Tuesday, July 21, 2015
The merit of the life and death of Christ alone is the only saving difference
Not one elect sinner for whom Jesus Christ effectually died for will ever perish. Christ’s accomplishment of redemption insures their eternal salvation. The merit of the life and death of Christ ALONE is the only saving difference between saved and lost or heaven and hell. In other words the merit of His Person and work is BY ITSELF is what does the saving and His life and death is EFFECTUAL in and of itself. His precious blood and righteousness automatically excludes everything else as the ground of justification and acceptance to God. The Lord Jesus Christ’s whole work resulted in the justification of His people. Christ, as Mediator of the Everlasting Covenant of Grace, brought in and established an everlasting righteousness which is imputes to His people and makes them to be accepted by the Father on that very basis. - Scott Price
Monday, July 20, 2015
How was the image affected by the fall of man?
"Clark believes that the Scriptural doctrine of the imago dei entails in part that man possesses a capacity for knowledge and rationality. 'The scripture teaches that God created man in his own image. From Colossians 3:10 it may be inferred that this image consisted chiefly in knowledge rationality, or logic.'
But what effect has the fall of man had on man's reasoning powers? how did the fall affect the cognitive functions of the imago dei? Clark answers,
But what effect has the fall of man had on man's reasoning powers? how did the fall affect the cognitive functions of the imago dei? Clark answers,
- Ronald Nash, Gordon Clark's Theory of Knowledge
The fall seriously damaged God's image in man in all its parts. The intellect became depraved as well as the will. This is the doctrine of total depravity: No part or function of man is free from the effect of sin. However, the different functions are differently affected. While no act of will can be moral in the unregenerate man, it does not follow that no intellectual argument can be valid. . . . Therefore, in order not to assert that the image of God has been completely annihilated, stress must be laid on its component of logic and reason."
Stop the evil preachers
Listened to a sermon earlier from a former church I used to attend. It was horrible. Are they trying to redefine terms? The guy says faith is what saved but then says that from it repentance ensues. Does he know that he just added works to salvation? Let alone the fact that repentance is a change of mind in which one believes the gospel. Then on top of that he says obedience begets knowledge. So by my obedience I learn or gain knowledge? Knowledge of what? Giving money doesn't tell us who to give to or why we are giving. This pastor is a lunatic.
Romans 6 on the legal union
Romans 6 is about the elect legal union with Christ not the Spirit's regeneration or progressive work of sanctification (not that there is such thing of progressive sanctification). This means Christ's death on the cross is the elect's death who are legally joined to his death.
3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dea...d by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness ofhis resurrection: 6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.7For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
- Romans 6
3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dea...d by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness ofhis resurrection: 6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.7For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
- Romans 6
Luther did not say baptism saves
"The world and the masses are and always will be un-christians, even if they are all baptized and Christian in name." - Martin Luther, Temporal Authority
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Macarthur's view of dispensationalism
"Chafer's dichotomy between carnal and spiritual Christians was seen by Dr. B.B. Warfield as an echo of 'the jargon of the Higher life teachers,' who taught that a higher plane of victorious living was available to Christians who would lay hold of it by faith. This idea of two classes of believers was undoubtedly an unfortunate result of Chafer's predilection for dispensationalist distinctions. It is a classic example how dispensationalism's methodology can be carried too far.
