Feeds:
Posts
Comments

CVMT No.2: Introduction, The Purpose and Limits of the Book

January 16, 2012 by Steve Matthews

Clark begins the introduction to A Christian View of Men and Things (CVMT) by stating,

“A stable civilization, so it is plausibly argued, always rests on a substantial unanimity of thought. But when ordinary differences of opinion multiply, widen and deepen, when educational systems have contradictory aims, when class consciousness divides the people, and when nations support irreconcilable ideals, the results are war, revolution, brutality, and chaos.” (CVMT, 15)

Hmm. Does any of this sound familiar? If you live in the United States – for that matter if you live anywhere in the western world today – you can see the very situation Clark described playing itself out in the daily headlines. In the US there are many signs of increasing political and class tension, the Occupy Wall Street movement being the most visible manifestation of this.

In the opening section of the introduction to CVMT titled “The Purpose and Limits of This Book,” Clark nicely diagnoses the reason for the mess in which we find ourselves and offers the antidote needed to correct the downward spiral. Here, Clark makes three major points,

  1. During the nineteenth century in the US and Great Britain, a broadly Christian philosophy or world view was taught in the schools and universities and served as a unifying principle for society. The result was peace and prosperity in those nations.
  2. This unifying Christian world view no longer holds sway in the educational institutions of those nations. Humanism, has taken its place and the resulted in societal breakdown.
  3. In order to defeat the humanists and reconstruct society along Christian principles, Christians thinkers must develop a systematic Christian philosophy. The purpose of this book to lay the groundwork for such a system.

My late twentieth century school experience certainly could not be described as Christian in any way, and at times I have secretly found myself wishing I could have lived in an earlier era when the broadly Christian philosophy that Clark mentions held sway in the university. Of course there were problems with this broad system, and it was in part due to these problems that the system eventually collapsed. Chief among those problems was that the philosophy taught was not thoroughly reformed.
Continue Reading »

Posted in A Christian View of Men and Things | 1 Comment »

Augustine on Predestination

January 11, 2012 by Steve Matthews

When reading Luther and Calvin, it’s hard to get very far without finding references to Augustine, for both authors make frequent reference to his work. Luther himself got his start as an Augustinian monk, and Augustine’s work was a major influence on Luther in bringing him to a Biblical understanding of grace and predestination.

While reading Augustine’s major work City of God, I came across the following passage in which Augustine lays out his views on grace and predestination in what must be one of the clearest statements on these issues by any theologian before the time of the Reformation. He writes,

“Now Cain was the first son born to those two parents of mankind, and he belonged to the city of man; the later son, Abel, belonged to the City of God. It is our own experience that in the individual man, to use the words of the Apostle, ‘it is not the spiritual element which comes first, but the animal; and afterwards comes the spiritual’, and so it is that everyone, since he takes his origin from a condemned stock, is inevitable evil and carnal to begin with, by derivation from Adam; but if he is reborn into Christ, and makes progress, he will afterwards be good and spiritual. The same holds true of the whole human race. When those two cities started on their course through the succession of birth and death, the first to be born was a citizen of this world, and later appeared one who was a pilgrim and stranger in the world, belonging as he did to the City of God. He was predestinated by grace, by grace a pilgrim below, and by grace a citizen above. As far as he himself is concerned he has his origin from the same lump which was condemned, as a whole lump, at the beginning. But God like a potter (the analogy introduced by the Apostle is not impertinent but very pertinent) made ‘out of the same lump one vessel destined for honour, and another for dishonour’. But the first one made was the vessel for dishonour, and afterwards came the vessel for honour. For in the individual man, as I have said, the base condition comes first, and we have to start with that; but we are not bound to stop at that, and later comes the noble state towards which we may make progress, and in which we may abide, when we have arrived at it. Hence it is not the case that every bad man will become good, but no one will be good who was not bad originally. Yet the sooner a man changes for the better the more quickly will he secure for himself the title belonging to his attainment and will hide his earlier appellation under the later name.” (Augustine, City of God, Book XV, Chapter 2, Henry Bettenson trans.)

Impressive work, that.

Posted in Theology | Leave a Comment »

A Christian View of Men and Things No.1: Foreword

January 9, 2012 by Steve Matthews

Does anyone write a better foreword than John Robbins? Of course, were someone to put that question to me, I would have to respond, “I don’t know, since I have not read every foreword by every author.” On the other hand, were someone to ask me whether I had ever read a better author of forewords than John Robbins, I could answer with confidence, “no.” I’ve been a admirer of Robbins’ work for over ten years now, and it all started with my reading his introduction to The Everlasting Righteousness. His writing was crisp, to the point and forceful. I was hooked at once. When I got to the end, I made a mental note to myself that the author was someone named John Robbins. “I’ve never heard of John Robbins,” I said to myself, “but that was really good; I’ve never read anything like it.”

