The following is from Patrick Henry's speech speech before the Virgina Delegates in 1775 a little over a year before the Declaration of Independence was published in Philadelphia. This is the last paragraph. You have to love the Virginians!
"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! "
God Bless America!
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
The Death Of Michael Jackson
As I was watching and listening to some of the coverage yesterday concerning the death of Michael Jackson no one was expressing what I was thinking. In fact I could not put into words what I was really thinking and did not spend a lot of time attempting to do so.
Then this morning I ran across an article by Jonah Goldberg whose thoughts are a lot closer to my own concerning the death of this strange man. I provide the article for your consideration. It is from the National Review Online.
"Some Quick Thoughts on Michael Jackson [Jonah Goldberg]
Generally speaking, I’m a believer in the rule that we should not speak ill of the dead. Or at least we should wait a decent interval before doing so (if we never spoke ill of the dead, history would be meaningless). But, I must say I find the media’s instinctive rush to sanctify Michael Jackson disgusting.
Look, I understand that Michael Jackson was an “icon.” I understand that some people loved his work and that many people who never met him believed they loved the man too.
But I didn't, and I’m hardly alone. If Michael Jackson were just another famous person, I’d probably stay silent and let the pro forma celebration of his memory roll by without comment. (For instance, I have no problem whatsoever with the media taking a moment to pay respects to Farah Fawcett).
Sure, I liked the Jackson Five. I liked “Thriller,” too, when I was a teenager. Michael Jackson was an “icon” for me too.
But let’s pause for a moment on that word “icon.” It seemed the consensus adjective for the news networks. NBC ran a special on two “American Icons” — Fawcett and Jackson. Every cable network (including Fox, for the record) used the word “icon” to describe him as if this was some sort of safe harbor, a word everyone could agree on. “Love him or hate him,” the implied logic went, “he was an ‘icon.’
”Yes, well, maybe so. But that doesn’t let you off the hook. Even though the term sounds neutral, it isn’t. An icon, technically speaking, is a religious symbol deserving of reverence and adoration. The networks may not have intended to use the word that way, but they certainly showed an unseemly amount of reverence and adoration for the man.
I think part of it is the narcissism of our celebrity culture. Here was a guy so many of “us” read about in People magazine for so long. His passing, therefore, isn’t a loss in the sorrowful sense of the word, but in the selfish one. It’s a loss of an interesting subject, a creature to gossip about and to fill a few minutes on E! or Entertainment Tonight.
Everyone likes to invoke Lord Acton’s axiom that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But nearly everyone forgets that he coined this phrase not to indict powerful men, but to instruct the historians who write about them. Historians tend to forgive the powerful their transgressions. Likewise, journalists (for want of a better word) tend to forgive the famous.
Calling Michael Jackson an icon doesn’t let him off the hook for anything. But to listen to the news anchors you’d think it absolves him of everything.
I say: Who cares who his famous friends were? Who cares what a “fascinating” person he was? If you want to talk about his death as an end of an era, have at it. But that’s not what the Barbara Walters set is doing.
I know that Michael Jackson wasn’t convicted of the despicable crimes he was accused of. And that’s why he never went to jail. Three cheers for the majesty of the American legal system. But in my own personal view, he wasn’t exonerated either. Nor was he absolved of his crimes because he could sing, moonwalk, or sell 10 million records. (Though many of us suspect the money and fame he made from those things is precisely what kept him out of jail).
And, while I merely think he was a pedophile, I know he was not someone responsible parents should applaud, healthy children emulate, nor society celebrate.
And while we’re at it, his relatively early death wasn’t “tragic.” He was one of the richest people in the world. He spent his money on perpetual childhood and he was perpetually with children not his own.
Meanwhile, in the last ten days, we’ve seen or heard of remarkable people who’ve given their lives for freedom in Iran. We’ve heard of innocents killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the last decade, America has lost thousands of heroes in noble causes and thousands of innocent bystanders who were denied the simple joys of life through no fault of their own. Those deaths are tragic, and we're hard pressed to think of more than a handful of names to put with the long line of the dead.
If anything, Michael Jackson’s life, not his death, was tragic.
Every year at the Oscars they show a montage of people who died over the previous year. Invariably, the audience only applauds for the really famous people. This has always offended me. Not necessarily because the famous people don’t deserve praise but because it’s so clear that the audience is clapping for the fame. Michael Jackson had many accomplishments. But the press is sanctifying him because he was famous, deservedly so to be sure, but not because he was good.
So much of the coverage seems to miss this fundamental point, as if being famous made him good. I feel sympathy for Jackson’s family and friends who understandably mourn him. But I can't bring myself to mourn him any more than I mourn the random dead I read about in the paper everyday. Indeed, I confess to mourning him less.
Every channel says this is a sad day for America. I agree. But not for the same reasons."
Then this morning I ran across an article by Jonah Goldberg whose thoughts are a lot closer to my own concerning the death of this strange man. I provide the article for your consideration. It is from the National Review Online.
"Some Quick Thoughts on Michael Jackson [Jonah Goldberg]
Generally speaking, I’m a believer in the rule that we should not speak ill of the dead. Or at least we should wait a decent interval before doing so (if we never spoke ill of the dead, history would be meaningless). But, I must say I find the media’s instinctive rush to sanctify Michael Jackson disgusting.
Look, I understand that Michael Jackson was an “icon.” I understand that some people loved his work and that many people who never met him believed they loved the man too.
But I didn't, and I’m hardly alone. If Michael Jackson were just another famous person, I’d probably stay silent and let the pro forma celebration of his memory roll by without comment. (For instance, I have no problem whatsoever with the media taking a moment to pay respects to Farah Fawcett).
Sure, I liked the Jackson Five. I liked “Thriller,” too, when I was a teenager. Michael Jackson was an “icon” for me too.
But let’s pause for a moment on that word “icon.” It seemed the consensus adjective for the news networks. NBC ran a special on two “American Icons” — Fawcett and Jackson. Every cable network (including Fox, for the record) used the word “icon” to describe him as if this was some sort of safe harbor, a word everyone could agree on. “Love him or hate him,” the implied logic went, “he was an ‘icon.’
