Cor. 5:18,19

Again, that's an amazing verse - God is not counting our sins against us. If you think about that for a moment instead of just reading on, I'm sure you will realize how mind-boggling that is. God is not counting our sins against us! – let that sink in. We HAVE BEEN reconciled - past tense - and our ministry is to spread the good news.

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation. Colossians 1:19-22

God desired all men to be reconciled to Him. And He provided that reconciliation for everyone at the cross. But is that salvation? Obviously not, or that would be universal salvation. Salvation isn't just getting your sins forgiven, although that is certainly part of it. But dealing with the sin issue and reconciling us unto Himself, is what then allows Him to offer us salvation.

Mister Spock said...

Part 5

As I mentioned at the beginning, we are often told that Jesus' death on the cross is what saves us. Is it? No. As we have seen above, His death took away our sins and reconciles us to God – but it does not save us. So what saves us if it isn't His death? Paul answers that question:

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! Romans 5:10

That's a key verse that people often read quickly without thinking about it. Christ's death on the cross reconciled us to God, but it is His resurrection life that saves us.

What's the most famous verse in the Bible?

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

That's salvation - Christ's life. It doesn't say whoever believes in Him gets their sins forgiven, but whoever believes in him shall have eternal life. Let's look at a few more verses with the idea of life in mind:

Mister Spock said...

Part 6

Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. Galatians 3:21

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 10:10

In him was life, and that life was the light of men. John 1:4

You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. John 5:39,40

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" John 11:25,26

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." John 5:24

But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. Ephesians 2:4,5

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. Colossians 2:13,14

There is a lot of meat in those last two verses, and they teach exactly the opposite of what many Christians think the Bible teaches about sin, salvation, forgiveness, the Law in general and the Ten Commandments in particular. Now please read this last passage carefully:

Mister Spock said...

Part 7 (final)

We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. 1 John 5:9-13

It's just that simple. The contrast between our life in Adam, dead, and in Christ, alive, is all through the New Testament. That's the gospel - the good news - that God was in Christ, reconciling you unto Himself, not counting your sins against you, and that you can know, not hope, that you have His eternal life. If you are in Christ, you have (don't get) eternal life. Why? Because your sins have been (not will be) forgiven. That's what salvation is, and why you can't lose it and why God punishes no one for their sin(s.) If you believe that God will punish you for your sin, and that you have to confess your sins to get forgiveness, you are denying Christ's work on the cross, denying the truth of God's word, and claiming that you can make yourself acceptable to God by doing something that Jesus wasn't capable of doing for you. That's a works salvation, and is not Biblical.

Ex-JBS said...

Mister Spock -
The first of this two-part answer has new input on 3 previous points:

(1) It's good to see that we at least agree about theological matters not being the same as 'nitpicking' or 'minutiae'.

(2) You stated that you believe in the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith. So do I, but the faith to believe is given to me by God, rather than being something I generated within myself as a good work.

(3) You stated that God punished King David for adultery and murder because this occurred prior to Christ's redemption. But I must point out that God's character is immutable. He is not temporally constrained, as the creation is. The overarching structure of God's interaction with man should be understood as a covenant, which grows with time (not punctuated dispensations). While Christ's sacrifice made unnecessary the types and shadows of the old system, God's character, nevertheless, is unchanging.

(continued below ...)

Ex-JBS said...

(continued from above) -

Lastly, as to your recommendation for reading material - yes, I am familiar with dispensationalist Dave Hunt, who, by the way, wrote a book criticizing R. J. Rushdoony's Christian philosophy. Those who followed Will Grigg's writings in The New American will probably recognize Rushdoony's name, since he was mentioned numerous times in that publication by various writers regarding his involvement as the intellectual father of the homeschool movement and as one of the founders of Christian Reconstruction.

As a Christian Reconstructionist, I am aware of the many attacks by dispensationalists on my belief system. In fact, there's a book available online -

http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/gddc.pdf

about a public debate held in 1988 in Dallas, with dispensational premillennialists Dave Hunt and Tommy Ice representing that recent school of biblical interpretation ... over against Christian Reconstructionists Gary DeMar and Gary North representing the full tradition of the historic Protestant faith.