Robbins was a remarkable scholar. He had an extraordinary ability to present systematic truth in a way that is accurate and understandable. I’m convinced that one could spend years reading through whole libraries of books and come away with less sound teaching than he would get reading one or two essays by Robbins. As a personal testimony, I can say that the Lord has been taught me more truth from his Word through the ministry of John Robbins and The Trinity Foundation than any other source. It’s not even close.

I mention all this as a way of introducing A Christian View of Men and Things (CVMT), because it was John Robbins who wrote the foreword to the book, and I think it wise to start by looking at what Robbins wrote before diving into the text of CVMT proper. Robbins foreword can be summarized thus:

  1. The West is collapsing and many have noticed and commented on this ongoing collapse, but few understand the reason for it;
  2. The West is collapsing, because Christianity, the foundation of Western Civilization, has all but disappeared from the West;
  3. Clark argues in CVMT that if the collapse of the West is to be stopped and reversed, Christian, not secular, philosophy must be used to answer contemporary questions of history, politics, ethics, science, religion, and epistemology;
  4. CVMT is an outline of Clark’s Christian philosophy;
  5. Clark argues that the reason Christianity ought to be believed and other philosophies rejected is because Christianity is true and other systems of thought are not;
  6. Christianity has a systematic monopoly on truth;
  7. Because Christianity has a systematic monopoly on truth, it is impossible to successfully combine the Christian system of thought with any other non-Christian rival;
  8. The collapse of the West can be seen as the collapse of Thomistic philosophy’s attempt to do this very thing – combine Scripture with secular philosophy, in this case the attempt is to combine Scripture and the empiricism of Aristotle – and the West’s choosing of secular philosophy rather than Christ.
    Continue Reading »

Posted in A Christian View of Men and Things, Scripturalism | 5 Comments »

Paulian Democrats

January 4, 2012 by Steve Matthews

I see that Rush Limbaugh’s daily excoriation of all things Ron Paul continues unabated. Today on his website (I’m not a member so I have to read the transcript) he comments on a news piece by Erin Burnett in which she discusses the possibility of large numbers of democrats voting for Ron Paul in the Iowa Republican caucuses.

This is anathema to El Rushbo. Rush would have us believe that if Democrats vote for a Republican in large numbers, they would do so only for purposes of sabotage. No other explanation is possible or permitted. This puts Limbaugh in the position to spin the caucus results any way he wants. If Ron Paul does well in the caucuses, it’s obviously Democratic conspiracy designed to undermine the Republican party by voting for an unelectable candidate. If Ron Paul does poorly, this is evidence that Paul is just a fringe wacko whose appeal is limited to the tinfoil hat brigade. Heads Rush wins, tails Paul loses. What a deal!

But here’s another way of looking at it. What if a whole lot of Iowa Democrats come out and vote for Paul, not because they want to sabotage the Republicans, but because they actually like Ron Paul and support his ideas. Can’t happen, you say? Naive, you say? If this is what you think, I have two words for you: Reagan Democrats.

See, I’m old enough to remember when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. He won the election in a landslide over Jimmy Carter in part due to a phenomenon called the Reagan Democrats. The Reagan Democrats were for the most part blue collar folks who got fed up with Carter’s lack of leadership, his depressing incompetence, and the general “malaise” felt by much of the nation at that time. For more on the Reagan Democrats, please click here. These traditional union democrats crossed over to large numbers to support Reagan in the general elections of 1980 and 1984.

Now as anyone who’s followed Rush even a little bit knows, Ronald Reagan is one of Rush’s heroes. Rush loves to brag about Reagan and has himself touted Reagan’s crossover appeal as a sign of the Gipper’s greatness. So how is it that if Reagan attracts Democrats, Rush finds that a good thing, but if Paul does likewise, it’s proof positive that the good doctor is a crank? Instead of bashing Paul for attracting Democrats, by his own logic, Rush should be one of Paul’s biggest supporters.

Could it be that Paul’s crossover appeal in Iowa may be a sign, not of his weakness as a candidate, but of his strength? Could it be that in the general election large numbers of Paulian Democrats may seriously undermine Obama’s electoral base and usher in a Republican landslide? Could it be that these Paulian Democrats may even turn out to benefit the Republican party in the long run by increasing the breadth of its appeal? I know, I know, in Rush’s cloistered world behind the golden EIB microphone, this is unthinkable. But it the real world, who knows, stranger things have happened.

Posted in Politics | Leave a Comment »

A Christian View of Men and Things: The Plan for this Study

January 2, 2012 by Steve Matthews

As I considered what I’d like to blog in 2012, it seemed good to me to attempt something specifically Scripturalist and go about it in a systematic fashion. While I’ve read through a lot of Clark and Robbins, I haven’t done so in a way that is a thorough as I would like it to be. The main reason for this, as is often the case with amateur scholars, is lack of time. I’d love to have the time to start at the beginning of the book list John Robbins outlined in his essay A Guide for Young Christians and read right through it. Unfortunately for this not so young Christian, the demands of life make this a daunting task.