”Yes, well, maybe so. But that doesn’t let you off the hook. Even though the term sounds neutral, it isn’t. An icon, technically speaking, is a religious symbol deserving of reverence and adoration. The networks may not have intended to use the word that way, but they certainly showed an unseemly amount of reverence and adoration for the man.
I think part of it is the narcissism of our celebrity culture. Here was a guy so many of “us” read about in People magazine for so long. His passing, therefore, isn’t a loss in the sorrowful sense of the word, but in the selfish one. It’s a loss of an interesting subject, a creature to gossip about and to fill a few minutes on E! or Entertainment Tonight.
Everyone likes to invoke Lord Acton’s axiom that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But nearly everyone forgets that he coined this phrase not to indict powerful men, but to instruct the historians who write about them. Historians tend to forgive the powerful their transgressions. Likewise, journalists (for want of a better word) tend to forgive the famous.
Calling Michael Jackson an icon doesn’t let him off the hook for anything. But to listen to the news anchors you’d think it absolves him of everything.
I say: Who cares who his famous friends were? Who cares what a “fascinating” person he was? If you want to talk about his death as an end of an era, have at it. But that’s not what the Barbara Walters set is doing.
I know that Michael Jackson wasn’t convicted of the despicable crimes he was accused of. And that’s why he never went to jail. Three cheers for the majesty of the American legal system. But in my own personal view, he wasn’t exonerated either. Nor was he absolved of his crimes because he could sing, moonwalk, or sell 10 million records. (Though many of us suspect the money and fame he made from those things is precisely what kept him out of jail).
And, while I merely think he was a pedophile, I know he was not someone responsible parents should applaud, healthy children emulate, nor society celebrate.
And while we’re at it, his relatively early death wasn’t “tragic.” He was one of the richest people in the world. He spent his money on perpetual childhood and he was perpetually with children not his own.
Meanwhile, in the last ten days, we’ve seen or heard of remarkable people who’ve given their lives for freedom in Iran. We’ve heard of innocents killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the last decade, America has lost thousands of heroes in noble causes and thousands of innocent bystanders who were denied the simple joys of life through no fault of their own. Those deaths are tragic, and we're hard pressed to think of more than a handful of names to put with the long line of the dead.
If anything, Michael Jackson’s life, not his death, was tragic.
Every year at the Oscars they show a montage of people who died over the previous year. Invariably, the audience only applauds for the really famous people. This has always offended me. Not necessarily because the famous people don’t deserve praise but because it’s so clear that the audience is clapping for the fame. Michael Jackson had many accomplishments. But the press is sanctifying him because he was famous, deservedly so to be sure, but not because he was good.
So much of the coverage seems to miss this fundamental point, as if being famous made him good. I feel sympathy for Jackson’s family and friends who understandably mourn him. But I can't bring myself to mourn him any more than I mourn the random dead I read about in the paper everyday. Indeed, I confess to mourning him less.
Every channel says this is a sad day for America. I agree. But not for the same reasons."
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
An Empty Lot And A Full Memory
Every time I find myself in Houston travelling on Shepherd Drive just south of I10 I find myself inescapably drawn to this vacant lot. Countless Houstonians drive within a block or two of this vacant lot every day without so much as a thought. I drive within a block or two, or three, or twenty and I find myself parked here; remembering. This vacant lot on Nett Street has not always been vacant.Once upon a time there was an old house sitting here. A pier & beam house with a big front porch and a small closed in back porch. Going off the back porch was a screened door that slammed as you went into a relatively small back yard with a dog tied in the corner. The backyard was mostly dirt. The house was white. From the front porch you walked into the front room. To the left there was a door that went into a bedroom. The door always had a couch sitting in front of it. Walking across the front room you went through a huge opening that led into another room. I am not sure what the room was intended to be but it had been transformed into a bedroom. Walking straight across that room you went through a door that led to a small kitchen. The sink and cabinets was to the right with a window over the sink overlooking a dirt driveway. As you went through the door, immediately to the left was a small stove. A window was on the back wall in front of which was situated a small kitchen table. At the back of the room in the left hand corner was a door that gave entrance to the small back porch. In the middle room that had been transformed into a rather public bedroom if you went to the left you would find a hallway that could not have been over 10 or 15 feet long. Straight across the hall was a small bathroom, the only one in the little house. If you turned to go left down the hallway there was a bedroom that was also adjoined to the front room by a door in front of which always sat a couch. If you turned right in the hallway you came to the second true bedroom in the house, that was snuggled between the hallway, bathroom, and back porch.
This house had no central air or heating. There was one bedroom that had a little window unit that kept that one bedroom frozen like the Arctic tundra. An effort was made to keep the rest of the house comfortable by opening windows and doors and moving fans around. In the winter the house was heated, at least in the front room by a gas heater. The kind where you turned on the gas, stuck a burning match through a little door on the side until the flames caught. It had some kind of "clay" brick, tile devices in the back I suppose to reflect the heat with a grill in the front. If you cannot teach your kids to not mess with the electronic devices in your home this kind of heater would spell real disaster for them. The little heaters were terribly inefficient. If you wanted to be warm, you had to stand in front of the heater. You would stand with your back to it and then when you were properly roasted on the backside you would turn yourself around and roast the front side. Of course you never got cooked all the way through.
The old house had glass door knobs. That is probably why I am drawn to glass door knobs to this day. The house had wood floors throughout. The ceilings were high, maybe 10' at least it seemed that way. I know they were higher than the standard 8' ceilings we see in houses today.
Where that house stood is now the above vacant lot. This house is where my Granddaddy and Grandmama Knox lived.
More than the house I remember the people. We spent several weekends a year there and usually at least one week during the summer.