Dispensationalism is a fundamentally correct system of understanding God's program through the ages. Its chief element is a recognition that God's plan for Israel is not superseded by or swallowed up in His program for the church. Israel and the church are separate entities, and God will restore national Israel under the earthly rule of Jesus as Messiah. I accept and affirm that tenet, because it emerges from a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture (while still recognizing the presence of legitimate metaphor in the Bible). And in that regard, I consider myself a traditional premillennial dispensationalist." - John Macarthur, The Gospel according to Jesus 2008, pg. 40
John Robbins from the Trinity Foundation (Reformed and Covenantal) responded back in 1993
John MacArthur is himself a dispensationalist: "Dispensationalism is a fundamentally correct system of understanding God's program through the ages.... I consider myself a traditional premillennial dispensationalist" (25). This leads him into saying that Christ's Earthly reign was "postponed" because of the unbelief of the Jews: "When the Israelites rejected their Messiah's rule, they forfeited that permanent earthly dimension of the kingdom not only for their generation but for generations to follow. The earthly reign of Christ was postponed until a time yet future...."(118). One stands amazed at such a statement. It implies that had the Jews accepted Christ, the crucifixion would not have been necessary and Christ would have begun his political reign at once. What actually happened--the crucifixion, resurrection, and the Gentile church - are all part of Plan B. Even the second coming of Christ becomes problematic in this view, for he would already be reigning on Earth. But, as Packer's Foreword suggests, the crucial matter in this book is not dispensational theology, but the definitions of both faith and Gospel. And on these questions, both MacArthur and his defenders seem fatally confused. MacArthur confuses at least five questions in his discussion - See more at: http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=193#sthash.UyQVueb3.dpuf
Dispensationalism is a fundamentally correct system of understanding God's program through the ages. Its chief element is a recognition that God's plan for Israel is not superseded by or swallowed up in His program for the church. Israel and the church are separate entities, and God will restore national Israel under the earthly rule of Jesus as Messiah. I accept and affirm that tenet, because it emerges from a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture (while still recognizing the presence of legitimate metaphor in the Bible). And in that regard, I consider myself a traditional premillennial dispensationalist." - John Macarthur, The Gospel according to Jesus 2008, pg. 40
John Robbins from the Trinity Foundation (Reformed and Covenantal) responded back in 1993
John MacArthur is himself a dispensationalist: "Dispensationalism is a fundamentally correct system of understanding God's program through the ages.... I consider myself a traditional premillennial dispensationalist" (25). This leads him into saying that Christ's Earthly reign was "postponed" because of the unbelief of the Jews: "When the Israelites rejected their Messiah's rule, they forfeited that permanent earthly dimension of the kingdom not only for their generation but for generations to follow. The earthly reign of Christ was postponed until a time yet future...."(118). One stands amazed at such a statement. It implies that had the Jews accepted Christ, the crucifixion would not have been necessary and Christ would have begun his political reign at once. What actually happened--the crucifixion, resurrection, and the Gentile church - are all part of Plan B. Even the second coming of Christ becomes problematic in this view, for he would already be reigning on Earth. But, as Packer's Foreword suggests, the crucial matter in this book is not dispensational theology, but the definitions of both faith and Gospel. And on these questions, both MacArthur and his defenders seem fatally confused. MacArthur confuses at least five questions in his discussion - See more at: http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=193#sthash.UyQVueb3.dpuf
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
John Macarthur's false gospel is grounded in existential works
"The gospel Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience, not just a plea to make a decision or pray a prayer. Jesus' message liberated people from the bondage of their sin while it confronted and condemned hypocrisy. It was an offer of eternal life and forgiveness for repentant sinners, but at the same time it was rebuke to outwardly religious people whose lives were devoid of true righteousness. It put sinners on notice that they must turn from sin and embrace God's righteousness. It was in every sense good news, yet it was anything but easy-believism." - John Macarthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, 37
The Bible teaches clearly that the evidence of God's work in a life is the inevitable fruit of transformed behavior (1 John 3:10). faith that does not result in righteous living is dead and cannot save (James 2:14-17). Professing Christians utterly lacking the fruit of true righteousness will find no biblical basis for assurance of salvation (1 John 2:4). - Pg. 39
Genuine assurance comes from seeing the Holy Spirit's transforming work in one's life, not from clinging to the memory of some experience. - Pg. 39
Macarthur says all of this. In the first paragraph he claims that the gospel proclamation is a call of discipleship. Keep in mind what he is saying is that the gospel calls us to do something. However, this is not at all what the gospel message is. The gospel message is made of indicative statements about what God has done in Christ Jesus on the cross for the elect's sin. It does not command us to do anything or call us to do anything.