For any who are interested in a concise summary of what Christian Reconstructionists actually believe, Ken Gentry has a good list at -

http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/gddc.pdf

and adds that Christian Reconstructionism is "a branch of historic reformed Calvinism ... a conservative, evangelical theology generating a full-orbed Christian worldview and Christian social theory".

Christian Reconstructionists recognize that dispensationalists are fellow believers in Christ, but we are concerned that their lack of cultural involvement (while they await Christ's return) contributes to the ever present growth of secular humanism in this country.

In fact, during my involvement in the JBS, I met more than a few dispensational premillinealists who, rather than working to reform our humanistic culture, instead looked forward to America's continual decline, believing that Christ's return hinged upon that decline - truly a perversion of the Christian mandate.

Ex-JBS said...

(My 2-part response, above, was submitted late last night, but was written before Mr. Grigg had posted Mister Spock's 7-part response. So, the following 2-parter is responding to Spock's latest post.)

Mister Spock, you and I are in agreement with much of what you posted last night, but with these exceptions -

(A) In part #1, you wrote, "If just getting our sins forgiven was the issue, why did Jesus have to die? There was already a system for getting your sins forgiven."

As mentioned in my earlier 2-part post, the animal blood sacrifices of the Old Testament were a type or shadow of Christ's sacrifice. This was not a "system for getting sins forgiven", but rather a demonstration (or type) of God's salvation through Christ's blood, prior to His sacrifice.

Since God is not constrained by time, He knew Christ paid the price for all believers' sins before and after that event happened. Don't forget that Moses and Ezekiel came down during the transfiguration from heaven, and not from purgatory or some other temporary holding place.

Ironically, in part #2, the verses you posted from Hebrews say that those sacrifices did not take away sins. That was done by Christ alone.

(B) In part #6, you quote Galatians 3:21, saying that the Law does not impart righteousness. But yet Psalms 119:172 defines righteousness by saying, "All Your commandments are righteousness." To understand these sorts of conflicting verses, we must use the presuppositions of intelligibility (applying laws of reason and logic, etc.) We can toss verses back and forth all day and never come to any agreement, unless we take the whole of the Bible to determine the essence of what God is saying, as well as in deducting things left unsaid.

In regards to the Law, many people mistakenly think that Calvinists (and theonomists) believe we are saved by the Law. However, this is not the case at all. God's Law is not for salvation, but rather for sanctification, so that we will know how He expects us to live as believers. In other words, while good works are not the path to salvation, good works are the path of the saved man!

Christ didn't come to do away with the law, but to fulfill the law. Once we become believers, our desire is now to please God, which leads us to ask ... 'how then shall we live'? The Law describes God and shows us how He lives, thus guiding our own lives as believers, rather than becoming 'carnal' Christians.

(continued below)

Ex-JBS said...

(continued from above)
You quoted Colossians 2:14 that says the Law was canceled and nailed to the tree - and it was, as far as being required for salvation. God definitely no longer requires the Old Covenant ceremonies in this period of the New Covenant, where the focus is on how His children live. Matthew 5:16-18 admonishes us to "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

There is one more critical point on salvation by faith - that being, what is the source of that faith? If the source of faith is man, then faith thereby becomes a meritorious work of man, thereby undermining sola fide, and effectively turning it to works-based salvation.

Calvinists recognize that our source of faith is God, not man. This is a fundamental divide between Calvinists and Arminians. We believe that man is dead in his sins, totally depraved, and will never willing chose to serve the Lord according to his own will. The Lord breaks our fallen will, and gives us a renewed spirit. The Arminian, on the other hand, doesn't believe that man is truly fallen, and can pick himself up by his own bootstraps and conjure up the faith to believe, thus making man a God -- which is really the same old sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden.

(C) In part #7, you state that "God punishes no one for their sins" ... that "if you believe that God will punish you for your sin, and that you have to confess your sins to get forgiveness, you are denying Christ's work on the cross, denying the truth of God's word, and claiming that you can make yourself acceptable to God by doing something that Jesus wasn't capable of doing for you."

I'm assuming you're referring to Catholic confessions, perhaps? Maybe not ....

