Some thoughts on the Church

Some thoughts on the Church 2014 by Jack Kettler

It is important to note that the Church is the Object of Christ’s love:

“… as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” Ephesians 5:25. “That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish” Ephesians 5: 27.

He will present the Church to himself in the presence of the Father as the fruit of His obedience to the Father’s will, for the elect on whose behalf He obeyed the law, (active obedience) and again for the elect whose sins He shed His blood, and died upon the cross (passive obedience) to the satisfaction of the Father.

The word church in the New Testament is the translation of the Greek word ecclesia and is synonymous with the Hebrew kahal in the Old Testament. Kahal is translated Ecclesia in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Both words simply mean an assembly in their most basic meaning, and do not necessarily have anything to do with public worship. The context determines the meaning.

Ecclesia is used in the following ways in the New Testament:

1.Ecclesia is translated “assembly” in the basic ordinary way in Acts 19:32,39,41. In this case, you had Demetrius and fellow craftsmen assembled against Paul with the town clerk appeasing the people and keeping order.

2.It is the whole body of the redeemed, or all those whom the Father has given to Christ, the invisible catholic or universal Church in Ephesians 5:23,25,27,29 and Hebrews 12:23.

3.It can be used for a few Christians associated together, in Romans 16:5 and Colossians 4:15.

4.It can be used for Christians in a particular city, regardless if they are assembled together in one place or in several places for worship, and are thus an ecclesia. The disciples in Antioch, forming several congregations, were one Church in Acts 13:1, in addition, we see the “Church of God at Corinth” 1 Corinthians 1:2, also the “Church at Jerusalem” in Acts 8:1 and the “Church of Ephesus” in Revelation 2:1.

5.Ecclesia can also be used for the whole body of professing Christians throughout the world as seen in 1 Corinthians 15:9, Galatians 1:13, and Matthew 16:18 are the Church of Christ.

Christ’s Church is both “visible” and “invisible.”

Chapter 25 Of the Church in the Westminster Confession explains how the Church “visible” is comprised of all those throughout the world that profess the true faith, together with their children. It is called “visible” because its members are known and its assemblies are public. In the visible Church, there is a mixture of “wheat and chaff,” or of saints and unconverted sinners. God has commanded His people to organize themselves into visible assemblies, with constitutions, officers, ordinances governing worship, and discipline for the purpose of making known the gospel of His kingdom, and of gathering in all of the elect from the uttermost parts of the earth, Mark 13:27.

Each one of these organized assemblies that pledges fidelity to Christ, is part of the visible Church, and together with their children constitute the universal visible Church. A credible profession of faith involving membership vows is required for an adult to be a member of the visible Church. This Church is also called “the kingdom of heaven,” whose characteristics can be seen in the parables found in Matthew 13:24-52.

In comparison, the Church “invisible” consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one universal body under Christ, the head thereof. The Church is the body of Christ. It is called “invisible” because the greater part of those who are members in it are already in heaven or are yet unborn, and also because it’s members still on earth cannot with certainly be distinguished this side of heaven because of the mixture of “wheat and chaff.”

The Church is universal and is perpetual. Christ’s Church is pictured as the stone in Daniel 2:35. This stone becomes a mountain and fills the whole earth. This is the kingdom that can never be destroyed and is Christ’s Church, Daniel 2:44. In the parable of the mustard seed, we see the Church and how it will become a great tree is seen in (Matthew 13:31-32). Christ’s Church will advance in History and the “Gates of Hell” shall never prevail against Her, Matthew 16:17.

For additional research:

The Church Of Christ
A Treatise on the Nature, Powers, Ordinances, Discipline, and Government of the Christian Church
James Bannerman

“James Bannerman’s ‘The Church of Christ’ is the most extensive, standard, solid, Reformed treatment of the doctrine of the church that has ever been written. It is indisputably the classic in its field. Every minister and elder should own a copy, and church members would also be much better informed if they perused it carefully. How many church problems would be alleviated if churches used Bannerman as their primary textbook for their understanding of what the church is and for their modus operandi!” – Joel R. Beeke

You can down load a PDF copy of Bannerman’s Two Volume The Church Of Christ here.

In every thing we do, we should strive to bring honor to Christ and to advance His Kingdom on earth! Amen!

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Christians are Commanded to Violate Sharia Blasphemy Laws

Christians are Commanded to Violate Sharia Blasphemy Laws by Jack Kettler

Introduction:

Many people are familiar with Pamela Geller’s (http://pamelageller.com/) recent draw Mohammad contest in Dallas, TX. It was interesting to watch the supposed defenders of fee speech in the media and their coverage of this event. A number of talking heads at Fox News followed Bill O’Lielly’s take on the event. To paraphrase O’Lielly: it was protected First Amendment speech, but not wise. O’Lielly also was concerned that we not offend the moderate Muslims by drawing a cartoon or picture of Mohammad.

In my opinion, people who agree with O’ Lielly are Sharia-Compliant, Dhimmis. What would O’Lielly say about writing a book or article critical of Mohammad and the Koran? What about giving a speech critical of Mohammad or the Koran? This also will offend moderate Muslims. Being critical of Mohammad and the Koran are violations of Sharia law, just like drawing a picture of him. O’Lielly and those who follow him are on a slippery slope. Will they finally draw a line when, Muslims demand pork and wine be removed from stores because this offends Muslims?

Can there be any compromise with Sharia Law?

There are hundreds of Sharia laws. We will note two blasphemy laws among many that are in conflict with the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, and more importantly the commands of the Bible.

A Muslim who leaves Islam (apostasy) must be killed. This is violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Bill of Rights (cruel and unusual punishment).

It is a crime to say anything derogatory about Allah and his Prophet, or expose the contradictory points of Islam found in the Koran. That person must be killed. This is a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government).

Both of these Sharia blasphemy laws require the death penalty for violators. It is not just about drawing pictures, it also involves writing and speech against Mohammad.

As Christians we must speak out against the false prophet Mohammad and his book of false doctrine, the Koran.

We are not called to show respect to false prophets and books of false doctrine. We are to expose them! Consider the teaching of Scripture:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” (Matthew 7:15)

“And many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.” (Matthew 24:11)

“Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.” (Luke 6:26) All Muslims and their dhimmis speak well of Mohammad.

“For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.” 2 (Corinthians 11:13-15)

“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.” (Ephesians 5:11)

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1)

“But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken? When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22)

A true prophet of God, speaks the Word of God, and what is spoken must come to pass and be in harmony with previous spoken revelation. If someone claims to be speaking as God’s prophet and then makes a false statements, that person “has spoken presumptuously” and is not God’s true prophet.

The Koran says that the Holy Bible prophesied the coming of Muhammad (ash-Shu’ara’ 26: 196; as-Saff 61: 6; al-A’raf 7: 157). The Bible contains no prophecies about Muhammad. For Mohammad to assert this in his Koran is an example of his extreme narcissism and is blasphemy itself.

It will come as a shock to most people that Muslims would try and twist Scripture, and read Mohammad into the next two passages.

Is the next passage a prophecy of Christ of Mohammad?

“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers, it is to him you shall listen just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ And the Lord said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:15-19)

Is the next passage about the Holy Spirit or Mohammad?

“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, the will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. (John 15:26-27)

Trying to be passed off such nonsense as credible theological exegesis, does not merit a response. It is eisegesis on steroids. All branches of Christianity see the passage from Deuteronomy as a prophecy of Christ, and the passage from John, is referring to the Holy Spirit. These two shocking perversions of God’s Word are good examples of Muslims committing blasphemy against God.

Mohammad believed and the Koran records the idea that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is:

Allah had a wife Mary and together they had a child Jesus. This is laughably false. There is no Christian creedal formulation anywhere that teaches such an absurdity.

See my article Mohammad on the Trinity for more on this shocking belief right from the Koran.
http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Trinity2.html

Just as shocking, Mohammad says in his Koran that Jesus was not crucified. This another whopper of a lie from Mohammad.

See my article Mohammad on the Crucifixion of Christ for more on this shocking belief, right from the Koran. http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Crucifixion.html

For more on Mohammad’s theology see my: The Mad Man from the Desert http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Mad.html

Does Mohammad’s religion meet the standard of Scripture for how man is to worship?

Mohammadism promotes idolatry. For example, bowing down to the K’abah and kissing this black meteorite stone at Mecca. Bowing down and kissing is an act of worship. In addition, Muslims must pray bowing towards the K’abah in Mecca five times a day.

We are commanded to worship God alone!

Muhammad is exalted in his religion to the same level as deity. You see this in Mohammadism by requiring the followers to have unconditional obedience to him, and forbidding, the making images of him, which is what the second commandment prohibits in making images of God.

In the Second Commandment, we are forbidden to make images of God, not Mohammad.

A contrast in teachings:

Jesus:

“If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to them the other.” (Matthew 5:39)
“But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44)
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” (Matthew 5:7)
“Blessed are the peacemakers.” (Matthew 5:9)
“Forgive and you shall be forgiven.” (Matthew 6:14)
“Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.” (Luke 6:27-36)

Mohammad:

“Make war on the infidels who dwell around you.” (Sura 9:123, 66:9)
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day.” (Sura 9:29)
“Strike off the heads of infidels in battle.” (Sura 47:4)
“If someone stops believing in Allah, kill him.” (al-Bukhari 9:84:57)
“Never be a helper to the disbelievers.” (Sura 28:86)
“Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them.” (Sura 2:191)

Specifically, Muhammad killed many people, including beheading 700 Jews of the Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina, A.D. 627. Does the following sound like a prophet of God?

“The Jews surrendered and the apostle confined them in Medina. Then the apostle went out to the market and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. … There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka’b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, ‘Will you never understand? Don’t you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!’ This went on until the apostle made an end of them.” (Sirat Rasul Allah)

In summary of the comparison, Mohammad said kill, and Jesus said to forgive and love your enemies. As Jesus said: “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matthew 7:20)

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)

“Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the Antichrist denying the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” (1 John 2:22, 23)

As Christians we must speak out against the false prophet Mohammad and his book of false doctrine known as the Koran. The Muslim’s ultimate destiny is in jeopardy.

“And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12) That name is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Resources:

The Christian Witness to the Muslim by John Gilchrist
http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/

Answering Islam
http://answering-islam.org/authors/gilchrist.html

Topical Studies on Islam and Christianity
http://www.muslimhope.com/TopicalStudies.htm

Answering Muslims
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/

What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an
http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Koran.html

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com web site where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A Man from Geneva

A Man from Geneva by Jack Kettler

John Calvin (10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564), né Jean Cauvin, was a French theologian and pastor during the Protestant Reformation. He was a principal figure in the development of the system of Christian theology later called by his name. Calvin was trained as a lawyer. He embraced Protestant theology, and when religious hostility produced an uprising against Protestants in France, Calvin fled to Switzerland. In 1536 he published the first edition of his monumental influential two volume work, Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Calvin was a indefatigable polemicist and apologetic writer. In addition to the Institutes of the Christian Religion, he wrote commentaries on most books of the Bible as well as theological treatises, theological letters of correspondence and confessional documents. He maintained a rigorous schedule of preaching sermons throughout the week in Geneva. Calvin’s soteriology built upon and further developed the Augustinian tradition of divine sovereignty. Calvin’s writing and preaching is carried on in the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches throughout the world.

A few Gems of Wisdom from Calvin:

“There is not one blade of grass, there is no color in this world that is not intended to make us rejoice.”

“There is no worse screen to block out the Spirit than confidence in our own intelligence.”

“Man’s nature, so to speak, is a perpetual factory of idols.”

“The whole life of man until he is converted to Christ is a ruinous labyrinth of wanderings.”