The bible does not say that evidence of God's work in a life is basic transformed behavior. What it does say "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." - 1 John 3:10
Loving the brethren is not the only thing Christians do but they also love God and they love God by knowing about God and studying his word. As Christians who also love God and His truth we love one another through various circumstance. But to say that behavior is evidence of the Christian life is false.
But our assurance does not come from our own broken works. Assurance for the Christian comes not from what is in him nor comes from him but is completely external. The assurance of the Christian Is grounded in Christ's complete work on the cross where he alone has atoned for the sins of his elect alone so that there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Those who are conditionalist simply make salvation and assurance depend and kept on the good works of the sinner whether it is something that the sinner himself does or whether it is infused by grace.
Assurance is necessary for good works but assurance does not come from the sinners works. We are called to make our calling and election sure not by our good works.
Assurance comes by gaining understanding of God's truth - more specifically the Gospel not by looking at our transformed lives. For our works are not perfect.
The Bible teaches clearly that the evidence of God's work in a life is the inevitable fruit of transformed behavior (1 John 3:10). faith that does not result in righteous living is dead and cannot save (James 2:14-17). Professing Christians utterly lacking the fruit of true righteousness will find no biblical basis for assurance of salvation (1 John 2:4). - Pg. 39
Genuine assurance comes from seeing the Holy Spirit's transforming work in one's life, not from clinging to the memory of some experience. - Pg. 39
Macarthur says all of this. In the first paragraph he claims that the gospel proclamation is a call of discipleship. Keep in mind what he is saying is that the gospel calls us to do something. However, this is not at all what the gospel message is. The gospel message is made of indicative statements about what God has done in Christ Jesus on the cross for the elect's sin. It does not command us to do anything or call us to do anything.
The bible does not say that evidence of God's work in a life is basic transformed behavior. What it does say "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." - 1 John 3:10
Loving the brethren is not the only thing Christians do but they also love God and they love God by knowing about God and studying his word. As Christians who also love God and His truth we love one another through various circumstance. But to say that behavior is evidence of the Christian life is false.
But our assurance does not come from our own broken works. Assurance for the Christian comes not from what is in him nor comes from him but is completely external. The assurance of the Christian Is grounded in Christ's complete work on the cross where he alone has atoned for the sins of his elect alone so that there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Those who are conditionalist simply make salvation and assurance depend and kept on the good works of the sinner whether it is something that the sinner himself does or whether it is infused by grace.
Assurance is necessary for good works but assurance does not come from the sinners works. We are called to make our calling and election sure not by our good works.
Assurance comes by gaining understanding of God's truth - more specifically the Gospel not by looking at our transformed lives. For our works are not perfect.
Monday, July 13, 2015
Faith is intellectual and assent not including 'trust'
Read ead what Macarthur says,
The faith God graciously supplies produces both the volition and the ability to comply with His will (cf. Phil 2:13: 'God . . . is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure'). Thus faith is inseparable from obedience. Berkhof sees three elements to genuine faith: An intellectual element (notitia), which is 'a positive recognition of the truth'; an emotional element (assensus), which includes 'a deep conviction [and affirmation] of the truth'; and a volitional element (fiducia), which involves 'a personal trust in Christ as Saviour and Lord, including a surrender . . . to Christ.'" - John Macarthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, Pg. 189
It is interesting that Macarthur says assensus is an emotional element. No one I have read ever said such things. Assensus or accepting as truth what the mind knows is not emotional. What is perhaps not defined properly is the use of fiducia whatever that is. Faith has been said to be intellectual and assent of the will. Interesting enough Macarthur does not speak of Gordon Clark and his understanding at all throughout his book.