My Granddaddy lived there. I always thought what a neat thing it was to be a "grand" daddy. I actually thought, and still do, that my Daddy was pretty grand. But here was a guy whose name was Granddaddy. I think of my Granddaddy and I think, work, boots, pickup trucks, dirt, tobacco, and front porch. I can't remember anything my Granddaddy said to me. I don't ever remember him saying much. I remember him working. I remember it always seemed like he was gone before the sun came up and came home after it had went down. It seemed like he worked every Saturday, maybe he didn't but that is my memory. He operated heavy equipment, a bulldozer. How neat is it to tell your friends that your Granddaddy drives a bulldozer, maybe that is why he was called Granddaddy. I remember the thermos of coffee. I remember the old lunch box. A real lunch box, not a miniature ice chest. The kind where your banana taste like your sandwich and your sandwich tastes like you banana. I always figured you were not really going to work unless you carried one of them with you. I remember him drinking coffee out of his saucer. It started in his cup but was poured into his saucer and drank from there. I remember the dog tied in the backyard was always his dog. I remember him sitting down at the table and taking this little brush like thing with a round handle on the end of it and slouching it around in a little cup making lather which he brushed onto his face and then looking into a mirror sitting on the table he took an old razor and shaved himself rinsing the razor in a bowl of hot water. I remember him chewing and spitting tobacco. I remember hims sitting on the front porch in the evening with his shirt off. I remember him being revered by all those around him. I remember crying when he died. He died at the hospital, but while residing in the house that once occupied the above vacant lot.
With my Granddaddy also lived my Grandmama in that house. What a providence that a Granddaddy would have a Grandmama for his wife. That surely must of had something to do with why I was a Grandson. I think of my Grandmama and I think of kitchen, cooking, home, and church. I remember her standing over the stove clearly hot and uncomfortable. I remember that when she fried chicken she fried the chicken neck. I remember because I think I always got the chicken neck. If I had not been more interested in playing than in eating that could have been very frustrating. I remember that kitchen heating up to what would be unbearable for most people today. I remember her waiting on my Granddaddy, maybe that had something to do with why she was a Grandmama. I am guessing that she probably wielded a lot of influence in that home but this was clearly a woman that had not been influenced by the women's movement. She did not mind, at least it seemed to me, to wait on Granddaddy. I remember her sitting at the kitchen table for hours talking to my mom and aunts. I thought, what a boring life. Don't you all have anything to do but talk. Of course I would on occasion stand around and listen to what they were saying until someone, usually mom told me to run along and find something to do. Ah, man it was just getting interesting. I remember her going to church. I remember that she gave me my first Concordance. Young's Analytical Concordance. I used it for several years until someone suggested using a Strong's. But, I still have the Young's and always will. My Grandmama gave it to me. When my grandmother last went to the Hospital I was Pastoring. I spent the last couple of days at the hospital with her and some of the family. She was in intensive care but using my credentials as a minister I helped myself to checking on her from time to time even outside of visiting hours. My Grandmama had gone blind. I went to her door at some point just to check in on her, and she said, James. She knew I was standing there. I was in the room with my mother, a couple of cousins, and several aunts when my Grandmama died. We all shed a few tears. And one of the greatest honors I have ever had is for my Grandmama to ask me to officiate at her funeral.
With my Granddaddy and Grandmama at that house lived anywhere from two uncles to three or four aunts. They were all a bit older than me other than my uncle Robert. I was born in March and he was born in April. Yes, my Grandmama and Mama were expecting at the same time. How cool is it to be older than one of your uncles. He was actually more like a cousin. Oh, and were there ever family get togethers at that house that once stood on the now vacant lot. With five boy cousins and three girl cousins and my three brothers we made a lot of memories. Playing army, hide and seek, army, kill the man with the football, army, football, army, murder in the dark, and army. We played a lot of army. We did so most of the times with sticks for guns. One year one of my aunts bought us all army helmets, I suppose from an army surplus store. Boy we were fit to be tied. We would throw dirt in the air to simulate battle scenes. When you were shot you counted to three and you could be alive again, otherwise the battles would not last very long. Which also meant when you shot someone you better run because in less than three seconds they would be shooting back again. We crawled over every square inch under that house many times, for many different reasons. We used that front porch for everything from a dinning table, to a fort, to a ship, to a prison, to a spaceship, to who knows what else. Maybe that is why I have an affinity for front porches. It is certainly why I return to this vacant lot on Nett Street just south of I10 off of Shepherd/Duram. I return, park, stare, remember, repeat a few silly comments to my wife that she has heard several times before (my wife was in that house a few times right after we were married). I wonder if I really did live that life. I know I did. I think, no one really knows me. My kids don't know me. Most people only know who I have become, but they don't know from whence I came. I feel self-conscious going back there. I go back often in my mind, and the closer I get to that vacant lot the stronger the pull to return, park, stare, and remember. I will probably repeat the process several more times before I am unable to do so, I can't help myself!
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Pride Cannot Live Beneath The Cross
The following is from a message by C. H. Spurgeon.
He humbled Himself - Philippians 2:8
"Jesus is the great teacher of 'humility of heart'. We need daily to learn of Him. See the Master taking a towel and washing His disciples feet! Follower of Christ--will you not humble yourself? See Him as the Servant of servants--and surely you cannot be proud! Is not this sentence the compendium of His biography, 'He humbled Himself'? Was He not on earth, always stripping off first one robe of honor and then another--until, naked, He was fastened to the cross; and there did He not empty out His inmost self, pouring out His life-blood, giving up for all of us, until they laid Him penniless in a borrowed grave?
How low was our dear Redeemer brought! How then can we be proud?
Stand at the foot of the cross, and count the purple drops by which you have been cleansed. See His thorn-crown; mark His scourged shoulders, still gushing with encrimsoned rills; see His hands and feet given up to the rough iron spikes, and His whole self to mockery and scorn; see the bitterness, and the pangs, and the throes of inward grief, showing themselves in His outward frame; hear the horrid shriek, 'My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me!'
If you do not lie prostrate on the ground before that cross--you have never seen it! If you are not humbled in the presence of Jesus--you do not know Him. You were so lost that nothing could save you--but the sacrifice of God's only begotten Son. Think of that, and as Jesus stooped for you--bow yourself in humility at His feet.