Although this hasn't been mentioned until now, Calvinists believe that justice and mercy are equally ultimate attributes of the character of God. God's character is seen in His dealings with both saved and unsaved man. As it regards saved man specifically, we believe in continuous, active grace and continuous, active chastisement. This is not to say that our salvation is not an accomplished fact, for it very much is. Unlike what Catholics believe, we have no need of continual grace in the sense that our eternal state remains uncertain or is otherwise dependent on our actions (or those of an intercessor). We have assurance of salvation, but are constantly in need of God's grace in order to live as He would have us live. On the other hand - while the grace of God in salvation not only forgives, but transforms - a lack of obedience or transformation in a person's life is warrant to doubt that they have been born again.

Mister Spock, you indicate that salvation is essentially mental assent to certain facts about Christ ... that is, Christ mentally assented to as Savior, but not Lord, which is commonly referred to as "easy-believism".
(see http://www.gotquestions.org/easy-believism.html )

This view of God is wide on mercy, but bereft of justice.

Ex-JBS said...

(continuing Section B, from above)
You quoted Colossians 2:14 that says the Law was canceled and nailed to the tree - and it was, in so far as God definitely no longer requires the Old Covenant ceremonies in this period of the New Covenant, where the focus is now on how His children live. Matthew 5:16-18 admonishes us to "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

There is one more critical point on salvation by faith - that being, what is the source of that faith? If the source of faith is man, then faith thereby becomes a meritorious work of man, thereby undermining sola fide, and effectively turning it to works-based salvation.

Calvinists recognize that our source of faith is God, not man. This is a fundamental divide between Calvinists and Arminians. We believe that man is dead in his sins, totally depraved, and will never willingly chose to serve the Lord according to his own will. The Lord breaks our fallen will, and gives us a renewed spirit. The Arminian, on the other hand, doesn't believe that man is truly fallen, and can pick himself up by his own bootstraps and conjure up the faith to believe, thus making man a God -- which is really the same old sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden.

(it's going to take a 3rd post - see below)

TJP said...

Wish I could say I am surprised by the characterization of "neglect" used to justify a kidnapping. Unfortunately, the loose definition of "neglect" (read any convenient excuse) was in a local case known to me; different circumstances, same result.

Such is the nature of legal chaos, when malum prohibitum includes the "illicit" possession of one's own body. This is the same concept that aroused the anger of abortion advocates. Will they lend a voice or two?

Mister Spock said...

Reply to Ex-JBS, Part 1

It is not my intention to debate Calvinism in this blog. My purpose for the previous posts was to shed some light on common misunderstandings of salvation and forgiveness from the Biblical perspective. However, since Ex-JBS posted so much regarding Calvinism, I will make several comments on what he said, and then drop the issue. He may have the last word, if he likes. I will, however, continue to comment/answer questions re the original subject if any come up. And my apologies for the length of this, but I'm guessing that only Ex-JBS will be reading it, and everyone else has moved on to Will's latest.

Ex-JBS: I am familiar with dispensationalist Dave Hunt, who, by the way, wrote a book criticizing R. J. Rushdoony's Christian philosophy. Those who followed Will Grigg's writings in The New American will probably recognize Rushdoony's name…as the intellectual father of the homeschool movement

As far as I'm concerned, Will has the best blog on the net, and I've stated that repeatedly -publicly and privately to many people – I am not sucking up to him. :-) But the fact that Will has mentioned him in the context of homeschooling (my kids were homeschooled, fwiw) in TNA or here adds no credibility to Rushdoony's heretical theology.

Mister Spock said...

Part 2

It may interest you to know that I saw Rushdoony speak many years ago, I have seen Dave Hunt speak, and I have seen James White, whom Hunt debated in the book I recommended, as well. I've also been to White's church, here in Phoenix. White does a great job on apologetics in general, debating Mormons and Catholics, wrote a great book on the King James Only movement, etc. But as intelligent as people like Rushdoony and White are (were), that doesn't make them right about all theology, and you give that away in your next statement:

As a Christian Reconstructionist, I am aware of the many attacks by dispensationalists on my belief system.

You hit the nail on the head – Calvinism is a belief system. It is a grid through which you read scripture. It involves rejecting the truth of God's word and redefining the words in the text to have them read what your system requires. And that is why you are in error when you say that Calvinism

...represent[s] the full tradition of the historic Protestant faith.