Clark says,
A Latin dictionary may throw some light on the terminology. The Latin word fides, translated faith, means: trust (in a person or thing), confidence, reliance, credence, belief. The Latin fiducia means: trust, confidence, reliance, assurance. This reduces the old analysis of faith to a tautology: Faith is composed of knowledge, belief, and faith. Or we might retranslate it: confidence is composed of knowledge, assent, and confidence. Clearly therefore the listing of fiducia as a component of fides is not very enlightening. - Gordon H. Clark
The faith God graciously supplies produces both the volition and the ability to comply with His will (cf. Phil 2:13: 'God . . . is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure'). Thus faith is inseparable from obedience. Berkhof sees three elements to genuine faith: An intellectual element (notitia), which is 'a positive recognition of the truth'; an emotional element (assensus), which includes 'a deep conviction [and affirmation] of the truth'; and a volitional element (fiducia), which involves 'a personal trust in Christ as Saviour and Lord, including a surrender . . . to Christ.'" - John Macarthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, Pg. 189
It is interesting that Macarthur says assensus is an emotional element. No one I have read ever said such things. Assensus or accepting as truth what the mind knows is not emotional. What is perhaps not defined properly is the use of fiducia whatever that is. Faith has been said to be intellectual and assent of the will. Interesting enough Macarthur does not speak of Gordon Clark and his understanding at all throughout his book.
Clark says,
A Latin dictionary may throw some light on the terminology. The Latin word fides, translated faith, means: trust (in a person or thing), confidence, reliance, credence, belief. The Latin fiducia means: trust, confidence, reliance, assurance. This reduces the old analysis of faith to a tautology: Faith is composed of knowledge, belief, and faith. Or we might retranslate it: confidence is composed of knowledge, assent, and confidence. Clearly therefore the listing of fiducia as a component of fides is not very enlightening. - Gordon H. Clark
Christ death sanctifies us
Only the atonement of Christ sanctifies us and nothing else. It is his work on the cross which causes our salvation. Those who are not saved is due to this central aspect that Christ Jesus never became their saviour. Here we see that the gospel alone presupposes election and reprobation. It even presupposes total depravity for no one is saved apart from the righteousness of Christ alone.
Faith accepts the truth
"Acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ, as He is offered to us in the gospel of His redeeming work, is saving faith." - J. Gresham Machen, What is Faith
Not by works of anykind
The Epistle to the Galatians is directed just as much against the modern notion of 'salvation by character' or salvation by 'making Christ Master' in the life or salvation by a mere attempt to put into practice 'the principles of Jesus,' as it is directed against the Jewish ceremonialists of long ago: for what the Apostle is concerned to deny is any intrusion of human merit into the work by which salvation is obtained. - J. Gresham Machen, What is Faith?
Macarthur's Fallacy
I just got Macarthur's updated version of "the Gospel according to Jesus". I opened it up to a certain page and read parts of it and this is what I found:
Here Macarthur has committed a fallacy. Either we accept what Macarthur says is true as truth or we must fall into the camp that says Jesus' words were not true. This is not the case. Are we to suppose that by his standards that Jesus was really teaching people that unless they clean up their character that these men would not be saved? Of course Jesus uses the law to inform men and women of their sins and of their need of Him. But this does not mean that every time a command is given that it means we can actually do what is found in the command. Macarthur argues like an Arminian here and does not properly distinguish the law from the Gospel.
"Are we to believe that when Jesus told the multitudes to deny themselves (Luke 14:26), to take up a cross (v. 27), and to forsake all and follow Him (v. 33), His words had no meaning whatsoever for the unsaved people in the crowd? How could that be true of One who said He came not to call the righteous but sinners (Matt. 9:13)?"- John Macarthur, Pg. 45
Here Macarthur has committed a fallacy. Either we accept what Macarthur says is true as truth or we must fall into the camp that says Jesus' words were not true. This is not the case. Are we to suppose that by his standards that Jesus was really teaching people that unless they clean up their character that these men would not be saved? Of course Jesus uses the law to inform men and women of their sins and of their need of Him. But this does not mean that every time a command is given that it means we can actually do what is found in the command. Macarthur argues like an Arminian here and does not properly distinguish the law from the Gospel.