A sense of Christ's amazing love to us--has a greater tendency to humble us, than even a consciousness of our own guilt. May the Lord bring us in contemplation, to Calvary. Then our position will no longer be that of pompous pride--but we shall take the humble place of one who loves much--because much has been forgiven him. Pride cannot live beneath the cross! Let us sit there and learn our lesson--and then rise and carry it into practice!"
He humbled Himself - Philippians 2:8
"Jesus is the great teacher of 'humility of heart'. We need daily to learn of Him. See the Master taking a towel and washing His disciples feet! Follower of Christ--will you not humble yourself? See Him as the Servant of servants--and surely you cannot be proud! Is not this sentence the compendium of His biography, 'He humbled Himself'? Was He not on earth, always stripping off first one robe of honor and then another--until, naked, He was fastened to the cross; and there did He not empty out His inmost self, pouring out His life-blood, giving up for all of us, until they laid Him penniless in a borrowed grave?
How low was our dear Redeemer brought! How then can we be proud?
Stand at the foot of the cross, and count the purple drops by which you have been cleansed. See His thorn-crown; mark His scourged shoulders, still gushing with encrimsoned rills; see His hands and feet given up to the rough iron spikes, and His whole self to mockery and scorn; see the bitterness, and the pangs, and the throes of inward grief, showing themselves in His outward frame; hear the horrid shriek, 'My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me!'
If you do not lie prostrate on the ground before that cross--you have never seen it! If you are not humbled in the presence of Jesus--you do not know Him. You were so lost that nothing could save you--but the sacrifice of God's only begotten Son. Think of that, and as Jesus stooped for you--bow yourself in humility at His feet.
A sense of Christ's amazing love to us--has a greater tendency to humble us, than even a consciousness of our own guilt. May the Lord bring us in contemplation, to Calvary. Then our position will no longer be that of pompous pride--but we shall take the humble place of one who loves much--because much has been forgiven him. Pride cannot live beneath the cross! Let us sit there and learn our lesson--and then rise and carry it into practice!"
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Sorrow And Sin
The following is from a message by C. H. Spurgeon.
Look upon my affliction and my pain--and forgive all my sins! Psalm 25:18
"It is well for us when prayers about our sorrows--are linked with pleas concerning our sins; when, being under God's hand, we are not wholly taken up with our pain--but remember our offences against God. It is well, also, to take both sorrow and sin--to the same place! It was to God--that David carried his sorrow. It was to God--that David confessed his sin.
We must take our sorrows to God. Even your little sorrows you may roll upon God--for He counts the hairs of your head. And your great sorrows you may commit to Him--for He holds the ocean in the hollow of His hand. Go to Him, whatever your present trouble may be--and you shall find Him able and willing to relieve you.
But we must also take our sins to God. We must carry them to the cross, that the blood may fall upon them, to purge away their guilt, and to destroy their defiling power.
The special lesson of the text is this--that we are to go to the Lord with sorrows and with sins in the right frame of heart. Note that all David asks concerning his sorrow is, 'Look upon my affliction and my pain.' But the next petition is vastly more express, definite, decided and plain, 'Forgive all my sins!'
Many sufferers would have put it, 'Remove my affliction and my pain--and look at my sins.' But David does not say so--he cries, 'Lord, as for my affliction and my pain, I will not dictate to Your wisdom. Lord, look at them--I will leave them to You. I would be glad to have my pain removed--but do as You will. But as for my sins, Lord, I know what I want with them--I must have them forgiven! I cannot endure to lie under their curse for a moment!'
A Christian counts his sorrow lighter in the scale--than his sin. He can bear that his troubles should continue--but he cannot support the burden of his transgressions."
Look upon my affliction and my pain--and forgive all my sins! Psalm 25:18
"It is well for us when prayers about our sorrows--are linked with pleas concerning our sins; when, being under God's hand, we are not wholly taken up with our pain--but remember our offences against God. It is well, also, to take both sorrow and sin--to the same place! It was to God--that David carried his sorrow. It was to God--that David confessed his sin.
We must take our sorrows to God. Even your little sorrows you may roll upon God--for He counts the hairs of your head. And your great sorrows you may commit to Him--for He holds the ocean in the hollow of His hand. Go to Him, whatever your present trouble may be--and you shall find Him able and willing to relieve you.
But we must also take our sins to God. We must carry them to the cross, that the blood may fall upon them, to purge away their guilt, and to destroy their defiling power.
The special lesson of the text is this--that we are to go to the Lord with sorrows and with sins in the right frame of heart. Note that all David asks concerning his sorrow is, 'Look upon my affliction and my pain.' But the next petition is vastly more express, definite, decided and plain, 'Forgive all my sins!'
Many sufferers would have put it, 'Remove my affliction and my pain--and look at my sins.' But David does not say so--he cries, 'Lord, as for my affliction and my pain, I will not dictate to Your wisdom. Lord, look at them--I will leave them to You. I would be glad to have my pain removed--but do as You will. But as for my sins, Lord, I know what I want with them--I must have them forgiven! I cannot endure to lie under their curse for a moment!'
A Christian counts his sorrow lighter in the scale--than his sin. He can bear that his troubles should continue--but he cannot support the burden of his transgressions."
Saturday, March 21, 2009
The Power To Tax = The Power To Destroy
The secret is out. There is no denying it. Congress uses the tax code to punish wage earners. Taxation is a punitive tool in the hands of a government that punishes the successful.
I have not followed the news very closely this past week being out of town, but I have caught bits and pieces of the AIG fiasco. The uproar occasioned by the bonuses received by AIG officials is unnecessary. The government should have never bailed them out with taxpayer money and then there would not be a scandal. If they want to run their business into the ground let them have at it.
With the infusion of taxpayer money the people are outraged.
Actually two thing about this.
1. It would be nice if people were as outraged concerning the incompetence at all levels of government particularly the federal level. Congress just gave themselves a raise even though their approval rating stays abysmally low.
2. The House rushed to pass legislation to tax the bonuses at I believe the rate of 92%. For ever dollar of bonus the federal government gets $.92! If what AIG is doing is unthinkable what Congress is attempting to do is despicable. The tax code is not to be used for the purpose of punishing or controlling behaviour but it is used for just those purposes and this is a glaring example of it. It also proves my point that with the introduction of an Income Tax with the adoption of the 16th amendment to the Constitution our entire income belongs to the federal government. The tax code does not determine what they collect it determines what they let us keep.