Quotes about Calvin and Calvinism:

“I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel if we do not preach justification by faith without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing unchangeable eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross.” (Charles H. Spurgeon, The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 1, 1856).
“The longer I live the clearer does it appear that John Calvin’s system is the nearest to perfection.” – Charles H. Spurgeon

“After the Holy Scriptures, I exhort the students to read the Commentaries of Calvin. . . . I tell them that he is incomparable in the interpretation of Scripture; and that his Commentaries ought to be held in greater estimation than all that is delivered to us in the writings of the ancient Christian Fathers: so that, in a certain eminent spirit of prophecy, I give the pre-eminence to him beyond most others, indeed beyond them all. I add, that, with regard to what belongs to common places, his Institutes must be read after the Catechism, as a more ample interpretation. But to all this I subjoin the remark, that they must be perused with cautious choice, like all other human compositions.” – Jacob Arminius

“I believe Calvin was a great instrument of God; and that he was a wise and pious man.” – John Wesley

“I have been a witness of him for sixteen years and I think that I am fully entitled to say that in this man there was exhibited to all an example of the life and death of the Christian, such as it will not be easy to depreciate, and it will be difficult to imitate.” – Theodore Beza

“Calvin’s theology interests us in its historical context as an outstanding record of Reformation theology that historically—and at times even legally—has served as a basis of proclamation in modern Protestant churches.” – Karl Barth

“John Calvin is a man of distinguished reputation, one of the great figures of church history.” – Wulfert de Greef

“[Calvin] easily takes the lead among the systematic expounders of the Reformed system of Christian doctrine. . . . Calvin’s theology is based upon a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He was the ablest exegete among the Reformers, and his commentaries rank among the very best of ancient and modern times. His theology, therefore, is biblical rather than scholastic, and has all the freshness of enthusiastic devotion to the truths of God’s Word. At the same time he was a consummate logician and dialectician. He had a rare power of clear, strong, convincing statement. He built up a body of doctrines which is called after him, and which obtained symbolical authority through some of the leading Reformed Confessions of Faith.” “Taking into account all his failings, he [Calvin] must be reckoned as one of the greatest and best of men whom God raised up in the history of Christianity.” – Philip Schaff, church historian

“The greatest exegete and theologian of the Reformation was undoubtedly Calvin. . . . He is one of the greatest interpreters of Scripture who ever lived. He owes that position to a combination of merits. He had a vigorous intellect, a dauntless spirit, a logical mind, a quick insight, a thorough knowledge of the human heart, quickened by rich and strange experience; above all, a manly and glowing sense of the grandeur of the Divine. The neatness, precision, and lucidity of his style, his classic training and wide knowledge, his methodical accuracy of procedure, his manly independence, his avoidance of needless and commonplace homiletics, his deep religious feeling, his careful attention to the entire scope and context of every passage, and the fact that he has commented on almost the whole of the Bible, make him tower above the great majority of those who have written on Holy Scripture.” – Frederic William Farrar, History of Interpretation

“Calvin is the man who, next to St. Paul, has done most good to mankind.” – William Cunningham

“To omit Calvin from the forces of Western evolution is to read history with one eye shut.” – Lord John Morley

“It would hardly be too much to say that for the latter part of his lifetime and a century after his death John Calvin was the most influential man in the world, in the sense that his ideas were making more history than those of anyone else during that period. Calvin’s theology produced the Puritans in England, the Huguenots in France, the ‘Beggars’ in Holland, the Covenanters in Scotland, and the Pilgrim Fathers of New England, and was more or less directly responsible for the Scottish uprising, the revolt of the Netherlands, the French wars of religion, and the English Civil War. Also, it was Calvin’s doctrine of the state as a servant of God that established the ideal of constitutional representative government and led to the explicit acknowledgment of the rights and liberties of subjects. . . . It is doubtful whether any other theologian has ever played so significant a part in world history.” – J. I. Packer

“Calvin helped the Reformation change the entire focus of the Christian life. Calvin’s teaching, preaching, and catechizing fostered growth in the relationship between believers and God.” – Joel R. Beeke

“Calvin’s theological heritage has proved fertile perhaps to a greater extent than any other Protestant writer. Richard Baxter, Jonathan Edwards, and Karl Barth, in their very different ways, bear witness to the pivotal role that Calvin’s ideas have played in shaping Protestant self-perceptions down the centuries. . . . It is impossible to understand modern Protestantism without coming to terms with Calvin’s legacy to the movement which he did so much to nourish and sustain.” – Alister E. McGrath

“The fundamental issue for John Calvin—from the beginning of his life to the end—was the issue of the centrality and supremacy and majesty of the glory of God.” – John Piper

“Where the God-centered principles of Calvinism have been abandoned, there has been a strong tendency downward into the depths of man-centered naturalism or secularism. Some have declared, rightly, we believe, that there is no consistent stopping place between Calvinism and atheism.” – Ken Talbot

“Whatever the cause, the Calvinists were the only fighting Protestants. It was they whose faith gave them courage to stand up for the Reformation. In England, Scotland, France, Holland, they, and they only, did the work, and but for them the Reformation would have been crushed… If it had not been for Calvinists, Huguenots, Puritans, and whatever you like to call them, the Pope and Philip would have won, and we should either be Papists or Socialists.” – Sir John Skelton

“[Calvinists] are the true heroes of England. They founded England, in spite of the corruption of the Stuarts, by the exercise of duty, by the practice of justice, by obstinate toil, by vindication of right, by resistance to oppression, by the conquest of liberty, by the repression of vice. They founded Scotland; they founded the United States; at this day they are, by their descendants, founding Australia and colonizing the world.” – French atheist Hippolyte Taine (1828 to 1893)

“Calvinism has been the chief source of republican government.” – Lorraine Boettner

“In Calvinism lies the origin and guarantee of our constitutional liberties.” – Goren van Prinsterer

“John Calvin was the virtual founder of America.” – German historian Leopold von Ranke

“Calvinism boldly affirms that salvation is of faith in order simply that it may be of grace—totally, completely, finally, from beginning to end, from Alpha to Omega, completely of God. and not of man. God is exalted and man is abased. Salvation is of grace, it is of God, and I, along with Charles Spurgeon (who was a great proclaimer of the free and sovereign grace of God), am happy to say that I am a Calvinist who holds to the doctrines of grace.” – Dr. D. James Kennedy, from Why I am a Presbyterian

“The Revolution of 1776, so far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure. It was the natural outgrowth of the principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons, the English Puritans, the Scotch Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the Presbyterians of Ulster.” – “He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty.” – George Bancroft, Harvard professor, historian

“Let not Geneva be forgotten or despised. Religious liberty in the West owes Calvin much respect.” – John Adams, second President of the United States

“From the first, therefore, I have always said to myself,—If the battle is to be fought with honor and with a hope of victory, then principle must be arrayed against principle; then it must be felt that in Modernism the vast energy of an all-embracing life-system assails us, then also it must be understood that we have to take our stand in a life-system of equally comprehensive and far-reaching power. And this powerful life-system is not to be invented nor formulated by ourselves, but is to be taken and applied as it presents itself in history. When thus taken, I found and confessed, and I still hold, that this manifestation of the Christian principle is given us in Calvinism. In Calvinism my heart has found rest. From Calvinism have I drawn the inspiration firmly and resolutely to take my stand in the thick of this great conflict of principles. And therefore, when I was invited most honorably by your Faculty to give the Stone-Lectures here this year, I could not hesitate a moment as to my choice of subject. Calvinism, as the only decisive, lawful, and consistent defence for Protestant nations against encroaching, and overwhelming Modernism,—this of itself was bound to be my theme.” – Abraham Kuyper, Dutch journalist, statesman and theologian. He founded a new church (the Gereformeerde Kerken), a newspaper, the Free University of Amsterdam, and the Anti-Revolutionary Party. He served as Prime Minister of the Netherlands between 1901 and 1905.

“People say that Calvinism is a dour, hard creed. How broad and comforting, they say, is the doctrine of a universal atonement, the doctrine that Christ died equally for all men there upon the cross! How narrow and harsh, they say, is this Calvinistic doctrine—one of the “five points” of Calvinism—this doctrine of the “limited atonement,” this doctrine that Christ died for the elect of God in a sense in which he did not die for the unsaved! But do you know, my friends, it is surprising that men say that. It is surprising that they regard the doctrine of a universal atonement as being a comforting doctrine. In reality it is a very gloomy doctrine indeed. Ah, if it were only a doctrine of a universal salvation, instead of a doctrine of a universal atonement, then it would no doubt be a very comforting doctrine; then no doubt it would conform wonderfully well to what we in our puny wisdom might have thought the course of the world should have been. But a universal atonement without a universal salvation is a cold, gloomy doctrine indeed. To say that Christ died for all men alike and that then not all men are saved, to say that Christ died for humanity simply in the mass, and that the choice of those who out of that mass are saved depends upon the greater receptivity of some as compared with others—that is a doctrine that takes from the gospel much of its sweetness and much of its joy.” – J. Gresham Machen

What is Calvinism? by B. B. Warfield

It is very odd how difficult it seems for some persons to understand just what Calvinism is. And yet the matter itself presents no difficulty whatever. It is capable of being put into a single sentence; and that, on level to every religious man’s comprehension. For Calvinism is just religion in its purity. We have only, therefore, to conceive of religion in its purity, and that is Calvinism.

In what attitude of mind and heart does religion come most fully to its rights? Is it not in the attitude of prayer? When we kneel before God, not with the body merely, but with the mind and heart, we have assumed the attitude which above all others deserves the name of religious. And this religious attitude by way of eminence is obviously just the attitude of utter dependence and humble trust. He who comes to God in prayer, comes not in a spirit of self-assertion, but in a spirit of trustful dependence.

No one ever addressed God in prayer thus: “O God, thou knowest that I am the architect of my own fortunes and the determiner of my own destiny. Thou mayest indeed do something to help me in the securing of my purposes after I have determined upon them. But my heart is my own, and thou canst not intrude into it; my will is my own, and thou canst not bend it. When I wish thy aid, I will call on thee for it. Meanwhile, thou must await my pleasure.” Men may reason somewhat like this; but that is not the way they pray.

There did, indeed, once two men go up into the temple to pray. And one stood and prayed thus to himself (can it be that this “to himself” has a deeper significance than appears on the surface?), “God, I thank thee that I am not as the rest of men.” While the other smote his breast, and said, “God be merciful to me a sinner.” Even the former acknowledged a certain dependence on God; for he thanked God for his virtues. But we are not left in doubt in which one the religious mood was most purely exhibited. There is One who has told us that with clearness and emphasis.

The Calvinist is the man who is determined that his intellect, and heart, and will shall remain on their knees continually, and only from this attitude think, and feel, and act. Calvinism is, therefore, that type of thought in which there comes to its rights the truly religious attitude of utter dependence on God and humble trust in his mercy alone for salvation.

There are at bottom but two types of religious thought in the world — if we may improperly use the term “religious” for both of them. There is the religion of faith; there is the “religion” of works. Calvinism is the pure embodiment of the former of these; what is known in Church History as Pelagianism is the pure embodiment of the latter of them. All other forms of “religious” teaching which have been known in Christendom are but unstable attempts at compromise between the two. At the opening of the fifth century, the two fundamental types came into direct conflict in remarkably pure form as embodied in the two persons of Augustine and Pelagius. Both were expending themselves in seeking to better the lives of men. But Pelagius in his exhortations threw men back on themselves; they were able, he declared, to do all that God demanded of them — otherwise God would not have demanded it.