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
What the lordship issue is about
The lordship issue if you have not read any articles from Mark McCulley or David Bishop is the idea that once a sinner believes in Christ as saviour he must then accept Him as Lord of his life. He does this by walking in obedience and repenting from sin. A person who only believes in Christ as Savior but not as Lord i.e. not walking in obedience is not a true believer. For a true believer is one who will make it his endeavor to repent from every sin. Repentance is not just a change of mind for them but is also repenting from works of sin i.e. behavior. In other words if you do not actually change your conduct then you have not really repented.
Of course they will probably not say you repent of every sin right away but if your not continually growing in holiness then your salvation is in question. Have you really believed the gospel? Believe is not just the act of the mind that accepts as true the gospel propositions but also includes the element of trust. What this last element is really is not clear.
The totality of the lordship issue is that the lordshiper will stress a change life over and above a change mind. They stress works rather than belief. What they say is that your assurance is grounded in doing not in knowing.
With that said the Bible Really Stresses The Opposite. It stresses what is to be believed. For by faith one does good works.
If you read Gordon H. Clark you see his stress is on what a person knows rather than what he does. The older reformers do the same. Not all of course. But the majority.
If you want to say it this way the issue is an existential issue. The lordship salvation guys are existentialist. If you are not doing then it is not really real.
1 corinthians 1-4 is about our epistemology.
Of course they will probably not say you repent of every sin right away but if your not continually growing in holiness then your salvation is in question. Have you really believed the gospel? Believe is not just the act of the mind that accepts as true the gospel propositions but also includes the element of trust. What this last element is really is not clear.
The totality of the lordship issue is that the lordshiper will stress a change life over and above a change mind. They stress works rather than belief. What they say is that your assurance is grounded in doing not in knowing.
With that said the Bible Really Stresses The Opposite. It stresses what is to be believed. For by faith one does good works.
If you read Gordon H. Clark you see his stress is on what a person knows rather than what he does. The older reformers do the same. Not all of course. But the majority.
If you want to say it this way the issue is an existential issue. The lordship salvation guys are existentialist. If you are not doing then it is not really real.
1 corinthians 1-4 is about our epistemology.
Monday, July 6, 2015
1 Corinthians 8:11
"A much better attempt is to examine the verb apollumi and determine whether in every case it means destruction in hell. We have seen that it often does, but let us look at some of the other ninety-two instances. In Matthew 10:42 and Luke 15:4, 8, 9, 24, 32 and 33, it means 'lose': to lose a coin, to lose a son. Luke 15:17 refers to perishing of hunger. Compare Matthew 5:29, 30; 9:17; John 6:12; 2 John 8; and others.
The conclusion is that since the lost coin was later found, there is no linguistic reason to suppose that apollumi has to mean final, irretrievable destruction in hell. Therefore, only those who want to invent a contradiction in the Bible will so understand it." - Gordon H. Clark, 1 Corinthians
The conclusion is that since the lost coin was later found, there is no linguistic reason to suppose that apollumi has to mean final, irretrievable destruction in hell. Therefore, only those who want to invent a contradiction in the Bible will so understand it." - Gordon H. Clark, 1 Corinthians
We can know God because we are made with the capacity to reason
To the pragmatist skepticism of modern religious world, therefore, the Bible is sharply opposed; against the passionate anti - intellectualism of a large part of modern Church it maintains the primacy of the intellect; it teaches plainly that God has given to man a faculty of reason which is capable of apprehending truth, even truth about God.
That does not mean that we finite creatures can find out God by our own searching; but it does mean that God has made us capable of receiving the information which He chooses to give. I cannot evolve an account of China of my own inner consciousness, but I am perfectly capable of understanding the account which comes to me from travellers who have been there themselves. So our reasoning is certainly insufficient to tell us about God unless He reveals Himself; but it is capable (or would be capable if it were not clouded by sin) of receiving revelation when once it is given. - J. Gresham Machen, What Is Faith?