It does not. And don't make the same mistake the Catholics do of putting tradition over the truth of God's word.

Christian Reconstructionists recognize that dispensationalists are fellow believers in Christ, but we are concerned that their lack of cultural involvement (while they await Christ's return) contributes to the ever present growth of secular humanism in this country.

A statement that is certainly not true of all dispensationalists, as I have known many that are heavily involved in the culture – both politically and spiritually. I, too, lament when Christians of any particular theological or denominational persuasion reject their duty to be salt and light in a fallen world. But why a Calvinist would be bothered by that is beyond me, since they believe it's all predestined, anyway. Apparently God forced salvation on some people, but doesn't force cultural involvement on them – go figure.

Mister Spock said...

Part 3

As mentioned in my earlier 2-part post, the animal blood sacrifices of the Old Testament were a type or shadow of Christ's sacrifice. This was not a "system for getting sins forgiven", but rather a demonstration (or type) of God's salvation through Christ's blood, prior to His sacrifice.

While you are correct that animal sacrifices were a type of Christ's sacrifice, you are in error regarding forgiveness. You may wish to acquaint yourself with the book of Leviticus. And while the atonement provided by those sacrifices was only temporary (see the verses I mentioned previously), there was forgiveness, nonetheless.

Since God is not constrained by time, He knew Christ paid the price for all believers' sins before and after that event happened.

Another error of Calvinism – Christ paid for everyone's sins, not just believers. That is repeatedly made clear in the Bible. But since Calvinists can't stand the idea that they aren't someone special, they redefine words in the Bible to make it say something it doesn't.

E.g., I quoted 1 Peter 3:18: For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.

All means all. But according to the Calvinists, it really means just some.

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! John 1:29

According to the Calvinists, the world doesn't mean the world, it just means believers.

And while I mentioned 1 John 2:2, but did not quote it, let's take a look:

and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

That's pretty clear, isn't it? But when you confuse forgiveness with salvation, as Ex-JBS has, then you have to redefine words, because God can't possibly have meant what He said – the whole world doesn't mean the whole world.

Mister Spock said...

Part 4

Ironically, in part #2, the verses you posted from Hebrews say that those sacrifices did not take away sins. That was done by Christ alone.

No irony there at all. That's why I posted that. I was making the point salvation is more than forgiveness, and before salvation could be offered, the forgiveness issue had to be dealt with once and for all. Please re-read the two verses I quoted and my comment:

"The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." Hebrews 10:1-4

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. Hebrews 10:11

The point? Under the Old Covenant, animal sacrifices could not make you perfect, and could not take away sins. Temporarily cover them? Yes - that's atonement. Take them away? No.

See? Until you understand that having your sins totally forgiven and put behind God's back never to be seen again is not salvation, you will continue to be confused.

Mister Spock said...

Part 5

In regards to the Law, many people mistakenly think that Calvinists (and theonomists) believe we are saved by the Law. However, this is not the case at all. God's Law is not for salvation, but rather for sanctification, so that we will know how He expects us to live as believers. In other words, while good works are not the path to salvation, good works are the path of the saved man!

Once we become believers, our desire is now to please God, which leads us to ask ... 'how then shall we live'?

The Law describes God and shows us how He lives, thus guiding our own lives as believers


Again, you are wrong. Nowhere does the Bible tell us once we are saved that we are to follow the Law, or that it is there to tell us how to live or to sanctify us. If that was the case, you would attend church on Saturday, for one thing, and you don't, do you? And the Bible tells us if we break one point of the Law, we've broken them all. Jesus told us looking at a woman with lust is the same as adultery. So where does that leave you?

Rather than making up a purpose for the Law, why not just believe what the Bible says? First, as I mentioned, the Law is gone.

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. Colossians 2:13,14

It says nothing about keeping it around to tell us how to live. And here's a verse I didn't quote:

When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. Heb 8:13

What new meaning does the Calvinist assign to 'obsolete' when they redefine words in scripture they don't like?

Mister Spock said...

Part 6

I could go on and on, but there isn't enough space. Read the book of Galatians, the second and third chapters specifically, so you understand the grace of God instead of focusing on something that is obsolete, canceled, and was nailed to the cross.

And while you are there, you will discover the true purpose of the Law, which is not to sanctify us:

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. Gal 3:24

That's the purpose of the Law – to lead us to Christ by showing us how incapable we are of keeping it. It's like a mirror – the mirror can show you that your face is dirty, but you don't use the mirror to clean your face.

And not only are we are saved by Christ, we are also sanctified by Him:

For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren Heb 2:11

By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Heb 10:10

For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. Heb 10:14

HE sanctifies us. You have nothing at all to do with your salvation or maintaining it.

Mister Spock said...

Part 7

You quoted Colossians 2:14 that says the Law was canceled and nailed to the tree - and it was, as far as being required for salvation. God definitely no longer requires the Old Covenant ceremonies in this period of the New Covenant,

The Law was taken away – period. Not just the ceremonies. Once again, Calvinists just define away parts of scripture they don't like. You don't want to hear this, but when the Bible talks about the Law being canceled and obsolete, that includes the Ten Commandments. When Paul tells us no flesh will be justified by keeping the Law, that includes the Ten Commandments. When Paul says through the Law he died to the Law, that includes the Ten Commandments. When Paul says, "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly," that includes the Ten Commandments. Get the idea?

Calvinists recognize…

I know what Calvinists believe. I suspect your elaboration on these issues was not for my benefit but to promote Calvinism to the other readers of this blog. But any serious Christian who takes the time to investigate the "belief system" (as you correctly labeled it) of Calvinism will reject it as heretical with no basis in the Bible.

I'm assuming you're referring to Catholic confessions, perhaps? Maybe not ....

No, I'm referring to any confession other than at the point of salvation to get forgiveness. The Catholics go to their confession booths, and the Protestants say oh, no, you don't have to do that, you can go straight to God to get forgiven and use their 1 John 1:9 bar of soap. But Jesus is up in Heaven yelling down, "It is finished! You don't get forgiven, you ARE forgiven." It's stupid to ask Him for something He's told you that you already have. Instead, thank Him for it.

Mister Spock said...

Part 8

Although this hasn't been mentioned until now, Calvinists believe that justice and mercy are equally ultimate attributes of the character of God. God's character is seen in His dealings with both saved and unsaved man. As it regards saved man specifically, we believe in continuous, active grace and continuous, active chastisement.

You may wish to read Romans 8:1. And then read the rest of Paul's letters to learn about God's grace.

Mister Spock, you indicate that salvation is essentially mental assent to certain facts about Christ

That's a flat out lie. Up until this point you had been civil, but that's a damnable lie, and another example of a Calvinist's typical dishonesty, condescension and arrogance. I said nothing about "mental assent" or anything about "certain facts" about Jesus. Those are your words and your spin to denigrate the beliefs of followers of Christ that you can't understand because the truth of God's word doesn't fit into your "belief system." As a matter of fact, I never addressed the issue of the "how" of salvation, only the "what." However, I did mention it tangentially when I quoted John 3:16, a verse even a child can understand, contrary to what Calvinists teach.

... that is, Christ mentally assented to as Savior, but not Lord, which is commonly referred to as "easy-believism".

A load of crap. I believe what you are trying to do here is denigrate historic, orthodox Christians that believe the truth of John 3:16 and all the similar verses in the Bible by alluding to James 2:19, which says, "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." So making a claim that Christians you don't agree with simply "mentally assent" to "certain facts about Christ," you are putting them on par with demons who believe the same thing. Pathetic.

Mister Spock said...

Part 9 (final)

This view of God is wide on mercy, but bereft of justice.

(sarcasm on) Yeah, Jesus dying on a cross, for the sins of the entire world - every person that has ever lived or ever will live - isn't justice. You have to make up for what He didn't do and then you have to maintain it by the way you live once you are saved. (sarcasm off) Again, a works salvation which the Bible offers nowhere.

It is not surprising that Calvinists are so unloving since they have an unloving god that sends people to Heaven against their will and sends people to Hell that want to go to Heaven. And their prophet, John Calvin, emulated their god by torturing people, having them beheaded or burning them at the stake for not accepting his theology.

As the title of another Dave Hunt book asks, What Love Is This?