Augustine on the contrary pointed them in their weakness to God; “He himself,” he said, in his pregnant speech, “He himself is our power.” The one is the “religion” of proud self-dependence; the other is the religion of dependence on God. The one is the “religion” of works; the other is the religion of faith. The one is not “religion” at all — it is mere moralism; the other is all that is in the world that deserves to be called religion. Just in proportion as this attitude of faith is present in our thought, feeling, life, are we religious. When it becomes regnant in our thought, feeling, life, then are we truly religious. Calvinism is that type of thinking in which it has become regnant. This is why those who have caught a glimpse of these things, love with passion what men call “Calvinism,” sometimes with an air of contempt; and why they cling to it with enthusiasm. It is not merely the hope of true religion in the world: it is true religion in the world — as far as true religion is in the world at all.

For Calvinism, in this soteriological aspect of it, is just the perception and expression and defence of the utter dependence of the soul on the free grace of God for salvation. All its so-called hard features its doctrine of original sin, yes, speak it right out, its doctrine of total depravity and the entire inability of the sinful will to good; its doctrine of election, or, to put it in the words everywhere spoken against, its doctrine of predestination and preterition, of reprobation itself mean just this and nothing more. Calvinism will not play fast and loose with the free grace of God. It is set upon giving to God, and to God alone, the glory and all the glory of salvation. There are others than Calvinists, no doubt, who would fain make the same great confession. But they make it with reserves, or they painfully justify the making of it by some tenuous theory which confuses nature and grace. They leave logical pitfalls on this side or that, and the difference between logical pitfalls and other pitfalls is that the wayfarer may fall into the others, but the plain man, just because his is a simple mind, must fall into those. Calvinism will leave no logical pitfalls and will make no reserves. It will have nothing to do with theories whose function it is to explain away facts. It confesses, with a heart full of adoring gratitude, that to God, and to God alone, belongs salvation and the whole of salvation; that He it is, and He alone, who works salvation in its whole reach. Any falling away in the slightest measure from this great confession is to fall away from Calvinism. Any intrusion of any human merit, or act, or disposition, or power, as ground or cause or occasion, into the process of divine salvation, whether in the way of power to resist or of ability to improve grace, of the opening of the soul to the reception of grace, or of the employment of grace already received is a breach with Calvinism.

Is it strange that in this world, in this particular age of this world, it should prove difficult to preserve not only active, but vivid and dominant, the perception of the everywhere determining hand of God, the sense of absolute dependence on Him, the conviction of utter inability to do even the least thing to rescue ourselves from sin at the height of their conceptions? Is it not enough to account for whatever depression Calvinism may be suffering in the world today, to point to the natural difficulty in this materialistic age, conscious of its newly realized powers over against the forces of nature and filled with the pride of achievement and of material well-being of guarding our perception of the governing hand of God in all things, in its perfection; of maintaining our sense of dependence on a higher power in full force; of preserving our feeling of sin, unworthiness, and helplessness in its profundity? Is not the depression of Calvinism, so far as it is real, significant merely of this, that to our age the vision of God has become somewhat obscured in the midst of abounding material triumphs, that the religious emotion has in some measure ceased to be the determining force in life, and that the evangelical attitude of complete dependence on God for salvation does not readily commend itself to men who are accustomed to lay forceful hands on everything else they wish, and who do not quite see why they may not take heaven also by storm?

Let us observe then, that Calvinism is only another name for consistent supernaturalism in religion. The central fact of Calvinism is the vision of God. Its determining principle is zeal for the divine honour. What it sets itself to do is to render to God His rights in every sphere of life-activity. In this it begins, and centres, and ends. It is this that is said, when it is said that it is Theism come to its rights, since in that case everything that comes to pass is viewed as the direct outworking of the divine purpose when it is said that it is religion at the height of its conception, since in that case God is consciously felt as Him in whom we live and move and have our being when it is said that it is evangelicalism in its purity, since in that case we cast ourselves as sinners, without reserve, wholly on the mercy of the divine grace. It is this sense of God, of God’s presence, of God’s power, of God’s all-pervading activity most of all in the process of salvation which constitutes Calvinism. When the Calvinist gazes into the mirror of the world, whether the world of nature or the, world of events, his attention is held not by the mirror itself (with the cunning construction of which scientific investigations may no doubt very properly busy themselves), but by the Face of God which he sees reflected therein. When the Calvinist contemplates the religious life, he is less concerned with the psychological nature and relations of the emotions which surge through the soul (with which the votaries of the new science of the psychology of religion are perhaps not quite unfruitfully engaging themselves), than with the divine Source from which they spring, the divine Object on which they take hold. When the Calvinist considers the state of his soul and the possibility of its rescue from death and sin, he may not indeed be blind to the responses which it may by the grace of God be enabled to make to the divine grace, but he absorbs himself not in them but in it, and sees in every step of his recovery to good and to God the almighty working of God’s grace.

The Calvinist, in a word, is the man who sees God. He has caught sight of the ineffable Vision, and he will not let it fade for a moment from his eyes God in nature, God in history, God in grace. Everywhere he sees God in His mighty stepping, everywhere he feels the working of His mighty arm, the throbbing of His mighty heart. The Calvinist is therefore, by way of eminence, the supernaturalist in the world of thought. The world itself is to him a supernatural product; not merely in the sense that somewhere, away back before all time, God made it, but that God is making it now, and in every event that falls out. In every modification of what is, that takes place, His hand is visible, as through all occurrences His one increasing purpose runs. Man himself is His created for His glory, and having as the one supreme end of his existence to glorify his Maker, and haply also to enjoy Him for ever. And salvation, in every step and stage of it, is of God. Conceived in God’s love, wrought out by God’s own Son in a supernatural life and death in this world of sin, and applied by God’s Spirit in a series of acts as supernatural as the virgin birth and the resurrection of the Son of God themselves it is a supernatural work through and through. To the Calvinist, thus, the Church of God is as direct a creation of God as the first creation itself. In this supernaturalism, the whole thought and feeling and life of the Calvinist is steeped. Without it there can be no Calvinism, for it is just this that is Calvinism. End or article

Resources for Further Study:

Institutes of the Christian Religion
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.toc.html

Calvin’s Commentaries on-line
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/commentaries.i.html

Abraham Kuyper: Lectures on Calvinism

Click to access LecturesOnCalvinism.pdf

The Calvinist Corner
http://calvinistcorner.com/ At this site, be sure to check:
GET A TEACHING MANUAL AND POWERPOINT ON CALVINISM

Classic Articles & Resources on Reformed Theology
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/classic.html

Defending Calvinism
http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Defending.html

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” – Socrates

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com web site where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Making Mischief by a Law

Making Mischief by a Law by Jack Kettler

“Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?” (Psalm 94:20)

The civil or government rulers passed laws which permitted them to sin, or laws which actively promoted sin. The true power of government is to punish evil-doers, but instead the Psalmist says it was used to advance wickedness.

“Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed.” (Isaiah 10:1)

Justice was corrupted, and man’s law, instead of being in accord with God’s Law, had become diametrically opposed. Man’s law was working towards injustice and unrighteousness. This corruption seemed unbearable because the rulers of the day claimed to be acting according to law, seeking to hide their unrighteousness under the cover of law.

While both passages deal with the corruption of law in the Psalmist’s and Isaiah’s day, the problem is just as pronounced in the present time. Wicked leaders use the machinery of the law to crush and ruin their opponents and advance their own interests.

Examples of modern day American governmental mischief by a law:

1. Favored status for Sodomites
2. Abortion
3. Putting debt upon future generations
4. Favored status for the pagan religion of Mohammedism
5. Failure to follow its own laws
6. Banning biblical truth from the public square
7. Intrusion into the marketplace, creating financial bubbles (housing, stock market) that burst
8. Pagan indoctrination of children in government schools
9. Political public lying
10. Anti-Christian foreign policy
11. Confiscatory levels of taxation, or theft by government
12. Onerous levels of regulatory abuse
13. Debasing the currency

What should Christians do when civil authorities make unjust laws? Like the Psalmist we should pray:

“Pronounce them guilty, O God! Let them fall by their own counsels; Cast them out in the multitude of their transgressions, For they have rebelled against You.” (Psalms 5:1)

“When he is judged, let him be found guilty, And let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few, And let another take his office.” (Psalms 109:7-8)

“His trouble shall return upon his own head, And his violent dealing shall come down on his own crown.” (Psalms 7:16)

“Break the arm of the wicked and evildoer; call his wickedness to account till you find none.” (Psalms 10:15)

“O God, break the teeth in their mouths; tear out the fangs of the young lions, O Lord! Let them vanish like water that runs away; when he aims his arrows, let them be blunted. Let them be like the snail that dissolves into slime, like the stillborn child who never sees the sun.” (Psalms 58:6-8)

“Let sinners be consumed from the earth, and let the wicked be no more! Bless the Lord, O my soul! Praise the Lord!” (Psalms 104:35)

“When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.” (Proverbs 29:2)

The prophet Isaiah pronounces woe upon wicked rulers:

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)

Calvin’s comments are right to the point:

20. Wo to them that call evil good. Though some limit this statement to judges, yet if it be carefully examined, we shall easily learn from the whole context that it is general; for, having a little before reproved those who cannot listen to any warnings, he now proceeds with the same reproof. It is evident that men of this sort have always some excuse to plead, and some way of imposing on themselves; and, therefore, there is no end to their reproachful language, when their crimes are brought to light. But here he particularly reproves the insolence of those who endeavor to overthrow all distinction between good and evil

The preposition l (lamed), prefixed to the words good and evil, is equivalent to Of; and therefore the meaning is, They who say of evil, It is good, and of good, It is evil; that is, they who by vain hypocrisy conceal, excuse, and disguise wicked actions, as if they would change the nature of everything by their sophistical arguments, but who, on the contrary deface good actions by their calumnies. These things are almost always joined together, for every one in whom the fear of God dwells is restrained both by conscience and by modesty from venturing to apologize for his sins, or to condemn what is good and right; but they who have not this fear do not hesitate with the same impudence to commend what is bad and to condemn what is good; which is a proof of desperate wickedness.

This statement may be applied to various cases; for if a wo is here pronounced even on private individuals, when they say of evil that it is good, and of good that it is evil, how much more on those who have been raised to any elevated rank, and discharge a public office, whose duty it is to defend what is right and honorable! But he addresses a general reproof to all who flatter themselves in what is evil, and who, through the hatred which they bear to virtue, condemn what is done aright; and not only so, but who, by the subterfuges which they employ for the sake of concealing their own enormities, harden themselves in wickedness. Such persons, the Prophet tells us, act as if they would change light into darkness, and sweet into bitter; by which he means that their folly is monstrous, for it would tend to confound and destroy all the principles of nature.1 (under-line emphasis mine)
1. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Isaiah, Volume VII, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), p 186.

Some pertinent human observations:

“When government engages in the involuntary transfer of wealth, that’s nothing more than legalized plunder. There is nothing noble or laudatory about it. It is contemptible, evil and profoundly wrong.” – Frederic Bastiat

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“To make no decision in regard to the growth of authoritarian government is already a decision for it.” – Francis A. Schaeffer

“A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

“When the Christian is treated as an enemy of the State, his course is very much harder, but it is simpler. I am concerned with the dangers to the tolerated minority; and in the modern world, it may turn out that most intolerable thing for Christians is to be tolerated.” – T.S. Eliot

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956

“If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the living God.” – Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto

“True spirituality covers all of reality. There are things the Bible tells us to do as absolutes which are sinful- which do not conform to the character of God. But aside from these things the Lordship of Christ covers all of life and all of life equally. It is not only that true spirituality covers all of life, but it covers all parts of the spectrum of life equally. In this sense there is nothing concerning reality that is not spiritual.” – Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto

Beyond prayer, we must take positive action by standing against public manifestations of evil. Personal sanctification is a given. Christians are called to do more than live in our personal circle of influence.