They are attempting to confiscate almost all of the bonuses of these AIG officials. They have been so successful in creating class envy and manipulated the people so effectively that most are delighted at this punitive tax failing to realize that they are sanctioning the confiscation of income by the federal government. If they can take 92% of their bonus they can take 92% of your income. So, all us poor folks refuse to defend the the AIG officials against this abuse of power and when they come after your income there will be no one left to raise objection because all of the rich and powerful folks that they have conditioned us to hate will be poor like the rest of us, and finally all power will be in the hands of politicians. Only then will some people realize what they have invited upon themselves and their children. Tyranny is an ugly thing.
I know you say the folks at AIG don't deserve the money. Does the federal government? Personally I would rather these individuals have it than Washington.
It was the Supreme Court in 1819 in McCulloch v. Maryland that wrote "The power to tax involves the power to destroy."
In the words of the late Paul Harvey, "Good Day."
I have not followed the news very closely this past week being out of town, but I have caught bits and pieces of the AIG fiasco. The uproar occasioned by the bonuses received by AIG officials is unnecessary. The government should have never bailed them out with taxpayer money and then there would not be a scandal. If they want to run their business into the ground let them have at it.
With the infusion of taxpayer money the people are outraged.
Actually two thing about this.
1. It would be nice if people were as outraged concerning the incompetence at all levels of government particularly the federal level. Congress just gave themselves a raise even though their approval rating stays abysmally low.
2. The House rushed to pass legislation to tax the bonuses at I believe the rate of 92%. For ever dollar of bonus the federal government gets $.92! If what AIG is doing is unthinkable what Congress is attempting to do is despicable. The tax code is not to be used for the purpose of punishing or controlling behaviour but it is used for just those purposes and this is a glaring example of it. It also proves my point that with the introduction of an Income Tax with the adoption of the 16th amendment to the Constitution our entire income belongs to the federal government. The tax code does not determine what they collect it determines what they let us keep.
They are attempting to confiscate almost all of the bonuses of these AIG officials. They have been so successful in creating class envy and manipulated the people so effectively that most are delighted at this punitive tax failing to realize that they are sanctioning the confiscation of income by the federal government. If they can take 92% of their bonus they can take 92% of your income. So, all us poor folks refuse to defend the the AIG officials against this abuse of power and when they come after your income there will be no one left to raise objection because all of the rich and powerful folks that they have conditioned us to hate will be poor like the rest of us, and finally all power will be in the hands of politicians. Only then will some people realize what they have invited upon themselves and their children. Tyranny is an ugly thing.
I know you say the folks at AIG don't deserve the money. Does the federal government? Personally I would rather these individuals have it than Washington.
It was the Supreme Court in 1819 in McCulloch v. Maryland that wrote "The power to tax involves the power to destroy."
In the words of the late Paul Harvey, "Good Day."
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Love Vs. Laxity
The following was preached by Arthur Pink in a message entitled Love Reproving in 1943.
"Few words have been used more inaccurately and loosely in recent years, than has "love." With a great many people--it is but a synonym for moral laxity, weakness of character, a taking the line of least resistance, a quiet tolerating of what is felt to be wrong.
Multitudes of parents have supposed they were treating their children "lovingly" when they overlooked their folly, made excuses for their wildness, and refused to discipline them for disobedience. They have prided themselves on being "kinder" toward their children than the "stern measures" which were meted out to themselves in their own youth. But it is laxity--and not love--which allows a child to have its own way. "He who spares his rod--hates his son; but he who loves him--chastens him early" (Proverbs 13:14). Let those of our readers who have young children ponder:
Proverbs 19:18 - Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.
Proverbs 22:15 -Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
Proverbs 23:13,14 - Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
Proverbs 29:15,17 - The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame. Correct thy son, and he shall give thee rest; yea, he shall give delight unto thy soul.
and remember, that those are the words of Him who is Love!
This same evil has held sway in the churches. Leniency and weakness have overridden righteousness and faithfulness. Instead of maintaining and enforcing the discipline which God's Word enjoins--the great majority of the churches have winked at even glaring sins, refusing to deal with those who walk disorderly. This reprehensible laxity, is misnamed "love". A mushy sentimentality which shrank from "hurting the feelings" of others--has ousted all concern for the glory of Christ and the honor of His house.
This is one of the inevitable effects of the lopsided preaching of the pulpit, where the 'love' and 'grace' of God were constantly proclaimed--while His 'justice' and 'wrath' were studiously ignored. God is 'light' (1 John 1:5) as well as 'love' (1 John 4:8); 'holy' as well as 'merciful'; 'severe' as well as 'good' (Romans 11:22). Unless the balance is preserved between those two sides of the Divine character, not only will He be grievously misrepresented--but the most serious results will follow!"
I could not agree with Pink more. If he was appalled in 1943 if he were alive today he would find that the problem only continued to grow. We live in a day where most are only interested in a "love" that appeases failing to realize that true, Biblical love does not fall prey to such a practice. Appeasement often sets the stage for apostasy. The Bible does say that charity does not rejoice in iniquity.
People want to hear about God's favor but few want to hear about his flood.
People want to hear about God's salvation but few want to hear about Sodom.
People want to hear about Peter, James, and John but few want to hear about Judas.
People want to hear about God's benevolence but few want to hear about the first couple's banishment.
It would be refreshing for people to love God's truth as much at they loved the favor of man!
"Few words have been used more inaccurately and loosely in recent years, than has "love." With a great many people--it is but a synonym for moral laxity, weakness of character, a taking the line of least resistance, a quiet tolerating of what is felt to be wrong.
Multitudes of parents have supposed they were treating their children "lovingly" when they overlooked their folly, made excuses for their wildness, and refused to discipline them for disobedience. They have prided themselves on being "kinder" toward their children than the "stern measures" which were meted out to themselves in their own youth. But it is laxity--and not love--which allows a child to have its own way. "He who spares his rod--hates his son; but he who loves him--chastens him early" (Proverbs 13:14). Let those of our readers who have young children ponder:
Proverbs 19:18 - Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.
Proverbs 22:15 -Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
Proverbs 23:13,14 - Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
Proverbs 29:15,17 - The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame. Correct thy son, and he shall give thee rest; yea, he shall give delight unto thy soul.
and remember, that those are the words of Him who is Love!
This same evil has held sway in the churches. Leniency and weakness have overridden righteousness and faithfulness. Instead of maintaining and enforcing the discipline which God's Word enjoins--the great majority of the churches have winked at even glaring sins, refusing to deal with those who walk disorderly. This reprehensible laxity, is misnamed "love". A mushy sentimentality which shrank from "hurting the feelings" of others--has ousted all concern for the glory of Christ and the honor of His house.
This is one of the inevitable effects of the lopsided preaching of the pulpit, where the 'love' and 'grace' of God were constantly proclaimed--while His 'justice' and 'wrath' were studiously ignored. God is 'light' (1 John 1:5) as well as 'love' (1 John 4:8); 'holy' as well as 'merciful'; 'severe' as well as 'good' (Romans 11:22). Unless the balance is preserved between those two sides of the Divine character, not only will He be grievously misrepresented--but the most serious results will follow!"
I could not agree with Pink more. If he was appalled in 1943 if he were alive today he would find that the problem only continued to grow. We live in a day where most are only interested in a "love" that appeases failing to realize that true, Biblical love does not fall prey to such a practice. Appeasement often sets the stage for apostasy. The Bible does say that charity does not rejoice in iniquity.
People want to hear about God's favor but few want to hear about his flood.
People want to hear about God's salvation but few want to hear about Sodom.
People want to hear about Peter, James, and John but few want to hear about Judas.
People want to hear about God's benevolence but few want to hear about the first couple's banishment.
It would be refreshing for people to love God's truth as much at they loved the favor of man!
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Mississippi Grandkids
Pictures here!
Proverbs 17:6 - Children‘s children are the crown of old men; and the glory of children are their fathers.
Children's children are the crown of middle aged men also!
Proverbs 17:6 - Children‘s children are the crown of old men; and the glory of children are their fathers.
Children's children are the crown of middle aged men also!
Friday, March 06, 2009
Baptismal Regeneration - Salvation Is Through Faith
In my previous posts I have argued that salvation is by grace and not of works. These statements proclaim a single truth presented in a negative and positive statement. The single truth is that we cannot save ourselves. There is nothing we can do that is meritorious. Justification can never be achieved through any righteous act by those who have violated the law and are thus condemned. A thousand righteous acts do not erase one unrighteous act! The cold fact that we cannot save ourselves does not of necessity mean that we cannot be saved. It simply means that someone else will have to save us. Negatively, this truth is expressed in the words that salvation is not of works. Positively, this truth is expressed in the words that salvation is by grace.
We can be saved by grace and not by our works. The question becomes do I understand what this means and do I believe it? It is faith that forges the golden chain that binds my soul to the promises of God, and thereby experiencing the cleansing of atoning blood.
In this post I want to simply address the role of faith in the saving of the soul. Once again I know that this will not settle all questions and will even potentially raise objections. I have reason to believe that once again all who claim "Christianity" would admit the role of faith. To deny this would place one in the unfavorable position of denying what the Bible so clearly declares. It will not answer all the questions, because faith itself does not save anyone. Jesus saves. It is not enough to believe, one must believe the right thing. Even the Jews were reprimanded by the Apostle Paul for having, "a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge".
While we must believe the right thing today let us focus on the fact that we must believe.
To begin with it is important to understand why faith is the channel by which we are made partakers of God's promise of righteousness.
First, let us remind ourselves of how thoroughly grace and works are incompatible.
The principle is clearly set forth in Romans chapter eleven where Paul is discussing the choosing of the Jewish people by God to fulfill his redemptive purposes. In the context of that discussion Paul lays down a principle concerning the relationship between grace and works.
Romans 11:6 - And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Grace and works do not mix! They are like light and darkness, good and evil, truth and error. Even the slightest introduction of the simplest of works and the entire concept of grace is marred. The easiest, most inconsequential work forbids us to say that a thing is of grace. If the salvation of the soul is by grace then this truth of necessity forbids the introduction of even the most mundane, or religious of acts.
If we can do nothing, how then can we be saved? The remedy is not in what you do but in what you believe. In God's economy believing, not doing, is what saves.
In Romans chapter four in discussing this very truth God presents Abraham as the example. We are told that "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness". We are told in verse 5,
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
The pertinent statement here should not be missed, "his faith is counted for righteousness".
In verse 9 we are informed that "faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteouness".
Faith is not a righteous work, but it is reckoned for righteousness. If it were a righteous act it would not have to be reckoned so.
Many who embrace a covenant theology equate O. T. circumcision with N. T. baptism and from this connection embrace some form of baptismal regeneration.
This chapter raises some serious questions about their logic.
Romans 4:10 - How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
Abraham had righteousness reckoned to him before circumcision! In fact verse eleven relates that he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised.
Why? "That he might be the father of all them that believed" not the father of all them that are baptized.
Then in verse sixteen the principle of faith in relation to salvation is clearly spelled out. "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace;".
Faith is not a work. Faith has no merit. Faith does not make us worthy. It is of faith that it might be by grace. And remember, "And if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace."
Righteousness is not imputed to us because of something we do, but because of what we believe. And it is provided based upon what we believe that it might be by grace and not of works, lest any man should boast. Again, those who believe in baptismal regeneration speak of what they did, while we speak of what we believe.
In fact in Romans four Paul goes on and discusses the nature of Abraham's faith. And once again we are reminded in verses twenty-one and twenty-two;
"And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness."
It was nothing that Abraham did that made him righteous but what he believed.
Then lest we have any doubts about the application of this discussion to ourselves Paul goes on in verses twenty-three through twenty-five and explains the meaning of these things to us;
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
These things about Abraham having righteousness imputed to him was written for us. For we too can have righteousness imputed to us, if?????????? If what??????? If we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. We are accounted righteous not if we do the right thing but if we believe the right thing that it might be by grace, lest any man should boast.
So chapter five begins, "Therefore being justified by faith, . . . ." Justified not by what we do but by what we believe.
I can almost here my Church of Christ friend saying, "Exactly, I couldn't agree more. I am saved because of what I believe God does for me through baptism." Hold on a second! I don't understand. You are saved by what you believe?? You can't be. Because you believe you have to be baptized to be saved. Being baptized requires effort, it requires activity, it is something you do, something you participate in! I can hear him saying, "It is not what I do in baptism but what God does in baptism that effects the washing away of sins." Well, can God effect that washing away if you do not participate in the procedure? I think that consistency would demand that he answer no, for he has made baptism a requirement for salvation. If sins are washed away in baptism then they are not washed away unless I get into the baptismal waters and participate in the act. When you do that you have worked! It may not be much. It may be inconsequential. It may be mundane. It may be very religious. But it is work. And remember, "But if it be of works, then it is no more grace; otherwise work is no more work." And salvation we are told is by grace and not of works.
I could multiply verses showing that in order to be saved we must believe. Having already written more than I intended, I will leave off here for now. There might possibly be opportunity in the future for referencing some of the many verses that talk about believing for salvation. Here again, as I have illustrated at the end of this post, it is not enough to believe you have to believe the right thing. If you do not believe the true gospel then you are lost, possibly religious but lost and without hope.
In our next post we will likely direct our attention to what it is that washes away sin, what must we believe to be saved?
We can be saved by grace and not by our works. The question becomes do I understand what this means and do I believe it? It is faith that forges the golden chain that binds my soul to the promises of God, and thereby experiencing the cleansing of atoning blood.
In this post I want to simply address the role of faith in the saving of the soul. Once again I know that this will not settle all questions and will even potentially raise objections. I have reason to believe that once again all who claim "Christianity" would admit the role of faith. To deny this would place one in the unfavorable position of denying what the Bible so clearly declares. It will not answer all the questions, because faith itself does not save anyone. Jesus saves. It is not enough to believe, one must believe the right thing. Even the Jews were reprimanded by the Apostle Paul for having, "a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge".
While we must believe the right thing today let us focus on the fact that we must believe.
To begin with it is important to understand why faith is the channel by which we are made partakers of God's promise of righteousness.
First, let us remind ourselves of how thoroughly grace and works are incompatible.
The principle is clearly set forth in Romans chapter eleven where Paul is discussing the choosing of the Jewish people by God to fulfill his redemptive purposes. In the context of that discussion Paul lays down a principle concerning the relationship between grace and works.
Romans 11:6 - And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Grace and works do not mix! They are like light and darkness, good and evil, truth and error. Even the slightest introduction of the simplest of works and the entire concept of grace is marred. The easiest, most inconsequential work forbids us to say that a thing is of grace. If the salvation of the soul is by grace then this truth of necessity forbids the introduction of even the most mundane, or religious of acts.
If we can do nothing, how then can we be saved? The remedy is not in what you do but in what you believe. In God's economy believing, not doing, is what saves.
In Romans chapter four in discussing this very truth God presents Abraham as the example. We are told that "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness". We are told in verse 5,
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
The pertinent statement here should not be missed, "his faith is counted for righteousness".
In verse 9 we are informed that "faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteouness".
Faith is not a righteous work, but it is reckoned for righteousness. If it were a righteous act it would not have to be reckoned so.
Many who embrace a covenant theology equate O. T. circumcision with N. T. baptism and from this connection embrace some form of baptismal regeneration.
This chapter raises some serious questions about their logic.
Romans 4:10 - How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
Abraham had righteousness reckoned to him before circumcision! In fact verse eleven relates that he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised.
Why? "That he might be the father of all them that believed" not the father of all them that are baptized.
Then in verse sixteen the principle of faith in relation to salvation is clearly spelled out. "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace;".
Faith is not a work. Faith has no merit. Faith does not make us worthy. It is of faith that it might be by grace. And remember, "And if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace."
Righteousness is not imputed to us because of something we do, but because of what we believe. And it is provided based upon what we believe that it might be by grace and not of works, lest any man should boast. Again, those who believe in baptismal regeneration speak of what they did, while we speak of what we believe.
In fact in Romans four Paul goes on and discusses the nature of Abraham's faith. And once again we are reminded in verses twenty-one and twenty-two;
"And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness."
It was nothing that Abraham did that made him righteous but what he believed.
Then lest we have any doubts about the application of this discussion to ourselves Paul goes on in verses twenty-three through twenty-five and explains the meaning of these things to us;
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
These things about Abraham having righteousness imputed to him was written for us. For we too can have righteousness imputed to us, if?????????? If what??????? If we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. We are accounted righteous not if we do the right thing but if we believe the right thing that it might be by grace, lest any man should boast.
So chapter five begins, "Therefore being justified by faith, . . . ." Justified not by what we do but by what we believe.
I can almost here my Church of Christ friend saying, "Exactly, I couldn't agree more. I am saved because of what I believe God does for me through baptism." Hold on a second! I don't understand. You are saved by what you believe?? You can't be. Because you believe you have to be baptized to be saved. Being baptized requires effort, it requires activity, it is something you do, something you participate in! I can hear him saying, "It is not what I do in baptism but what God does in baptism that effects the washing away of sins." Well, can God effect that washing away if you do not participate in the procedure? I think that consistency would demand that he answer no, for he has made baptism a requirement for salvation. If sins are washed away in baptism then they are not washed away unless I get into the baptismal waters and participate in the act. When you do that you have worked! It may not be much. It may be inconsequential. It may be mundane. It may be very religious. But it is work. And remember, "But if it be of works, then it is no more grace; otherwise work is no more work." And salvation we are told is by grace and not of works.
I could multiply verses showing that in order to be saved we must believe. Having already written more than I intended, I will leave off here for now. There might possibly be opportunity in the future for referencing some of the many verses that talk about believing for salvation. Here again, as I have illustrated at the end of this post, it is not enough to believe you have to believe the right thing. If you do not believe the true gospel then you are lost, possibly religious but lost and without hope.
In our next post we will likely direct our attention to what it is that washes away sin, what must we believe to be saved?
Acts 2:41 - Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Speak Plainly
I am occasionally reading a few pages in a book entitled The Saint's Everlasting Rest by Richard Baxter. I had seen the book recommended in several places and found a copy that was published in Philadelphia in 1870. I came across this copy in an antique store in Hutchinson, Kansas a few years ago.
I was reading a few pages this morning and wanted to share with you a portion of what I read. This excerpt is from a chapter entitled, The Duty Of The People Of God To Excite Others To Seek This Rest. Baxter's second point in this chapter is, "We must take every opportunity that we possibly can to instruct them how to attain salvation."
The following is under this heading;
"Do it with all possible plainness and faithfulness. Do not make their sins less than they are, nor encourage them in a false hope. If you see the case is dangerous, speak plainly. 'Neighbor, I am afraid God has not yet renewed your soul; I fear you are not yet recovered from the power of Satan to God; I fear you have not chosen Christ above all, nor unfeignedly taken him for your sovereign Lord. If you had, surely you durst not so easily disobey him, nor neglect his worship in your family and in public; you could not so eagerly follow the world, and talk of nothing but the things of the world. If you were 'in Christ' you would be 'a new creature; old things' would be 'passed away, and all things' would ' become new.' You would have new thoughts, new conversation, new company, new endeavours, and a new life. Certainly without these you can never be saved; your may think otherwise, and hope otherwise as long as you will but your hopes will all deceive you, and perish with you.' Thus must you deal faithfully with men, if ever you intend to do them good."
I was reading a few pages this morning and wanted to share with you a portion of what I read. This excerpt is from a chapter entitled, The Duty Of The People Of God To Excite Others To Seek This Rest. Baxter's second point in this chapter is, "We must take every opportunity that we possibly can to instruct them how to attain salvation."
The following is under this heading;
"Do it with all possible plainness and faithfulness. Do not make their sins less than they are, nor encourage them in a false hope. If you see the case is dangerous, speak plainly. 'Neighbor, I am afraid God has not yet renewed your soul; I fear you are not yet recovered from the power of Satan to God; I fear you have not chosen Christ above all, nor unfeignedly taken him for your sovereign Lord. If you had, surely you durst not so easily disobey him, nor neglect his worship in your family and in public; you could not so eagerly follow the world, and talk of nothing but the things of the world. If you were 'in Christ' you would be 'a new creature; old things' would be 'passed away, and all things' would ' become new.' You would have new thoughts, new conversation, new company, new endeavours, and a new life. Certainly without these you can never be saved; your may think otherwise, and hope otherwise as long as you will but your hopes will all deceive you, and perish with you.' Thus must you deal faithfully with men, if ever you intend to do them good."
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Sin Is More Hateful To God Than The Devil
The following is from a message by Samuel Clark entitled The Saint's Bouquet from 1641.
Bow down thine ear, and hear the words of the wise, and apply thine heart unto my knowledge. Proverbs 22:17
"Sin is the spawn of the old Serpent, the source of hell, and the vomit of the Devil.
Sin is more hateful to God than the Devil; for God hates the Devil for sin's sake--and not sin for the Devil's sake.
Sin is like a serpent in our bosoms, which cannot live--but by sucking out our life blood.
The conflict of the godly--is with the defilement of sin. But the conflict of the wicked--is only with the guilt and punishment of sin. The godly hate sin--because it has filth in it to pollute the soul. The ungodly fear sin--because it has fire in it to burn the soul.
The deluge of waters which overflowed all the world, washed away many sinners--but not one sin! The world shall one day be all on fire--yet all that fire, and those flames in hell which follow--shall not purge one sin!
All the evils in the world, serve to give names to sin.
Sin is called poison--and sinners, serpents.
Sin is called vomit--and sinners, dogs.
Sin is called mire--and sinners, sows.
Sin is called darkness, blindness, shame, nakedness, folly, madness, death and whatever is filthy, vile, infective, or painful.
A glutton may fill his belly--but he can never fill his lust. A covetous man may have his house full of money--but he can never have his heart full of money. An ambitious man may have titles enough to overload his memory--but never to fill his pride.
The Devil's last stratagem is, if he cannot beat us down to sin--to blow us up with pride.
Nothing will make God's children so pure, as to wash themselves every morning in their tears of repentance.
Without sound repentance, sin is not accounted as the greatest evil--nor Christ as the greatest good."
Bow down thine ear, and hear the words of the wise, and apply thine heart unto my knowledge. Proverbs 22:17
"Sin is the spawn of the old Serpent, the source of hell, and the vomit of the Devil.
Sin is more hateful to God than the Devil; for God hates the Devil for sin's sake--and not sin for the Devil's sake.
Sin is like a serpent in our bosoms, which cannot live--but by sucking out our life blood.
The conflict of the godly--is with the defilement of sin. But the conflict of the wicked--is only with the guilt and punishment of sin. The godly hate sin--because it has filth in it to pollute the soul. The ungodly fear sin--because it has fire in it to burn the soul.
The deluge of waters which overflowed all the world, washed away many sinners--but not one sin! The world shall one day be all on fire--yet all that fire, and those flames in hell which follow--shall not purge one sin!
All the evils in the world, serve to give names to sin.
Sin is called poison--and sinners, serpents.
Sin is called vomit--and sinners, dogs.
Sin is called mire--and sinners, sows.
Sin is called darkness, blindness, shame, nakedness, folly, madness, death and whatever is filthy, vile, infective, or painful.
A glutton may fill his belly--but he can never fill his lust. A covetous man may have his house full of money--but he can never have his heart full of money. An ambitious man may have titles enough to overload his memory--but never to fill his pride.
The Devil's last stratagem is, if he cannot beat us down to sin--to blow us up with pride.
Nothing will make God's children so pure, as to wash themselves every morning in their tears of repentance.
Without sound repentance, sin is not accounted as the greatest evil--nor Christ as the greatest good."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