But while this coming year will likely not afford me the opportunity to read and write as much as I would like, Lord willing I hope to do at least one thing well. And if I’m going to have to pick my spots for reading and writing in 2012, those spots ought to be focused on something central. Gordon Clark’s A Christian View of Men and Things fits this bill quite well. My plan will be to blog through this important work, a book that serves as a concise outline of Clark’s philosophy, Scripturalism. Not that Clark uses the term Scripturalism in the book – that word was later coined by John Robbins – but the idea of Scripturalism is present throughout the work: the Bible alone is the Word of God written and has a monopoly on truth.

It is my intention to finish this study before the end of 2012. My prayer and hope is that it will help sharpen my own understanding of Scripturalism, prove helpful to those who are new to Clark and also serve as a point of discussion for those who already familiar with Clark and his writings.

May the Lord bless and keep you, both now and throughout the New Year.

Posted in A Christian View of Men and Things | 4 Comments »

Bombs to the Left, Bombs to the Right

December 29, 2011 by Steve Matthews

Newt Gingrich went and did it. After several months of bluster, boasting and nonsense – he’s a historian, by golly, and don’t you forget it – he finally managed to say something interesting. In an interview with Wolf Blitzer, the former speaker admitted that if he had to choose between Ron Paul and Barak Obama in the general election, he’d go with Obama. For what it’s worth, Gingrich later hedged his language, but the cat’s out of the bag.

This should surprise no one given the fact that when it comes right down to it, Gingrich and Obama have far more in common with each other than either one does with Ron Paul. Both love welfare at home, warfare abroad and neither cares a whit about the Constitution.

Now that one hypocritical, statist Republican has shown his true colors, perhaps more will have the courage to follow. Rush Limbaugh. Paging Rush Limbaugh. Has anyone seen Rush Limbaugh…

Posted in Politics | 4 Comments »

Financial Outlook 2012

December 28, 2011 by Steve Matthews

Jim Rogers is one of my financial heroes. Not only is he one of the most successful investors in the world, he’s also that ever so rare highly placed individual who 1) knows what he is talking about, and 2) is honest and brave enough to publically speak the truth. I had heard of him years before the 2008 financial crisis, but only as the events of that fall unfolded did I really pay attention to him. What impressed me so much was that as the whole financial system was coming unglued, Jim Rogers was one of the few calm, sane voices on Wall Street. Unlike the entire financial and political establishment, he denounced at every opportunity and to anyone who would listen the morally indefensible bailouts of Wall Street, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac in clear language a normal person could understand. Imagine that! A financial guy who speaks clear English.

Another nice thing about Jim Rogers is that he does a lot of interviews. He is a regular guest on American and foreign financial television shows, and he recently did an interview for an Australian TV network in which he discussed his financial forecast for 2012. I don’t know whether Rogers is a Christian, but his views on monetary policy, taxes and government are certainly consistent with the Bible.

Consider what Rogers says to a question posed by interviewer Lelde Smits regarding his outlook for global economic growth in 2012 ,

“Well Lelde, I’m not too optimistic about what’s going to be happening in the world in the next two or three years, and maybe even longer. We have serious problems in the United States. you know, in 2002 we had an economic slowdown, 2008 was even worse because the debt was so much higher. The next time around the debt is going to be staggeringly higher. So, the problems are going to continue to get worse until somebody solves the basic underlying problem of too much spending and too much debt.”     

This is exactly right. The 2008 financial crisis was brought on as a result of too much spending and debt. To cure this debt and spending problem, our dysfunctional political leaders – with intellectual cover provided by quack academic economists – decided to send the nation further into debt by a combination of money printing and deficit spending. It was Keynesianism on steroids.

The book of 1 Kings records a confrontation between the prophets of Baal and Elijah. When Baal did not heed the cries of the false prophets to consume the sacrifice on the altar, the Baal worshippers doubled down on their foolish leaping, shouting and gashing themselves, somehow desperately believing that Baal would hear them if only they could shout loudly enough. In the end, they just looked ridiculous.

And as is was with the prophets of Baal, so it is with our contemporary high priests of Keynesianism. They demand ever more money printing, government boondoggle spending and debt, hoping against hope that somehow the absurd act of piling more debt on top of an economy already being crushed by too much debt will fix things. But in the end, just like the prophets of Baal, the Keynesian quacks in charge of our monetary and fiscal policies will just end up looking ridiculous. Of course, they may bring the whole economy crashing down around us too, a feat well beyond the power of any mere prophet of Baal.

To read more of Jim Rogers’ cogent economic and investing forecast for the coming year, please click here.