Research links providing biblical ammunition for the cultural war we are in:

The Bible and Government; Biblical Principles: Basis for America’s Laws
http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-government

Noah Webster, God’s Law, and the United States Constitution:The Influence of the Bible on the Development of American Constitutionalism
http://providencefoundation.com/?page_id=1948

American Government and Christianity
https://bible.org/article/american-government-and-christianity

Biblical origins of American Political Philosophy
http://lawandliberty.org/history1.htm

Bible in American Law
http://uscivilliberties.org/themes/3195-bible-in-american-law.html

The Christian foundations of the rule of law in the West: a legacy of liberty and resistance against tyranny
http://creation.com/the-christian-foundations-of-the-rule-of-law-in-the-west-a-legacy-of-liberty-and-resistance-against-tyranny

Not Yours To Give by Col. David Crockett
http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Give.htm

Vindiciae contra Tyrannos: A Defence of Liberty against Tyrants, Or of the lawful power of the prince over the people and of the people over the prince.
http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Tyrants.html

The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate
https://lessermagistrate.com/

At https://lessermagistrate.com/, there are examples of how the Lesser Magistrate’s are beginning to exercise their authority, protecting state citizens from the tyrannical overreach if the fed gov and its promotion of evil.

The “Lesser Magistrate” and the jury system if utilized properly, can be a powerful bulwark against the perverted evil laws of men:

“If the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of the government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law.” – Lysander Spooner

“For more than six hundred years — that is, since the Magna Carta in 1215 — there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust, oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating or resisting the execution of such laws.” – Lysander Spooner

Today, judges never inform a jury of their right to nullify unjust laws. This is a perversion of the law by judges. In fact, if a judge suspects a juror has knowledge of this historic right, the juror will be thrown off the jury.

See Lysander Spooner’s powerful: No Treason The Constitution of No Authority
http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Treason.html

Nullification and Tenth Amendment:

The states come first! The states created the Union. Therefore, under the doctrine of nullification, and since the states are the foundation of the Union, they have the power to renounce unconstitutional laws. It is clear that ultimate authority resides in the states, not an entity formed by the states.

Nullification maintains that the states have the right to overrule any unconstitutional laws. Nullification is the ultimate check on the balance of power and removes power from the Supreme Court and federal government and its agencies in extreme cases.

In essence, some states before ratifying the constitution, maintained that they had the right to leave the Union. For example, Virginia, made the right to secede from the Union unambiguous in their agreement to sign the Constitution.

Here is an selection from Virginia’s delegation:

We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798-99 was a series of resolutions passed by the state legislature protesting the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Kentucky Resolutions were drafted by Thomas Jefferson. Virginia passed similar resolutions, drafted by James Madison. These resolutions were a protest against what Jefferson, Madison wisely considered to be a dangerous usurpation of power by the federal government.

The Kentucky Resolution of 1799 was the most radical of the resolutions and asserted that states had the power to nullify the laws of the federal government:

The representatives of the good people of this commonwealth [of Kentucky], in General Assembly convened, have maturely considered the answers of sundry states in the Union, to [the ongoing debate and discussion of]… certain unconstitutional laws of Congress, commonly called the Alien and Sedition Laws, would be faithless, indeed, to themselves and to those they represent, were they silently to acquiesce in the principles and doctrines attempted to be maintained…. Our opinions of these alarming measures of the general government, together with our reasons for those opinions, were detailed with decency, and with temper and submitted to the discussion and judgment of our fellow-citizens throughout the Union…. Faithful to the true principles of the federal Union, unconscious of any designs to disturb the harmony of that Union, and anxious only to escape the fangs of despotism, the good people of this commonwealth are regardless of censure or calumniation. Lest, however, the silence of this commonwealth should be construed into an acquiescence in the doctrines and principles advanced… therefore,
Resolved, That this commonwealth considers the federal Union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in… [the Constitution], conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact… and will be among the last to seek its dissolution: That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact [the Constitution], by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, an annihilation of the state governments… will be the inevitable consequence: [That the construction of the Constitution argued for by many] state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extant of the powers delegated to it, stop not short of despotism – since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument [the Constitution] being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of the infraction; and, That a nullification of those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under the color of that instrument is the rightful remedy: That this commonwealth does, under the most deliberate reconsideration, declare, that the said Alien and Sedition Laws are, in their opinion, palpable violations of the said Constitution…. although this commonwealth, as a party to the federal compact, will bow to the laws of the Union, yet, it does at the same time declare, that it will not now, or ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional manner, every attempt at what quarter soever offered, to violate that compact…. This commonwealth does now enter against [the Alien and Sedition Acts] in solemn PROTEST.

Tenth Amendment strongly supports Jefferson’s and Madison’s view of nullification:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

See Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century by Thomas E. Woods at Amazon.

Learn more at: The Tenth Amendment Center

Tenth Amendment Center

What are the costs of no action?

“If Christianity goes, the whole of our culture goes. Then you must start painfully again, and you cannot put on a new culture ready-made. You must wait for the grass to grow to feed the sheep to give the wool out of which your new coat will be made. You must pass through many centuries of barbarism. We should not live to see the new culture, nor would our great-great-great-grandchildren: and if we did, not one of us would be happy in it.” – T. S. Eliot

There is reason for hope that our efforts can bear fruit because of what is noted by Calvin:

“Men of sound judgment will always be sure that a sense of divinity which can never be effaced is engraved upon men’s minds. Indeed, the perversity of the impious, who though they struggle furiously are unable to extricate themselves from the fear of God, is abundant testimony that this conviction, namely, that there is some God, is naturally inborn in all, and is fixed deep within, as it were in the very marrow.” – John Calvin in the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Observations on Unionism!

Observations on Unionism! by Jack Kettler

In this look at unionism, a number of issues will be relevant. To start, an economic analysis of union philosophy will be considered. Then, the nature of union oaths will be of utmost importance for Christians who desire to be faithful to the dictates of Scripture. Other problematic aspects of unionism will be looked at. The fact of unions and organized crime will be dealt with. In closing, public sector unions will be looked at.

Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises on Labor Unions:

Exclusively preoccupied with wage rates and pensions, the unions boast of their Pyrrhic victories. The union members are not conscious of the fact that their fate is tied up with the flowering of their employers enterprises. Planning for Freedom p. 91 Unions

The labor unions are deadly foes of every new machine. Human Action p. 269; p. 269 Unions

They and their members and officials have acquired the power and the right to commit wrongs to person and property, to deprive individuals of the means of earning a livelihood, and to commit many other acts which no one can do with impunity. Planning for Freedom p. 191 Unions

As people think that they owe to unionism their high standard of living, they condone violence, coercion, and intimidation on the part of unionized labor and are indifferent to the curtailment of personal freedom inherent in the union-shop and closed-shop clauses. Planning for Freedom p. 153 Unions

The labor unions aim at a monopolistic position on the labor market. But once they have attained it, their policies are restrictive and not monopoly price policies. They are intent upon restricting the supply of labor in their field without bothering about the fate of those excluded. Human Action p. 374; p. 377 Unions

No social cooperation under the division of labor is possible when some people or unions of people are granted the right to prevent by violence and the threat of violence other people from working. Planned Chaos p. 27 Unions

The labor unions of the Anglo-Saxon countries favored participation in the Great War in order to eliminate the last remnants of the liberal doctrine of free movement and migration of labor. A Critique of Interventionism p. 123 Unions

No one has ever succeeded in the effort to demonstrate that unionism could improve the conditions and raise the standard of living of all those eager to earn wages. Human Action pp. 764-65; pp. 77071 Unions

The issue is not the right to form associations. It is whether or not any association of private citizens should be granted the privilege of resorting with impunity to violent action. It is the same problem that relates to the activities of the Ku Klux Klan. Human Action p. 773; p. 779 Unions

Strikes, sabotage, violent action and terrorism of every kind are not economic means. They are destructive means, designed to interrupt the movement of economic life. They are weapons of war which must inevitably lead to the destruction of society. Socialism p. 307 Unions

The cornerstone of trade unionism is compulsory membership. Socialism p. 435 Unions

The weapon of the trade union is the strike. It must be borne in mind that every strike is an act of coercion, a form of extortion, a measure of violence directed against all who might act in opposition to the strikers intentions. Socialism p. 435 Unions

The policy of strike, violence, and sabotage can claim no merit whatever for any improvement in the workers position. Socialism p. 437 Unions

Union membership in the light of Scriptural principles:

The attempt to use violence to force an employer to pay a desired non-economic wage is clearly robbery. It is a demand that either an employer rob himself or his customers, which can mean pricing himself out of the market.
R. J. Rushdoony; Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. 1, p. 508.

What should be of utmost importance for the Christian? The religious aspect of unionism is evidenced by the membership oaths that are required and where the members are bound to the membership oath under penalty of retribution. Should a Christian make a union oath?

The origins of an oath is clearly religious in nature:

Throughout the history of Western Civilization, oaths have been understood to be solemn declarations made in the presence of God, to whom we are accountable.

Because of the importance attached to oaths by Scripture and centuries of common law experience, it is important for us to consider the religious nature of an oath.

John Witherspoon, Presbyterian theologian, mentor of many of the Founders, and signer of the Declaration of Independence, explained that religion and the oath were inseparable:

An oath is an appeal to God, the Searcher of hearts, for the truth of what we say and always expresses or supposes an imprecation [a calling down] of His judgment upon us if we prevaricate [lie]. An oath, therefore, implies a belief in God and His Providence and indeed is an act of worship, and so accounted in Scripture, as in that expression, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and shalt swear by His name. . . . . Persons entering on public offices are also often obliged to make oath that they will faithfully execute their trust . . . .
Reference: The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), vol. VII, pp. 139-40, 142, from his “Lectures on Moral Philosophy,” Lecture 16 on Oaths and Vows.

The following oath has been taken for generations by members joining the Teamsters Union. In light of the above material by Witherspoon about the religious nature of oaths, the following Teamster oath binds its members into a religious covenant known as the “Brotherhood of Teamsters.”

OBLIGATION

Fellow worker, you will now take an obligation that will bind you to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and this Local Union and that will in no way conflict with your religious belief [an outright lie since unionism, i.e., socialism is incompatible with Christianity] or your duties as a citizen:

I,________________, pledge my honor to faithfully observe the Constitution and the laws of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the bylaws and laws of this Local Union.

I pledge that I will comply with all the rules and regulations [The bylaws are a rather lengthy document which very few individuals whom swear allegiance to this document have ever seen let alone read it] for the government of the International Union and this Local Union.

I will faithfully perform all the duties assigned to me to the best of my ability and skill.

I will conduct myself at all times in a manner as not to bring reproach upon my Union.

I shall take an affirmative part in the business and activities of the Union and accept and discharge my responsibilities during any authorized or lockout. I

I pledge not to divulge to non-members the private business of this Union, unless authorized to reveal the same.

I will never knowingly harm another member.

I will never discriminate against a fellow worker on account of race, color, religion, sex, age, physical disability or national origin.

I will refrain from any conduct that would interfere with the Union’s performance of its legal or contractual obligations.

I will at times bear true and faithful allegiance to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and this Local Union. {A classic mark of cultism}
Source: Teamsters Article II: Membership

Another example is the oath required for membership by the International Typographical Union:

I hereby solemnly and sincerely swear (or affirm) that I will not reveal any business or proceedings of any meeting of this or any subordinate union to which I may hereafter be attached, unless by order of the union, except to those whom I know to be in good standing thereof; that I will, without evasion or equivocation, and to the best of my ability abide by the Constitution, By-Laws and the adopted scale of prices of any union to which I may belong; that I will at all times support the laws, regulations and decisions of the International Typographical Union, and will carefully avoid giving aid or succor to its enemies, and use all honorable means within my power to procure employment for members of the International Typographical Union in preference to others; that my fidelity to the union and my duty to the members thereof shall in no sense be interfered with by any allegiance that I may now or hereafter owe to any other organization, social, political, or religious, secret or otherwise . . . that I will not wrong a member, or see him or her wronged, if in my power to prevent. To all of which I pledge my most sacred honor.

As seen from the above quotes, unions are “brotherhoods.” It is problematic for a Christian to be a member of a union because of accepting unbelieving, ungodly men as brothers. In addition, this puts the Christian in a position of sharing the un-biblical rationale regarding labor practices promoted by unions.

Scripture calls the believer to communion with fellow believers and forbids fellowship with the ungodly. “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 6:14).

As noted above, the swearing of an oath is an initiation rite and religious in nature. God is sovereign over this world, over human life, and in heaven. Making non-biblical oaths and vows violates God’s sovereignty. Jesus forbade the taking of oaths of this nature in Matthew 5:33-37, which is especially relevant to union oaths. Jesus taught us to be content with our wages in Luke 3:14. In contrast, unionism teaches us not to be content with our wages.

It should be noted that a biblical and civil oaths require, sanctions or penalties for violating the oath. This is true of unionism. Violence and threats are still a big part of union enforcement tactics. Unionism also uses fines levied against a member who exercises his First Amendment freedom to speak out against the forced union membership requirements. The Teamster oath binds the member to never bring “reproach upon my Union.” This oath would forbid a member from bringing attention to union corruption. Or, forcing unwilling individuals to join something in good conscious they are opposed to.

In addition, it should also be noted that when union members call themselves brothers and sisters, this is a concept borrowed from Christianity and further evidence that this “brotherhood” has a religious element to it. Union membership does not qualify to make someone my brother or sister in Christ. Union brotherhood is non-Christian in nature, and violates the clear command of the scriptures where we are told not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14).

Today thousands are forced into union membership against their will by state and federal law authorities. This is outrageous and highly immoral.

Henry Van Til of Calvin College wrote a book on Calvinism and culture. Regarding unions, He asserted that:

the believer, in his opposition to the world, therefore, must see that the so-called “neutral union” is an enemy of the cross of Christ just as well as the communistic party leader that curses the church and her King. For the neutrality postulate of the union involves a tacit curse upon the anointed One, whom the Father sent into the world and by whom he now rules over all things . . . The labor unions of our day are not one whit behind those of whom the Psalmist testifies that they took counsel together against the LORD and his anointed . (Psalms 2)
Henry R. Van Til, The Calvinistic Concept of Culture, Baker, 1959, pp. 201, 202.

Inherent problems with Union membership and representation:

Consider what is involved in making a car, computer or television purchase. You expect to have a printed guarantee of the specifications of the item purchased. You want to know how much memory the computer has, the size of the hard drive, how fast the CPU is. You want to know how many pistons and horse power the engine of the car or truck has, how many miles per gallon you will get in the car or truck you are about to purchase. In regards to televisions, you want to know what the picture will look like compared to the other models in the show room.

You also expect to have a service contract that protects you if you get a defective item. In other words, you expect and deserve a written money back guarantee or replacement of defective parts. A written guarantee protects you, the buyer.

Unions try to get employees of a company to buy a service contract. What is involved in the contract?

Unions will never to put into writing a guarantee of what the union will do for those being pressured to sign a union contract in the area of increased wages, and benefits. Imagine that, a union wants people to pay for union service but refuse to put in writing what they will do. In addition, and more importantly, a union will always refuse to put in writing a money back guarantee if people conclude the service is defective or does not live up to promised expectations. This is a standard right as consumers!

No one in their right minds would purchase a car, truck, computer or television with out some kind of written guarantee to protect and insure that if the product is defective it can be returned for a refund or replacement. A union should held to the same standard as any other business that wants money for a service or product, a written guarantee. This is only reasonable.

The middle man. Who needs a middle man?

Everyone have heard about eliminating the middle man. In this day and age, you do not need a middle man which can make things cost more. Today we can buy online direct from the manufacturer or go to a factory outlet store to save money. In contrast, a union wants to come between individuals and private business entities as a high-priced middle man service.

Problems with unions negotiating contracts:

If unions were fair, you should only have to pay once every three to five years to negotiate a contract. Not being charged month after month, year after year, pay check deductions. Any legitimate bargaining business would only charge a one time fee for the contract and then when the contract is up, you could hire them again if they did a good job. The union wants to be hired as full time middle men and then clauses built into union contracts, make it next to impossible to fire them.

Unions don’t mind negotiating bad contracts:

The union wants the tax cash flow to start going into their bank account as soon as possible. This is how they make money. Union business agents are trained in how to manipulate a vote to get the members to accept lousy contracts. A contract may be lousy for the members, but good for the Union. Why would the union profit from a bad contract? First, the union profits from a high employee turnover. All new employees pay the union initiation tax in addition to the payroll tax. This initiation tax is a lucrative revenue source for the Union.

The turnover will start when the senior employees take a big financial hit in a union contract. Contrary to what the union propaganda, everything is on the table including the wages of those loyal employees that have been with the company for many years. There will only be one wage scale and the top of the scale will not be where many of the senior employee’s hourly rates are currently. This means that the most loyal employees will have a wage reduction, which is the recipe of employee turnover.

One thing the union fears is a work force of employees that have a special bond which comes from years of working together. Why is this? Employees with this special bond know each other and trust each other and are able to organize themselves effectively to fight against the union protection and taxation racket. An employee work force with a high turn over means employees that do not know each other and will find a difficult time in trusting each other. With a high turnover work force, it will be extremely difficult to organize a campaign to boot the union out. That is why some businesses have had Unions for years simply because of the inability of the transitory, high turnover work force to mount any type of resistance to the union’s skillful manipulation techniques.

Once the union gets in and destroys a company’s ability to reward long term committed loyal employees, attrition begins. The business then starts losing its most committed employees because of the one wage scale in the union’s socialistic pay system. The union loves a wage pay system in which everyone is paid the same. Merit pay is out the window in union shops and many employees are forced to find work elsewhere. A business has to keep hiring new employees to keep their business operating. The company’s employees are now made up of new hires with no long term leaders who can organize resistance to the union protection and taxation racket. Bad contracts are good business for Unions and bad business for career minded employees.

Since their inception, trade unions have been influenced by communists and mafia crime syndicates:

Labor investigator Michael Moroney, who has served as a consultant to the federal Organized Crime Strike Force argues that mobsters back in the 1930s didn’t simply “infiltrate” unions; they established them. “The five crime families of New York are the foundation of American trade unions,” he said. “Without the support of the Mafia, and government officials who have winked at them, most unions simply would not exist.”

Unions are the modern form of communism, restricting what members can earn and by telling them what political stance they can have. They dictate to their members what they will earn. They dictate to their members what their political views must be. Freedom of choice is no longer valid when you are in a union.

Every year union members give a portion of their hard earned money to labor unions. What do they get in return? Union membership provides nothing, except substandard medical and dental benefits.

Unions take the money from their members and spend it on politics. They spend the money endorsing political ideas that may or may not reflect the values, ideas or political parties of their members. They do it without asking, polling or voting on what the members want or would like. The unions only care about advancing their power and control over their members, business and politicians.

Unionism is a form of organized crime. Unionism threatens to damage a company financially through its strike threat. This is where unions have historically gained concessions, by bringing a company to its knees through financial loss. The strike threat union’s use is nothing more than an attempt of collective or group theft.

A recent National Labor Relations Board’s annual report for included the number of Unfair Labor Practices alleged against unions. Union officials faced a disproportionately high number of allegations of wrongdoing, when compared to employers. The worst part: The vast majority of allegations said that members were the ones hurt by the union officials that are supposed to protect them.

This report detailed the fact that Unions faced a total of 6,381 allegations and 82% of charges against unions alleged illegal restraint and coercion of employees.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) represents more than 1.3 million members. It is perhaps best known for its historical relationship with the mafia. In 1989 the Justice Department brought a racketeering case against the union, saying that it was a “wholly owned subsidiary of organized crime.” Since 1992, the Teamsters have been overseen by an Independent Review Board (IRB) that is charged with making sure the union stays clean. It is not entirely clear that this IRB has succeeded; in fact it is extremely doubtful.

A 2002 article in the generally pro-union New Republic magazine noted that the IBT is “still plagued by corruption; ex-felons and people with reputed mob associations lurk around the edges of key Teamster locals seeking influence over the union. Indeed, corruption within the Teamsters may actually have increased in recent years.

Embezzlement, False Reports, Violence is the history of Unionism. Most people don’t know just how many crimes are committed every year through which union officials hurt their own members. The number of reputed and verified crimes is staggering.

Union officials have regularly ordered or approved of violent, coercive and harassing conduct aimed at making an example of employees who don’t toe the union line.

“Schemes involving bribery, extortion, deprivation of union rights by violence, and embezzlement used by early racketeers are still employed to abuse the power of unions.” Source: U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General, 2004

According to a 1999 Congressional report four of the last eight Teamsters presidents have been indicted according to the FBI.

Despite being outspent 10-to-1 by his opponent, Teamsters presidential aspirant Tom Leedham received a third of the vote in the union’s November 2006 election. The centerpiece of Leedham’s campaign was a vocal dissatisfaction with President James P. Hoffa’s administration, which Leedham says has a “dismal record of failure.” As he told the October issue of In These Times: “[Hoffa] pushed through the largest dues increase in the history of the union without a membership vote … [H]e ran on a pledge of no dues increase … He doubled dues, but there’s been no doubling of union power … He developed an anti-corruption program with great fanfare and spent $15 million, but it collapsed when he blocked investigators when they were getting close to his office … [Dues] support [the] lavish lifestyle of top officers, with the number of international employees receiving multiple salaries increasing from 16 to 163.”

In 2005 alone, federal racketeering investigations resulted in 196 convictions against union officials and $187 million in fines. Union tactics including deception and intimidation during organizing campaigns, strikes that hurt members more than they help, spending mandatory union dues on radical political agendas, and the use of anti-democratic voting practices are long overdue for exposure.

Union membership has numerous parallels with joining a gang!

A gang is a group of Individuals that share a common identity, even if the identity consists of little more than their association with one another. Gang is a general class of behavior in which collective action and support of community interests and goals to active social cohesion or solidarity. Solidarity is very important in Gangs, Cults and Unions.

1. Membership in both unions and gangs provide the false security of belonging to the group. In reality, it is no security at all.
2. Joining unions and gangs are similar in that it is usually involuntary or pressure is applied to individuals to force them in.
3. Neither unions nor gangs can deliver on their promises.
4. Both unions and gangs use intimidation and threats of and real violence to keep their members in line.
5. Both unions and gangs engage in theft.
6. Unions and gangs have links to other criminals.
7. Both union and gang members are manipulated and controlled by the leaders.
8. It is easier to join a union and gang than to leave.
9. Leaving or opposing a union or gang can involve personal risk such as the threat of violent payback and or financial damage i.e. union fines or destruction of property.

One Internet blogger notes: Just join a Union….same lifestyle as a gang but with benefits and political clout.

News: Los Angeles building-trade unions are stepping up recruitment in the inner city, where many new hires are former and current gang members. Posted May 21, 07 in US, Business, Arts & Living

Reader’s Digest July 1986; Time To Put Labor Racketeers Out of Business

The following article is dated but it nevertheless provides valuable insights into the corruption that has been part of the union movement since its inception.

Gangsters dominate four major U.S. unions-and use them to pick the pockets of all Americans. We have to declare total war on their corrupt empire

BY EUGENE H. METHVIN

READER’S DIGEST Senior Editor EUGENE H. METHVIN was a member of the President’s Commission On Organized Crime and supervised its investigation into union corruption.

Joe Teitelbaum, owner of a Miami stevedoring company, became so fed up in 1975 with shakedowns by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) that he turned to the FBI. The G-men were ecstatic to have an industry insider bold enough to wear secret tape recorders and introduce undercover agents to his business.

A federal probe lasting five years uncovered a massive, Mafia managed cartel stretching from Boston to Houston. The racketeers sold labor peace on the docks where delays can cost shipowners $35,000 a day, rigged bids on ship repairs, orchestrated fraudulent workmen’s compensation claims, shook down employers for payoffs and fingered cargoes for truck hijackers. Dockworkers even had to pay a daily kickback to get work.

The FBI’s biggest catch was the ILA’s No. 3 officer, Anthony Scotto, boss of Brooklyn Local 1814. FBI electronic surveillance captured irrefutable evidence that Scotto was a capo in the Gambino gang, one of New York’s top crime families. The Gambino organization controlled the docks as far south as Norfolk, Va., while the Genovese gang-another major New York crime family-ran the ILA locals farther south.

By 1981 Justice Department prosecutors had convicted 52 union officers and 58 company executives and corporations. Despite the convictions, little changed. The FBI subsequently recorded Gambino boss Paul Castellano boasting, “It’s our International.” Last January the President’s Commission on Organized Crime reported, “Life on the docks today remains much as it was.”

“Bad Four.” The frustrating result of this, the most successful labor-racketeering probe the FBI ever mounted, underlines a national scandal: four major American labor unions, with a total of nearly three million workers, are dominated by La Cosa Nostra, the crime syndicate, and its allies. The “Bad Four” are:

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), whose l.9 million members range from airline pilots to truck drivers. The IBT has been under the mob’s thumb for three decades. Former president Roy Williams, imprisoned for conspiring with Mafia leaders to bribe a U.S. Senator, acknowledged under oath that every major Teamster local “had some connection with organized crime” and his successor, Jackie Presser, is as controlled “as I was.”*

The ILA, representing 116,000 dockworkers on the East Coast, the Gulf Coast and the Great Lakes. Through this union, reports FBI Director William Webster, the mob imposes a “racket tariff” on all goods shipped through U.S. ports. Syndicate-managed thefts at Miami docks alone total $2 billion a year-costs that are passed directly to shippers and consumers.

The Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International (HERE), whose 400,000 members are “owned” by the Chicago Mafia, according to Congressional testimony and the FBI. In nine years the union’s assets have dropped from $21.4 million to less than $14 million. Millions have been siphoned away in “loans” to gangsters and associates.

The Laborers’ International (LIUNA), whose 509,000 members are concentrated in heavy construction and the building trades. In addition to extorting kickbacks and payoffs, LIUNA leaders rig bids, fix prices and order contractors to buy supplies from mob-controlled firms. By one authoritative estimate, the Mafia monopoly adds 20 percent to construction costs in New York City.

The presidents of all four of 11 these unions have invoked the Fifth Amendment in refusing to answer official inquiries about criminal activities. Though AFL-CIO policy prohibits officials who take the Fifth from holding union office, the presidents of the three AFL-CIO unions continue to sit on the parent body’s executive board. (The Teamsters were expelled from the AFL-CIO for corruption in 1957.)

Neglected Weapons. Federal law-enforcement authorities, for their part, have ample legal power to clean up these unions, particularly with two weapons Congress gave the Justice Department in the 1970 Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations statute (RICO).

Legislators provided in RICO both criminal and civil sanctions for those engaged in a “pattern of racketeering.” To imprison them, prosecutors must produce “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” But in a civil proceeding, government prosecutors or private parties need only supply a “preponderance of evidence.” Then a jury or judge can impose triple damages. A judge can dissolve or seize racketeers’ companies, oust them from their union posts or welfare-fund trusteeships, and ban them for life from specified business or union activity.

The late Sen. John L. McClellan (D., Ark.), the legislation’s author, predicted the civil RICO law would assure the “wholesale removal of organized crime from our organizations and forfeiture of their ill-gotten gains.”

But in 15 years, the Justice Department’s organized-crime strike forces have brought just 68 criminal RICO prosecutions, with a distinct minority of those against union racketeers. These cases yielded only $1.1 million in fines and $3.2 million in forfeited assets. The neglect of the civil RICO weapon has been even worse: a mere six cases in 15 years, only one against a union racket.

By contrast, states that have adopted their own RICO statutes have put Washington’s record to shame. Florida has had its statute only nine years, yet its attorney general has won $8.3 million in 39 civil RICO cases against racketeering enterprises as diverse as pornography, prostitution, theft, fraud and drug smuggling. In six years Arizona has brought 75 RICO prosecutions and chalked up judgments exceeding $16 million.

Rare Victory. Clearly, there is a great deal more to do on the federal level. Indeed, one of the few outstanding federal civil attacks on labor racketeering shows what can be accomplished by an all-out offensive.

In New Jersey, Mafia capo Tony Provenzano and his family ruled a Teamster empire, embracing 35 locals and 90,000 members, by sheer terror. In his own Local 560, two members who dared oppose Tony Pro were murdered-one gunned down as he left home the morning after speaking out at a union meeting.

The Provenzano group bilked Teamster welfare funds and oversaw Mafia loan-shark activities. They also infiltrated legitimate trucking companies to perpetrate a series of frauds and inside thefts, bleed the firms white and force them into bankruptcy. To avoid labor troubles, employers were compelled to make wholesale payoffs and hire ghost employees.

Justice Department prosecutors sent Tony Pro to prison for extortion. Yet he continued to run the union from his prison cell, his brothers assuming his official posts in Local 560. When Provenzano was finally put away for life for murdering a Teamster worker, his successor was none other than his 23-year-old daughter.

Then on March 9, 1982, Newark Strike Force chief Robert C. Stewart filed the first-ever civil RICO suit against a union. After a four month trial, he won a resounding victory. Federal Judge Harold Ackerman declared that the evidence revealed “how evil men engaged in a multifaceted orgy of criminal activity,” and he ordered the removal of the entire Local 560 executive board and the appointment of his own trustees to run the union. An appeal of his order is pending.

Rich Potential. Stewart’s New Jersey triumph had strong reverberations in Washington. Assistant Attorney General Stephen S. Trott told Congress, “The Local 560 case has opened our eyes to the potential of civil RICO. Future cases along the lines of Local 560 will be instituted.”

Months passed, and nothing happened. Last March, the President’s Commission on Organized Crime scored Justice Department inaction and called for a nationwide strategy “to bankrupt individual mobsters and to discourage union officers, employers and public officials from accommodating organized crime.” But an effective federal assault will have to overcome these longstanding obstacles:

1. Lack of political will. Busting union rackets has never been popular work in Washington. Explains one former Labor Department investigator: “The rank-and-file union members are powerless, while their leaders can make campaign contributions, provide telephone banks and move voter blocks–muscles that win elections.”

Thus, ILA vice president Scotto marched Brooklyn dockworkers to cheer candidate Jimmy Carter, and President Carter invited him to lunch-even after FBI agents had recorded incontrovertible proof of his Mafia membership and union piracy.

President Reagan has entertained Teamster leaders Williams and Presser at the White House. In 1980 top LIUNA officers trooped to the White House to have their picture taken with Vice President Walter Mondale and present him with a campaign contribution. In the last two Congressional campaigns, the Bad Four collected $4.7 million to aid favored candidates.

Declares the President’s Commission: “When corrupt union leaders are seen joining hands with politicians it conveys a message that political leaders are beholden to the union. Such contacts can erode public confidence and dampen the desire to end racketeering. Organized crime is aware of this and purposefully seeks to cultivate and benefit from political influence.”

2. Anemic enforcement. Congress has never provided enough personnel and funds to enforce the laws it has passed to safeguard union members’ rights. “I have fewer than two hundred people to oversee fifteen thousand federally protected union pension and welfare funds containing billions of dollars in trust for millions of workers,” complained Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor John J. Walsh before he quit in 1984. (The union funds are in addition to the 700,000 other private pension plans that the Department oversees.) The DOL has only 89 investigators to help the Justice Department combat labor racketeering. A veteran prosecutor told me, “I could use more than that in Manhattan alone.”

The racket-busters’ principal antagonist is Robert J. Connerton, a lobbyist and LlUNA’s longtime general counsel. Lawyers in Connerton’s firm wrote a law-journal article denouncing DOL corruption fighters as “a national police force with little accountability”-without noting that one of their firm’s major clients is the racket-ridden LIUNA. Connerton spearheaded an AFL-CIO lobbying drive that sank a Reagan Administration effort to persuade Congress to provide I50 more DOL investigators.

3. Bureaucratic bumbling and bickering. For decades, lethargy and rivalry have dogged federal anti-racketeering efforts. When the Justice Department indicted Florida LIUNA official Bernard G. Rubin for embezzling $400,000, for instance, prosecutors moved to place union funds under trusteeship. After DOL declined to assist, pleading “lack of manpower,” the Justice Department abandoned the effort. Rubin was convicted (he is appealing), but Senate investigators found he embezzled an additional $2 million before he went to jail.

DOL’s 89 crime investigators do not have the authority to carry guns, execute search warrants or make arrests. When a DOL agent wants to bust a racketeer, he has to hunt up an FBI agent to accompany him. Sen. Sam Nunn (D., Ga.) has introduced remedial legislation, but a turf-jealous Justice Department has stalled it for almost three years.

4. Inadequate planning, analysis and pursuit. The FBI, its agent strength cut by nearly ten percent between 1976 and 1980 has lacked the manpower to mine its vast lode of surveillance tapes of top mobsters. The G-men in Chicago, for example, recorded thousands of hours of criminal conversations between Teamster president Roy Williams and his cohorts, but harvested only a single case.

“I know what those tapes contained, and it’s a shame only a single prosecution came out of it,” one FBI agent told me.

Proper planning and analysis could pyramid such intelligence bonanzas into seizures of racketeers’ property, expelling them from office and placing their unions under court supervision. Scores of FBI veterans are retired at age 55, when they’re considered too old to “work the streets.” Why not use them as intelligence analysts to pore through the files and plan strategic long-range strikes?

5. Neglect of corporate racketeers. While businessmen are often unwilling victims, they may also be eager customers for the mob’s chief product: muscle to terrorize workers and keep them quiet while corrupt union and corporate executives strike sweetheart deals.

The Commission on Organized Crime heard from one self-styled mob “leg breaker” who described how corrupt Teamster leaders conspired with Fortune 500 company executives to cut wages and welfare benefits, and jettison safety rules.

The Justice Department prosecuted only seven defendants-not one of them a Fortune 500 executive.

EVERY AMERICAN, whether union member or consumer, has a direct stake in ending the mobster empire of labor racketeering. When your Congressman and Senators ask for your vote this autumn, ask them these questions: What have you done to root out racketeers and get the Justice Department moving to break the Mafia stranglehold on key unions? Are you accepting campaign contributions or endorsements from the “Bad Four” unions?

Meanwhile, write Chairman Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Senate Labor Subcommittee, 428 Senate Dirksen Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510;; Chairman William L. Clay (D., Mo.), House Labor-Management Relations Subcommittee, 2451 House Rayburn Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20515; or Attorney General Edwin Meese 111, U.S. Justice Department, Washington, D.C. 20530. Tell them it’s time to put labor racketeers out of business, now.

No one should be forced to pay tribute or protection money to a union in order to keep a job.

Under federal law, if union organizers win a representation election by even 50% plus one of those voting, they are empowered to negotiate contracts on behalf of all 100% of the workers. In fact, under some circumstances, union officials become monopoly “representatives” even when most workers are against them! And by law each and every worker loses his or her right to negotiate directly with the employer on his or her own behalf.

This trampling of individual rights flies in the face of what the Bill of Rights is all about:

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to place certain subjects . . . beyond the reach of majorities. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
Justice Robert Jackson in Board of Education vs. Barnette

As noted economist and Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek wrote about U.S. labor law:

It cannot be stressed enough that the coercion which unions have been permitted to exercise contrary to all principles of freedom under the law is primarily the coercion of fellow workers. Whatever true coercive power unions may be able to wield over employers is a consequence of this primary power of coercing other workers.

A recent poll by the Marketing Research Institute found that over 84% of Americans believe that employees who do not wish to be represented by a labor union should have the right to bargain for themselves. In fact, some 75% of union-member households agreed that such monopoly bargaining is wrong. If a union is great, let them operate side by side with non-union employees and let them prove that their negotiating leads to better benefits and wages than the non-union workers. If unionism is voluntary, I have no problem with it. If they force me to join and pay tribute, I will consider it tyranny.

Union political contributions to unprincipled Congress Creatures can be described as a circle of influence buying political payback corruption. The net affect of this in the real world is that freedom loving, individuals are forced into unionism against their wills and then subjected to unfair union payroll taxation without representation. Union leadership is not representation in a Constitutional sense of the word. Forced unionism is an affront to the Constitutional guarantees of one’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly.

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. – Thomas Jefferson

Public Sector Unions:

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service August 16, 1937

Public sector unions are particularly evil, since they are organized against the tax payers who are at the mercy and victims of corrupt politicians who have received substantial campaign contributions from these unions and in return scratch the backs of the unions. This an unholy alliance.

The following links are provided so you can educate yourself about the dangers of forced unionism!

Union officials have ordered or approved of violent, coercive and harassing conduct aimed at making an example of employees who don’t toe the union line. See: http://www.unionfacts.com for examples of union crimes!

The National Right to Work Foundation
National Right to Work Committee
Say No To Unions
Labour Watch Association
National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights
Evergreen Freedom Foundation
Union Facts
Youtube Right to Work Channel
The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition manifesto
Unions: Why A Faithful Christian Cannot Belong To Or Support Labor Unions
Forgotten Facts of American Labor History by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Click here for an online pamphlet by the Protestant Reformed Church on Christians and unionism.
Freedom is not free, you have to fight for it! Stop UN-Constitutional unionism Today!

The above links are active at http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Unionism.html

Mr. Kettler is the owner of Undergroundnotes web site where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an

What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an A review by Jack Kettler

What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an
By James White

Dr. James R. White is the author of over ten books, including a number of best selling heralded books, such as The God Who Justifies and The Forgotten Trinity and Scripture Alone. He is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics ministry. He is an accomplished and reputable debater. Dr. White’s Alpha and Omega Ministries web site can be found at: http://www.aomin.org/.

What others are saying about Dr. White’s book:

“This book is magnificent! I believe this is the most thorough and comprehensive book written by an evangelical scholar on the Qur’an.” – Abdul Saleeb, coauthor of Answering Islam and The Dark Side of Islam

“Dr. James White has written an immensely informative, carefully documented overview of Islam and the Qur’an–rich with fascinating historical, biblical, and theological analysis.” – John MacArthur, pastor of Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, California

“It is absolutely essential that Christians understand that Islam and Christianity represent two contradictory sets of truth claims. James White understands this, and in this important new book he sets out the issues of truth with distinction and clarity. Christians will welcome this book as they seek to understand the challenge of Islam.” – R. Albert Mohler Jr., president, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

A few highlights from the book:

In this work, Dr. White is fair, in his citations from the Koran. Christians need to read this book in order to become conversant with Muslims on the street about their beliefs. In this work we learn about Islamic beliefs concerning Christ, redemption, the Trinity, and the compiling of the Koran. Dr. White shows how the text of the Koran differs significantly from the teachings of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. Mohammad had never seen a copy of the Judeo/Christian Scriptures. Everything Mohammad says about the Old and New Testaments was dependent upon oral reports from what in most cases was so inaccurate that when Mohammad repeats this material in the Koran, it is laughable. Essentially, Mohammad repeats Judeo/Christian myths and heresy, as if it was in reality what the Bible teaches.

A case in point, Chapter Four on the Koranic teaching about the Trinity provides the Christian powerful apologetic material to work with. Dr. White documents from the Koran and Hadiths, Mohammad’s understanding of the Christian Trinity. Shockingly, Mohammad’s understanding of the doctrine was that God (Allah) and a mother God (Mary had a boy (Jesus) who were all Gods. These 3 Gods are what Christians understood as the Trinity. The problems for Muslims is that they can not find any example anywhere, past or present of any Christian who ever believed such a thing. The conclusion is that Mohammad and his Koran are completely mistaken about the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. This incredible false understanding of biblical teaching is truly and embarrassment to the truth claims of Islam.

Additionally, in Chapter Six, Dr. White shows how Mohammad and his Koran are again completely mistaken about Christ’s death by crucifixion. Incredibly, Mohammad taught in the Koran that Jesus did not die nor was he crucified. Dr. White backs the Muslim into an impossible place, by documenting the teaching of the Bible on the crucifixion, and the testimony of non-Christian historians during the First Century who recorded Christ’s death and crucifixion. The Muslim response, is the Bible has been corrupted even though in Chapter Eight, Dr. White establishes that Mohammad in the Koran believed the Torah and Gospels were not corrupted. It was only the Jews and Christians were personally corrupt and did not believe their own Scriptures.

In Chapter Eight; Did the “People of the Book” Corrupt the Gospel?

In this chapter, Dr. White shows how the Koran affirms the inspiration, preservation, and authority of the Torah and the Gospel.

“O ye unto whom the Scripture hath been given! Believe in what We have revealed, confirming that which ye possess.” Al-Quran 4:47

“O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.” Surah 5. Al-Maida, Ayah 68

Then he demonstrates how the Koran contradicts the teachings of the Torah and the Gospel. This puts Muslims in a quandary. If the Bible is the Word of God, then Islam is false because it contradicts the Bible. If the Bible is not the Word of God, then Islam is false nonetheless, because it declares that the Bible is the Word of God. The conclusion, Islam is contradictory and a counterfeit revelation.

One of my favorite sections of the book was on the compiling of the Koran by the early Muslim caliph, Uthman. Those familiar with the evaluation of historical documents, will be shocked at the process of putting together Mohammad’s revelations into written form. Uthman destroyed all copies of the words of Mohammad he did not agree with, which may have been a factor in his later assassination. In most cases, Uthamn was dependent on the memories of numerous individuals who had memorized Mohammad’s messages. A point of humor for me was learning that Aisha, Mohammad’s child bride had a written portion of the what was to be included in the Koran called an ayah. This particular ayah was eaten by a sheep and lost forever. Another man who had memorized large portions of Mohammad’s teaching was killed in battle. It will never be know what he remembered, or if it was accurate.

This book, certainly deserves a wide hearing in the Christian community. Dr. White provides the Christian with valuable apologetic material to witness to Muslims. A number of Dr. White’s debates with Muslims have been recorded and can be viewed on YouTube. This work will help Christians engage in open, honest intelligent discussions with Muslims.

The reader should consult:

An Interview with James White about His Book, “What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur’an”
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/06/03/an-interview-with-james-white-about-his-book-what-every-christian-needs-to-know-about-the-quran/

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Mohammad on the Crucifixion of Christ

Mohammad on the Crucifixion of Christ by Jack Kettler

The Koran has as its foundation, the Bible. In it Mohammad referenced both Moses, the Torah and Jesus and the gospels. The Koran would be completely unintelligible without its appeal to earlier Judeo-Christian revelation. A principle that is relevant is, new revelation should be judged by older established revelation. Does the purported new revelation contradict previous established revelation? The problem for the author of the Koran is that it repudiates earlier established revelation by nothing more that making assertions about the unreliability of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, without any kind of proof.

One glaring example of this is the Koran’s denial of Christ’s death:

And for their saying, ‘Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God.’ Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness. And they who differed about him were in doubt concerning him: No sure knowledge had they about him, but followed only an opinion, and they did not really slay him, but God took him up to Himself. And God is Mighty, Wise! – (Surah 4:156-57)

According to this passage in the Koran, “they did not really slay him.”

Does this assertion have any merit?

Secular history confirms that Christ died. For example, Josephus, the Jewish historian, refers to Jesus’ death:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. – (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3)

In addition, the Roman writer, Tacitus, said that Christ was “executed” by Pilate:

All human efforts . . . of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus , and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.
Tacitus, Annals, translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb, accessed 11-26-03, http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html.

Historically, the evidence for the death of the Lord is absolutely overwhelming. Only someone wholly incognizant to history would deny this.

What about evidence from the words of Christ himself in the New Testament and eyewitnesses recorded in Scripture?

Jesus said he would be killed:

From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. (Matthew 16:21)

Jesus said his body would be in the grave:

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40)

Muslims may claim these are not really the words of Christ, but the insertions of impostors who perverted the word of God. Muslim may claim many things, but claiming something is a far cry from proving it. A claim like this is nothing unless backed up by textual evidence. Who changed the text? When and how? A Muslim statement like this is simply an argument by assertion which is a logical fallacy. It is invalid to argue a point by merely asserting that it is true, without supporting textual evidence. An observation; it seems that Muslims have no knowledge of established historical standards by which ancient literature is evaluated.

Eye witnesses of the crucifixion in Scripture:

And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: (Acts 10:39)

Many of Christ’s disciples and apostles went to their deaths by torture rather than contradicting their testimony of Christ’s death and resurrection.

A Scriptural Creedal Statement:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve. (1 Corinthians 15:3-5)

If a Muslim wants to assert that these texts are corrupted, the burden of proof is on them. Fallacious assertions will not do.

The Reliability of New Testament:

There are over 5 thousand Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. How do they compare with other literature from antiquity?

Look at a chart dealing with the Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability by Matt Slick at: https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence#footnote2_jutwh4u

Regarding punishments by death in history and Scripture. We learn the following from Easton’s Bible Dictionary:

A common mode of punishment among heathen nations in early times. It is not certain whether it was known among the ancient Jews; probably it was not. The modes of capital punishment according to the Mosaic law were, by the sword (Exodus 21), strangling, fire (Leviticus 20), and stoning (Deuteronomy 21).

This was regarded as the most horrible form of death, and to a Jew it would acquire greater horror from the curse in Deuteronomy 21:23.

This punishment began by subjecting the sufferer to scourging. In the case of our Lord, however, his scourging was rather before the sentence was passed upon him, and was inflicted by Pilate for the purpose, probably, of exciting pity and procuring his escape from further punishment (Luke 23:22; John 19:1).

The condemned one carried his own cross to the place of execution, which was outside the city, in some conspicuous place set apart for the purpose. Before the nailing to the cross took place, a medicated cup of vinegar mixed with gall and myrrh (the sopor) was given, for the purpose of deadening the pangs of the sufferer. Our Lord refused this cup, that his senses might be clear (Matthew 27:34). The spongeful of vinegar, sour wine, posca, the common drink of the Roman soldiers, which was put on a hyssop stalk and offered to our Lord in contemptuous pity (Matthew 27:48; Luke 23:36), he tasted to allay the agonies of his thirst (John 19:29). The accounts given of the crucifixion of our Lord are in entire agreement with the customs and practices of the Roman in such cases. He was crucified between two “malefactors” (Isaiah 53:12; Luke 23:32), and was watched by a party of four soldiers (John 19:23; Matthew 27:36, 54), with their centurion. The “breaking of the legs” of the malefactors was intended to hasten death, and put them out of misery (John 19:31); but the unusual rapidity of our Lord’s death (19:33) was due to his previous sufferings and his great mental anguish. The omission of the breaking of his legs was the fulfilment of a type (Exodus 12:46). He literally died of a broken heart, a ruptured heart, and hence the flowing of blood and water from the wound made by the soldier’s spear (John 19:34). Our Lord uttered seven memorable words from the cross, namely, (1) Luke 23:34; (2) 23:43; (3) John 19:26; (4) Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34; (5) John 19:28; (6) 19:30; (7) Luke 23:46.

An informative article on the Koran:

How The Qur’an Came To Be
http://www.chick.com/information/religions/islam/quran2.asp

An in depth article on the crucifixion:

Proof for Muslims of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus
http://www.muslimhope.com/Crucifixion.htm

See also:

Bible Answers for Muslims Verse by Verse
http://www.muslimhope.com/BibleAnswers.htm

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Mohammad on the Trinity

Mohammad on the Trinity: by Jack Kettler

What do Muslims believe Christians to be teaching about the Trinity? If the Muslims in their primary source material, such as the Koran and the Hadiths are mistaken, what does this say about the truth claims of their religion?

The next quotations will demonstrate that Mohammad did not have a clue to what Christianity believes about the Trinity. Mohammad did not utter these inaccurate sayings until the 7th Century, long after creedal statements on the Trinity had been stated by ecumenical counsels of the Christian Church.

Was Mohammad mistaken?

“O ye people of the Book! overstep not bounds in your religion; and of God, speak only truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is only an apostle of God, and his Word which he conveyed into Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from himself. Believe therefore in God and his apostles, and say not, ‘Three:’ (there is a Trinity) — Forbear — it will be better for you. God is only one God! Far be it from His glory that He should have a son! His, whatever is in the Heavens, and whatever is in the Earth! And God is a sufficient Guardian.” Sura 4:169

“O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.” Sura 4.171

“And behold! Allah will say: ‘O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah’?” He will say: “Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.” Koran 5:116

“They surely are Infidels who say, ‘God is the third of three:’ for there is no God but one God: and if they refrain not from what they say, a grievous chastisement shall light on such of them as are Infidels. Will they not, therefore, be turned unto God, and ask pardon of Him? since God is Forgiving, Merciful! The Messiah, Son of Mary, is but an Apostle; other Apostles have flourished before him; and his mother was a just person: they both ate food. Behold! how we make clear to them the signs! then behold how they turn aside!” Sura 5:77-79

Now consider some Islamic commentators in the Hadiths about the Trinity that shed more light on what Allah through his messenger Mohammad was trying explain:

“People of the Book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary, a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers and do not speak of a ‘Trinity’—stop, that is better for you—God is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust.” – Qur’an, sura 4 (An-Nisa), ayat 171

“Those who say, “God is the Messiah, son of Mary,” have defied God. The Messiah himself said; ‘Children of Israel, worship God, my Lord and your Lord.’ If anyone associates others with God, God will forbid him from the Garden, and Hell will be his home. No one will help such evildoers. Those people who say that God is the third of three are defying [the truth]: there is only One God. If they persist in what they are saying, a painful punishment will afflict those of them who persist. Why do they not turn to God and ask his forgiveness, when God is most forgiving, most merciful? The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; other messengers had come and gone before him; his mother was a virtuous woman; both ate food. See how clear We make these signs for them; see how deluded they are.” – Qur’an, sura 5 (Al-Ma’ida), ayat 72-75

“And when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?’” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.” – Qur’an, sura 5 (Al-Ma’ida), ayat 116

In summary; Islamic doctrine is saying that God (Allah) and a mother God (Mary had a boy (Jesus) who were all Gods. These 3 Gods are what Christians understood as the Trinity.

As already noted; by Mohammad’s time, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was fully developed and articulated in the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian Creeds. It is outrageous that Allah and his messenger did not even know what the Christian belief about the Trinity was.

For example, the Chalcedon Creed as an example of the ecumenical Christian Creeds says:

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

How could Mohammad if he were truly speaking for God, not even know how Christians defined the Trinity in the Chalcedonian Creed (451 A.D). This creedal statement was approved in church counsel almost two hundred years before Mohammad claimed to be receiving messages from Allah? Instead, Mohammad and the Koran state and refute something that no Christian has ever believed. If Mohammad is going to refute the Trinity, at least he ought to understand what he is trying to refute. In reality, Mohammad and his followers are simply refuting Mohammad’s own claims to be a messenger of Allah. It appears from what we have seen thus far, Allah is nothing more than an Arabian tribal deity. Moreover, Mohammad, we can say, is a seriously confused individual, whose messages he presented regarding the Trinity in particular have no bearing in reality.

Some more observations on the Koran, Mohammad and the Trinity:

Thabiti Anyabwile, from the gospel coalition interviews Dr. James R. White about the Koran and the doctrine of the Trinity in his book What Every Christian Needs to Know About The Qur’an.

Thabiti Anyabwile asks:

You open chapter 4 by identifying a key question: “Does the Qur’an’s author show knowledge of the Trinity to where the criticisms offered are accurate and compelling?” How would you answer that question?

“Most definitely not, and this is one of the primary reasons I reject the Qur’an as a divine revelation. While the Old and New Testaments in the Bible are intimately related, the authors of the New showing intimate familiarity with the Old, the author of the Qur’an shows only a surface level, second-hand knowledge of the Bible in its entirety. This results
in gross misrepresentation of those Scriptures, and of the beliefs of the Christians especially. I have often said to Muslims, “Putting aside the issue of whether the Trinity is right or wrong, is it not clear that in 632 AD (the year of Muhammad’s death and the completion of the revelation of the Qur’an) Allah knew in perfection what the doctrine of the Trinity was,
and hence Allah could have provided a full and accurate refutation of it, had he desired to do so?” But one will search in vain for any accurate representation of the Trinity, and will instead find the repeated assertion that when Christians say “three,” they are speaking of three gods, a form of polytheism.”1

1. Dr. James R. White’s interview with Thabiti Anyabwile of the gospel coalition at:
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/06/03/an-interview-with-james-white-about-his-book-what-every-christian-needs-to-know-about-the-quran/

Noteworthy church historian makes the following observation on Islam and the Trinity:

“In rude misconception or wilful perversion, Mohammed seems to have understood the Christian doctrine of the trinity to be a trinity of Father, Mary, and Jesus. The Holy Spirit is identified with Gabriel. God is only one God! Far be it from his glory that he should have a son!” Sura 4, ver. 169; comp. 5, ver. 77. The designation and worship of Mary as “the mother of God” may have occasioned this strange mistake. There was in Arabia in the fourth century a sect of fanatical women called Collyridians, who rendered divine worship to Mary. Epiphanius, Haer. 79.”2 (emphasis mine)

2. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 4, Chapter 3, (Hendrickson Publishers), p. 368.

To set matters straight, the Christian doctrine of the triune nature of God can be simply stated as:

1. There is only one God
2. There are three equally divine, distinct and eternal Persons called God
3. Therefore, these three equally divine and eternal Persons are the one God

Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology correctly defines the doctrine of God’s triune nature. The doctrine is stated in a series of propositions:

1. There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence;
2. In this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences,Father, Son, and Holy Spirit;
3. The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons;
4. The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order;
5. There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished.1

A definition that is more suited to help a Muslim understand this:

Within the nature of the one true God, there are three eternal Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Or, it could be said God is One with respect to His nature or substance and three in respect to Persons.

The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father; the Son is not the Spirit; and the Father is not the Spirit. God is not one person who manifests or reveals himself in three different modes, or three gods who are one in purpose. There is only one God in essence, who truly exists as three divine persons. The Christian is honestly handling the word of God by saying there is only one God. The Christian is indeed correct in saying that there are three persons who are God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Westminster Confession of Faith states:

In the unity of the Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

The following Scriptures, demonstrate that there is a plurality of persons in the Godhead, in other words, you see more than one divine person in each passage listed:

Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; 48:16; 61:1-2; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Zechariah 10:12; Matthew 28:19; Luke 4:18-19; John 1:1-3; John 14:23; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Colossians 2:2; Hebrews 1:8-10; Hebrews 3:7-11; 1 Peter 1:2; and 1 John 2:24

And yet, the Christian Scripture are clear, there is only one God Deuteronomy 6:4! Therefore, the triune nature of God is an inescapable fact!

For an in depth defense of the Trinity, see my The Triune Nature of God and the Deity of Christ at
http://www.undergroundnotes.com/triune.htm

In conclusion, we have to reject Mohammad’s claim to be a messenger from God. Christians can use the Muslim gross inexcusable ignorance of the Trinity to convince Muslims that their founder, and the Koran are promoting demonstrable falsehoods.

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Observations about the Scriptures: A devotional

Observations about the Scriptures: A devotional by Jack Kettler

What are the Scriptures?

They are the Word of God. They reveal His thoughts, His will and purposes. God is the author and they rest on His authority.

“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11)

“By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.” (Psalms 33:6, 11)

What are important characteristics of Scripture?

They are infallible, they are holy, they are powerful, they are complete, they are plain, and in them we find the ordained means of salvation.

“For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.” (Romans 10:11)

“Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.” (Isaiah 28:16)

Why should we search the scriptures?

For the knowledge of God, for truth, to learn our responsibilities, for comfort, to learn how to advance in sanctification.

“For whatever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4)

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16)

How should we search the Scriptures?

Reverently and submissively, with diligence and dependence on the Holy Spirit.

“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)

“Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” (John 5:39)

Some human Observations:

“The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.” – Patrick Henry

“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” – George Washington

“A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.” – John Calvin

In closing, may we always be able to say with the Psalmist: “How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” “Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path.” ( Psalm 119:103, 105)

Mr. Kettler is an ordained Presbyterian Elder and the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Dies Irae: Day Of Wrath A review by Jack Kettler

Dies Irae: Day Of Wrath A review by Jack Kettler

A fictional account of an attack by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS or ISIL) within the United States. This is not far-fetched at all considering, the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has proclaimed himself the caliph, the successor to Muhammad and promises to bring Jihad to America.

Author’s Bio:

William R. Forstchen has a PhD from Purdue University with specializations in military history and the history of technology. He is a faculty fellow and professor of history at Montreat College. He has authored over forty books. Forstchen coauthored the New York Times bestselling Gettysburg and has written numerous short stories and articles about military history and military technology.

His book “One Second After” was one of his best sellers about an Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP) attack. It is a frightening story about what would happen when a nuclear bomb is detonated above the earth’s atmosphere leading to the frying of modern electronic circuits and an almost certain societal collapse. “One Second After” most surely, has helped fuel the “prepper” movement.

His book “Day Of Wrath” is a truly frightening fictional story of what may lay in store the United States of American if the current regime that is wedded to politically correct anti-American multiculturalism is not stopped.

I have imagined a number of similar scenarios, none of which compared to the persuasive story told in this book. Dr. Forstchen’s book is so realistic, the reader will think they are listening to and viewing live news coverage that are parents and patriotic citizens worst fears. The book generates many vivid mental images.

The value in this book is that the reader is confronted with the reality of how vulnerable the country is. In this fictional account, a hundred terrorists could literally bring the country to the brink of a complete break down.

You will not be able to put this book down! Spread the word about this powerful story that hopefully will serve as a wake up call for many more citizens. At author’s website a link is provided demonstrating the intent of ISIS. It is not for the weak minded.

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized