Solomon, CPS and the Folly of the State

"Then came there two women, that were harlots, unto the king, and stood before him. And the one woman said, O my lord, I and this woman dwell in one house; and I was delivered of a child with her in the house. And it came to pass the third day after that I was delivered, that this woman was delivered also: and we were together; there was no stranger with us in the house, save we two in the house. And this woman's child died in the night; because she overlaid it. And she arose at midnight, and took my son from beside me, while thine handmaid slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead child in my bosom. And when I rose in the morning to give my child suck, behold, it was dead: but when I had considered it in the morning, behold, it was not my son, which I did bear.

And the other woman said, Nay; but the living is my son, and the dead is thy son. And this said, No; but the dead its thy son, and the living is my son. Thus they spake before the king.

Then said the king, The one saith, This is my son that liveth, and thy son is the dead: and the other saith, Nay; but thy son is the dead, and my son is the living.

And the king said, Bring me a sword.

And they brought a sword before the king. And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.

Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels yearned upon her son, and she said, O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it.

But the other said, Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it.

Then the king answered and said, Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it: she is the mother thereof.

And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the king: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment."

1 Kings 3:16-28

Let's look for a moment at what we didn't hear. Did we hear the king say, "You are unfit because you're a harlot?" or "Which woman would make a better mother?" NO! King Solomon wanted to give the child to the NATURAL mother - no matter which woman that was.

While fosterers may WISH for a child, it does not make them a more appropriate parent. The natural bond between flesh and blood parents and their children causes them (in most cases) to instinctively know what is right for their children, and to want to protect them. Therefore when Solomon threatened the baby's life, the NATURAL mother was the only one that showed any concern for the well-being of the child. It was obvious who God had chosen for the mother of that child.

Statistics show that children are ten times more likely to be abused in fosterincarceration, and this is why: If the natural flesh and blood bond is missing, so is the instinctive need to protect the child.

The Ambivalent Fool

There is much to be said of the written word. I've written blogs like this one before, and yet I still find myself perplexed and befuddled with amazement as I turn my thoughts to writing. I didn't get to finish any of my classes this semester, but let it be known that there was much that was going on. I wasn't too sure why I was studying, just that I knew I was. Seems like some lost kid seeking some rewards of such. But truly, what are these rewards? Are they the kind that aggrandizes my well-being, or some game to amuse the intellect? Some even marvel at the keen and acute circumspect of the intelligence. But this, and other sorts of predilectory engagements, is nothing more than a game for the mind. Why study? That is the million dollar question. I've come to some conclusions; of course, none of them satisfied my predilections. Most of the desires that occupy my mind have a tendency for hedonism. This, of course, was well imbued within my mind since I was a little boy—most of Americans, in fact, possess this "disease" of sorts. It causes the mind to ask such poignantly provocative questions: why this or that is important. The more I reflect on my "pertinent" questions is not due to irreducible certainty of fact (something that I most certainly want to achieve), but something I wish was noble. Is it noble for me to learn for the sake of provisions, or should I do it for the sake of my pleasure. In either case, they both imbue the hedonism I so vehemently disdain. What is a man to do in his justification in copious study? I believe the superlative at this point and time is supercilious. The word functions as an adverb as well as an adjective. It could also be a noun, but suffice it to remain an adjective. It reminds me of my total indifference towards this subject. But this word alone does not do the job as superlative aside from its adverbial use of "most": I am most supercilious. This is the contemptuous indifference of my spirit, but there isn't an object of which I am arrogant for. It increases my ambivalence. It creates it, churns the ambivalent uncertainty of my goals.

Westminster Confession of Faith

CHAPTER III.

Of God's Eternal Decree.

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.

VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praised of His glorious justice.

VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.

Lord's Day (November 11, 2007)

Today's reading was on Romans 11:25-29. Here are some different versions of the text we covered at Grace:

"For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB. THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS." From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." --NASB

Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins." As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. --ESV

Our outline is thus delineated:
1. A Mystery Revealed (v. 25)
2. All Israel Will Be Saved (vv. 26-28)
3. Irrevocable Election and Calling (v. 28b-29)

Point two I wish my pastor would have explicated more. He didn't, but it's OK. He did, however, point out the eschatological vein of the Dispensational theology. In point 2, they would refer this to the second coming of Christ, i.e., "out of Zion..." Dr. Gleason would argue that this is a primary text for Christ's first advent. This is seen by Paul's rendition of Isaiah 59:20-21. There is only one way by which "All Israel will be saved," via in Christo Iesu.

Response to A.C. Baine

"The Critique of Bahnsen's Apologetic, by Andrew C. Baine"

A Response

Baine wrote, "He [Bahnsen] arrived at this awkward position by combining a truth with a falsehood. Firstly, he correctly assumed that God and the Trinity cannot be separated." But what, mind you, is that falsehood he combined, Mr. Baine? He claims that Bahnsen wrongfully assumes that every person (unbelievers included) know God. If Baine understood the basic understanding of Reformed covenant theology, he wouldn't have a problem with it, but apparently he doesn't. To put it simply, all men are in covenant relationship with God. That is exactly what Paul stresses in Romans 1, and the language used in the context is indicative of man's relationship with God. That is why Bahnsen concluded that unbelievers are secrete believers. So is it that surprising then that Bahnsen would then conclude that they know of the Trinity (or their ability to understand it) and predestination? No. If man, in his heart of hearts, knows God, then the obvious conclusion would be that he knows God as he is, in his divine power (Rom. 1:20) and nature, being evident since creation. In essence, Mr. Baine is going against the source of truth, the presupposition every Christian should hold dear, vis-à-vis sola scriptura. If the Christian does not have that, he has rationalism or empiricism. Furthermore, Paul states that the unbeliever is without excuse: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (ESV) Bahnsen then denies that man just has some "general" idea about God, because Paul says that since the beginning man knows God, the living and true God. Here's the Greek for Mr. Baine: gnontes ton theon. And to my surprise, he has that in his video! How could he miss it? The Greek is clear when it renders the article ton.

He then mixes the knowledge of the first man, in effect saying that he needed to hear God give him instructions. Well obviously! It is of no surprise then that the Westminster divines wrote, "How doth it appear that there is a God? The very light of nature in man, and the works of God, declare plainly that there is a God; but his word and Spirit only do sufficiently and effectually reveal him unto men for their salvation." Calvin himself said that men need direction because we are "idol factories." Man left on his own devises his own deities. In Romans 1 the effect is seen in the arrogance of man of devising his or her way in worship. That is not to say that men don't know God. Paul would then be contradicting himself if he said men known the ton theon and turn around and say, "Well, men really don't know God." Man is just not consistent in believing that belief he already has. And it is of no surprise then that Bahnsen solidified his dissertation on self-deception. Man willfully makes himself an unbeliever. He has to lie to himself in order to believe it. Baine then remarks, "Was Bahnsen joking? Can you be cold and not believe you are cold?" The answer to that is yes, and that is the shock that unbelievers have to face. This is the amazing stupidity that unbelievers make—they force themselves to not believe the obviously true axioms of life.

Certain of the paradoxes that men and women hold are merely paradoxical: one believes that Y is false yet forces him or herself that Y is true. This is a point in which Baine argues that Bahnsen never solves the paradox; and the reason Bahnsen "doesn't solve" his paradox is because it is only an "apparent paradox." That is to say that the paradox only has the appearance of being paradoxical. He then mixes the corollary by quoting Hebrews 11:3 that faith comes by hearing. But we've already established that men are idol factories and that men need the word of God to establish, and refute, the apparent paradox of self-deception.

Greg Bahnsen on the Myth of Neutrality

Here are some of the videos (or the first of a six part series) on Bahnsen lecturing on the myth of neutrality. I personally find this of the utmomst importance for any student in college. This is truly an indication of the utter hypocracy of the lecture room, and ultimately, of the system of practical atheism (term "practical atheism" was used, in particular, by puritan writer Stephen Charnock in his work The Existence and Attributes of God).

Theology of God (Frame and Charnock)

Theology is an amazing discipline. In trying to understand metaphysics, I think that any person who is truly interested in the meta-realism must be concerned with the reality behind the world. Francis Schaeffer tried—and I believe succeeded—to surmise the history of philosophy in various works. He delineated the history known under a line he called "line of despair." In this line, he outlined the ideas and ideologies of popular philosophy under which are most prevalent and indicative of common practice. My goal here is to achieve a well organized delineation of theology as it concerns God; therefore, my goal will be "Theo-ology." I think this is best in trying to understand the real world. I want to concentrate in Reformed theology as opposed to any other system of thought, for I believe it is the sum notivum, the most basic and sound worldview which has no inherent inconsistencies.