That does not mean that we finite creatures can find out God by our own searching; but it does mean that God has made us capable of receiving the information which He chooses to give. I cannot evolve an account of China of my own inner consciousness, but I am perfectly capable of understanding the account which comes to me from travellers who have been there themselves. So our reasoning is certainly insufficient to tell us about God unless He reveals Himself; but it is capable (or would be capable if it were not clouded by sin) of receiving revelation when once it is given. - J. Gresham Machen, What Is Faith?
Faith in a person includes knowledge of the person
"But - and here we come to the point which we think ought to be emphasized above all others just at the present day - it is impossible to have faith in a person without having knowledge of the person; far from being contrasted with knowledge, faith is founded upon knowledge." - J. Gresham Machen, What is Faith?
Later he says:
"It is impossible to have faith in a person without having knowledge of the person; faith is always based upon knowledge." - J. Gresham Machen, What is Faith?
Later he says:
"It is impossible to have faith in a person without having knowledge of the person; faith is always based upon knowledge." - J. Gresham Machen, What is Faith?
Obligated to love God with our minds
A Christian is obligated to love God with all his mind, and thus these replies are an expression of love. Love is not an emotion; yet, contrary to some commonly held opinions, this does not prevent such expression from being vigorous. Love is a volition, and volition can be vigorous, too. At the same time, the vigor is directed toward the material and argument. To the critics themselves I am happy to direct thanks and esteem. - Gordon H. Clark, Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark
No one deliberately encourage sinning
If an ethical theory without directions for daily conduct is at best an incomplete theory, further emphasis on Scriptural injunctions are to the point in contrast with tendencies now and then apparent in Christian Circles To belittle ethical precepts as legalistic and sub-christian. The reverse of the same coin is the disrepute into which jesuitical casuistry has so justly fallen. It is probably unnecessary here to undertake a refutation of that extreme for of antinomianism, which tells us to sin that grace may abound. However lax some Christians may be, and however easily they may succumb to temptation, there seems to be no large body of professing believers who deliberately encourage sin. - Gordon H. Clark, Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark
What right does the government have?
Now the problem that political theory must solve was expressed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in as distinct terms as anyone could wish. At the beginning of the Social Contract he says, 'Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains . . . . How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer.'
The chains are still upon us. Although for a century after the French and American Revolutions the chains of government were relaxed, the nations are now reverting to the ways of Louis XIV. The executive power is eclipsing the legislative branch of government and regulations never enacted by Congress, plus the violence and power of the labor unions, have left little liberty to the owners of business. And not only the owners of business; this very month of October 1965, the President and those Members of Congress subservient to labor are making a great effort to extinguish through all the United States the right to work without submitting to extortion. Liberals make a great profession of civil rights, but they want to abolish the right to work and make a job a privilege to be granted by an autocratic union. similarly, when men are put out of work by direct government competition, they begin to ask what right a government has to do this. The broader underlying question is, What right does government have? It makes neither any theoretical difference, nor any practical difference, whether the government is an absolute monarchy or operates in the form of an elected officialdom. In both cases some people are exerting coercion on others. - Gordon H. Clark, Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark
The chains are still upon us. Although for a century after the French and American Revolutions the chains of government were relaxed, the nations are now reverting to the ways of Louis XIV. The executive power is eclipsing the legislative branch of government and regulations never enacted by Congress, plus the violence and power of the labor unions, have left little liberty to the owners of business. And not only the owners of business; this very month of October 1965, the President and those Members of Congress subservient to labor are making a great effort to extinguish through all the United States the right to work without submitting to extortion. Liberals make a great profession of civil rights, but they want to abolish the right to work and make a job a privilege to be granted by an autocratic union. similarly, when men are put out of work by direct government competition, they begin to ask what right a government has to do this. The broader underlying question is, What right does government have? It makes neither any theoretical difference, nor any practical difference, whether the government is an absolute monarchy or operates in the form of an elected officialdom. In both cases some people are exerting coercion on others. - Gordon H. Clark, Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)