Posted in Economics | Tagged | Leave a Comment »

Westminster on the Birth of Christ

December 26, 2011 by Steve Matthews

Q. How did Christ humble himself in his conception and birth?

A. Christ humbled himself in his conception and birth, in that, being from all eternity the Son of God, in the bosom of the Father, he was pleased in the fullness of time to become the son of man, made of a woman of low estate, and to be born of her; with diverse circumstances of more than ordinary abasement.

 

How different is the mind of Christ from that of fleshly man! From all eternity, the second person of the Trinity had agreed to humble himself. He freely chose to be born of a woman, to be born under the law, to suffer and to die. And that, not for those who loved him, but for his enemies.

Who would do such a thing? Certainly not I. In my flesh, I would react with anger at the merely slight to my personal dignity, forget about humbling myself for someone else. But Christ willingly laid aside his glory and died to save me, a child of wrath by nature.

Glory to God in the highest! For he who has the preeminence willingly emptied himself that he might redeem us, who were dead in our trespasses and sins.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The Cult of Complexity

December 25, 2011 by Steve Matthews

In a recent piece, I commented on an article in Time by Joe Klein. For a mainstream media writer, I thought Klein was reasonably fair to Ron Paul, and was in fact more open to Paul’s free market ideas than many leading conservatives. I also mentioned that the article had a number of errors in it as well. I dealt with one of those already: Klein’s conflation of popularity and constitutionality. For Klein, it seems, if legislation is passed by Congress and is popular with the people, it must be constitutional. It was on this basis that he defended Social Security. This, of course, is fallacious. A law is constitutional if it is in agreement with the Constitution; it is unconstitutional if it is not. This has nothing to do with popularity.

There is another common, mistaken idea in Klein’s article based on the unstated assumption that complexity is good and simplicity is bad. Klein wrote, “This is a complicated society, undergoing an ever more rapid transformation in the midst of a potentially long economic slump…It’s these sorts of times that raise up people with simple answers: ideologues and demagogues. Paul is an ideologue and – we’re lucky – an entirely honorable one.” Klein, like many people, assumes complexity is good and normal, simplicity is not.
Continue Reading »

Posted in Politics | 1 Comment »

Social Security: Is It Constitutional?

December 23, 2011 by Steve Matthews

In a article in Time, political writer Joe Klein spotlights Ron Paul in a not too negative fashion. In all honesty, I Klein’s piece was much better than I would have expected out of the MSM. It’s funny, but in some ways the MSM is less hostile to Paul’s ideas than many prominent voices in the conservative media. Limbaugh regularly bashes Paul as do the fine folks in the flagship conservative political magazines. Not that Klein quite gets it. I doubt he’d ever count himself as a Paul supporter, but stranger things have happened.

One area where Klein could improve is in his view of Social Security. Klein writes, “On an even more basic level, it would be nice to believe that people could take care of themselves without government help, but it just hasn’t proved true: programs like Social Security and Medicare – with run directly against the Jeffersonian-libertarian tradition – were necessary because people couldn’t take care of themselves. The elderly, especially, had trouble paying medical bills after their working days ended. The American people, through their government, decided to make a rudimentary deal, to make sure their parents didn’t starve or sleep in the streets and were able to get medical care.”

Of course, this raises the question, how did people take care of themselves before Social Security? They or their families did. If that wasn’t adequate, there were many charities that assisted people. When the Republicans won the House in 1994, Newt Gingrich put out a list of books supporting limited government. On that list was a publication titled The Tragedy of America Compassion. In it, author Marvin Olasky effectively refuted the notion that before the modern welfare state – including the advent of sacred programs like Social Security – people were starving in the streets. Socialists would have you believe that were it not for government “charity,” there would be none. That idea is simply false.

Klein continues, “There was nothing unconstitutional about that – just as there’s nothing unconstitutional about requiring people to have medical insurance now. The deal was made with the consent of the governed. In the real world, these are the most popular programs the government offers – about 80% of the American people are happy with them.”

Here, Klein shows he himself to be well off base. He seems to confuse popularity with constitutionality. And while I won’t deny that many government programs have popular support, this is very different from saying they are constitutional. The logical rule is that if it is not granted in the Constitution, the federal government is prohibited from that activity. The Constitution does not authorize Social Security, therefore it is unconstitutional for the federal government to provide Social Security benefits. The logic is simple to understand, but hard to face.

The Apostle Paul stated the Christian position on charity when he wrote, “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim.5:8). Christians are to provide for their own households – including aged parents – out of their own resources, not use the government gun to do so. Charity starts at home. Ron Paul’s voting test – he will not vote for a bill unless it is authorized in the Constitution – is logical, constitutional, and in accord with Christian ethics. Would that there were many more like him in Congress.     

Posted in Politics | 3 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »