“Government in every area is God’s order, law, and authority asserted over His creation. In the world of men, God’s government, whether in church, state, school, business, or family, is the extension of God’s moral order over a fallen world, an assertion, to use an old Calvinist battle-cry, of ‘The Crown Rights of King Jesus.’ To reduce government, whether in the family, the state, or elsewhere, to force is to destroy government. Modern government, having forsaken God’s law, is essentially government by force, and its force is a killing, dissecting force, a government by autopsy.
Category Archives: Biblical Worldview
The Spending Habits of Congressman Boccieri
I read with great interest Congressman Boccieri’s explanation for his support for the “Cap and Trade Bill†in the July 8 Ashland Times-Gazette. Congressman Boccieri is a first-term Democratic Representative for the 16th Congressional District which covers Canton, Wooster and Ashland.  It is very disappointing that he supported this bill against the expressed wishes of many of us living in his congressional district. I know many who wrote him requesting a “No†vote on this bill. This bill is not in the best interests of the people living in North Central Ohio. It will cause jobs to continue to leave Ohio. Even though this bill was generally supported by the Democratic Party, it was voted against by many Democratic congressmen from Midwestern industrial states. They understood something that Congressman Boccieri did not: the potential demoralizing effects of this bill on our region. This is why many of us thought Representative Boccieri would also join the vote against this bill. It passed because of overwhelming support of congressmen in the Sunbelt states and a minority of Midwestern congressmen who betrayed their constituents. It should be noted that Congressman Boccieri publicly stated (as reported in the Canton Repository) in April that he would not support this bill. This makes his change of mind a great disappointment and seems quite erratic.
It appears like Boccieri was bought off at the last minute by the availability of $30 billion loan fund for businesses. What small businesses can currently afford another loan? He argues this bill will not increase taxes, but it will indirectly raise taxes through increasing carbon emission costs and utility costs affecting all businesses that will necessarily pass the costs on to customers and raise everyone’s utility rates. In his comments in the Times-Gazette article Representative Boccieri maintained that he wanted one thing changed in the Senate version: the removal of a provision calling for a national building code that would place strict environmental requirements on homes prior to their sale. This will cause all of you to make certain your home is environmentally suitable prior to your selling it. It is hypocritical to say one opposes this expensive overwhelming section of the bill and want the Senate to adjust it, yet to vote for it in Congress. If he feels so strongly about this part of the bill he should have taken a concerted stand of conscience and voted against the entirety of the bill unless the change was made. When one votes for the entirety of a bill, one supports the bill. This will really stimulate the housing market by raising the costs to sell and buy homes (sarcasm). Has Representative Boccieri become a Pelosi puppet?
It is likely this bill will cause more manufacturing jobs to leave Ohio and the United States, increase costs for all Americans, boost utility rates, weaken the housing market, and will not improve the environment or decrease global warming , especially since emerging economic nations like China and India have chosen not to participate in emissions reduction. Forty-four Democratic Congressmen voted against this bill; Congressman Boccieri should have made it forty-five.
This bill was promoted as a partial solution to global warming and our dependence on foreign oil. Environmental issues should be a concern for all of us. The evidence for global warming is mixed; I’ve read scientific reports on both sides of the issue and believe it has become too politicized for most to really know the truth. It is, however, important to be good stewards and personally leave our environment in better shape than we found it for future generations, but these are personal moral responsibilities. But if Congressman Boccieri supports global warming issues so strongly we need an investigation into his own lifestyle, including what make of automobile he drives and what his utility bills are. Is he an environmentally good example for us all to follow? A good leader with strong convictions will consistently live out his views and start with himself prior to putting his values on others. I believe in personal stewardship of the environment and want to do all that I can to make the environment better as a good use of what God has graciously given me and to leave my personal environment better off than I found it for my children and grandchildren. There certainly must be a basic right to clean water and clean air. This is why I’ve had solar panels for a decade (for which I could receive no tax exemptions during the Clinton era) and had an efficient log home built two decades ago. We should understand the moral obligation for a safe livable environment for our children but it should be done incrementally with major tax cuts for environmentally friendly purchases to stimulate the economy and improve the environment not by taxing us for environmental usages.
Congressman Boccieri also voted for the 800 billion stimulus bill which has not yet stimulated the economy (and doubtfully ever will) as the unemployment rates continue to climb. This so-called stimulus is being used to plug financial holes in State budgets, not create the long-lasting solid jobs needed. This bill was also rushed through so it could bring immediate results which have not occurred and there has been a failure to provide adequate oversight to the spending. Did Congressman Boccieri “misread†the economy as Vice-President Biden has recently recognized? I think the spending philosophy of most of us in this part of Ohio runs contrary to the position and voting record of Mr. Boccieri. This impetuous spending will lead to disaster. Congressman Boccieri, SLOW DOWN, YOU’RE SPENDING TOO FAST!
Dr. Mark Hamilton is an Associate Professor of Philosophy, Ashland University and Chairman of the Institute for Principled Policy
From A Facebook Thread on the Ohio Gambling Crisis
Published by permission of Mark Stevenson
It has been so long since I have posted something here, but Ohio is at a critical juncture. For years, we have fought efforts to legalize gambling. It appears as if today we may finally fail. Governor Strickland, who has previously held a position against gambling, has now bent to the gambling interests. In fact, the governor has been working on a state budgetary crisis and has been working with the legislature to balance the budget. Well known fact: governor wants to be re-elected in 2010 and does not want to tax citizens. Therefore, this is his only answer for state revenue to increase, allow slot machines in for the very first time!
My friends, if you are an Ohioan, please call your state senator and tell him or her today to vote NO on the state budget, since it allows a provision for the governor to write an Executive Order to allow slots into Ohio. In fact, tell both your state senator and House Member to vote NO. Some will listen!
I already spoke with my state senator’s office and the response was that the senator felt like he had no choice other than to let the governor have his way. I told him that was bologna and the senator absolutely has a choice to go against the governor. I don’t care what agencies cease to get funding for the day! Stand for principle, or be a big coward and incur the wrath of the conservatives in Ohio. Have some guts and stand like a man, for crying out loud! Pulezzze!!!!
Below is an alert that was sent out on Sunday. Pay attention as this unfolds!
Pastor Mark
Life Comes At You Fast!!!
Legislative Alert – Vote Expected Monday
To all:
Governor Strickland is expected to sign an executive order on Monday (today) to authorize the state lottery to use casino style slot machines (VLT’s) at Ohio’s racetrack locations – a casino scheme previously rejected by Ohio voters. He has convinced the Democratic leadership in the House and the Republican leadership in the Senate to cooperate by changing state laws on gambling in the budget bill.
Elected legislators in BOTH the Ohio House and Ohio Senate need to hear from their constituents by this morning.
Background:
The Ohio Constitution was am ended on May 8, 1973 to permissively grant the Ohio General Assembly the authority to authorize a state agency to conduct lotteries and award lottery prizes based on a common understanding of the lottery game as one which utilizes the sale of tickets as the means of play.
Ohio citizens in 1973 did not amend the Ohio Constitution to give a state agency OR any governor the power to authorize casinos.
Facts:
* Casino games have been rejected by Ohio voters four times since the Lottery’s inception, including twice in the past three years.
* Putting VLT’s at Ohio’s existing racetracks was rejected by voters in 82 out of 88 counties.
* Less that one year ago almost 3.4 million Ohioans refused to accept an expansion of gambling.
* In the counties which host 5 of the 7 racetracks, voters flatly rejected the placement of video lottery terminals at these facilities near their homes and neighborhoods.
* Governor Strickland ESTIMATES that VLT revenues will generate $933 million, but Ohioans would have to LOSE more than twice that amount for the state to get its share. This means an estimated $2 BILLION would be sucked out of the consumer economy. (Once the money is lost in a slot machine, you can’t get it back to spend it on clothing, food, appliances, cars, or other consumer products. Ohio’s economy cannot afford it in the middle of this recession!)
Other points to consider:
* To override the vote of the people shows a significant disrespect for the “consent of the governed†which is foundational to our system of government.
* To balance a multibillion dollar budget on what Ohioans would choose to lose at a slot machine is extremely irresponsible.
Action:
Please contact your state senator and state representative IMMEDIATELY (today). Ask him/her to vote NO on the budget. Any support of this budget will be considered a support for bringing in casinos which have specifically been rejected by the majority of Ohio voters.
The final vote on the budget could take place by Monday afternoon.
Find your legislator at http://www.principledpolicy.com/?page_id=4
Please CALL today (leave a voicemail; if voicemail is full – call back in the morning). Emails will not be as effective this time.
Please take the time to read the blog on the “rule of law” at http://www.facebook.com/l/;www.aproundtable.org
Respectfully submitted,
Melanie Elsey
Empathy and Sotomayer
Today the Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Sotomayer begin. It is my hope these hearings will be closely watched by the American public and that people (both Senators and citizens) will make their own evaluations of her suitability based on her legal skills, her judgment, her character, and their independent assessments rather than filtered through the predisposed media or their personal political preferences.
A few months ago President Obama expressed his desire for a Supreme Court justice with empathy. We first discovered his value of empathy as a virtue when as a senator he voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts by explaining that Roberts lacked empathy. Empathy is to suffer with or feeling the same feelings that the person who is suffering is feeling. It is to feel and appreciate what it is like to be in the other person’s shoes. It is not just an understanding of what they are feeling but feeling what they are feeling. Empatheia means in feeling, or physical affection, passion, partiality. It blurs the line between self and others. It’s feeling the emotional states of others or to be in tune with the other. Some research suggests that people are more able and willing to empathize with those most similar to themselves. It increases with similarities in culture and living conditions. We are more likely to empathize with those with whom we interact more frequently (Levenson and Reuf 1997 and Hoffman 2000: 62).  The empathizer’s own emotional background may affect or distort what emotions they perceive in others.
Empathy became popularized through the psychological efforts of the humanist psychologist Carl Rogers who taught that psychological healing often occurs in the inner being of the client through the emotional caring bond created by the empathic relationship with the counselor. This concept has been elevated in our culture to be a treasured virtue second only to tolerance in popularity. I recently read a fund-raising letter from a former student now in campus ministry who boasted of the desire to train students in empathy.
But empathy is not a virtue. Neither is it a vice. It is a feeling and virtues are not feelings. Virtues are ingrained character traits created by actions. They are objective while feelings are subjective. A virtuous person acts virtuously; she does not feel virtuous feelings. Virtues are things like wisdom, courage, temperance, charity, or compassion. These things are always acted out. To be courageous one must do courageous actions. This should be done regardless of the feelings one is experiencing. Love is a virtue and must be acted out. To reduce love to a mere feeling is to remove it from the realm of virtue. Justice is a virtue of action which must be done regardless of how one feels. One might feel empathy for a person being sentenced for a crime, but that feeling should not influence justice being done. A person might feel empathy for a child molester who was molested himself as a child but he should still be punished and be faced with impartial justice applying the rule of law.
Historically justice has best been understood as applying the law fairly or practicing the virtue of impartiality. That’s what it means to portray justice as blind. The law must be interpreted objectively not through subjective feelings. This is what we need in a judge; this is what we need in a Supreme Court Justice. Will Sotomayor practice impartiality? Will she be swayed by empathy? If so, this disqualifies her from the role of Supreme Court Justice.
Judge Sotomayor’s personal story is compelling and will be at the center of the hearings. But to let story become the basis of legal suitability is a postmodern phenomenon and threatens the idea of the rule of law and the value of impartiality.
Dr. Mark Hamilton is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ashland University and Board Chairman of the Institute for Principled Policy.
Hamilton’s Curse–Hamiltonian Hegemony
Nationalized banking, protectionist trade policy, corporate welfare–is this the definition of the current state of affairs (or those soon to come) in America? It likely will be. It is the definition of a mercantilist system of governance, and it is one that Alexander Hamilton advocated for during the period of the Constitutional convention. Those three legs were (and still are) the base of the stool of Federalist big-government nationalism.
It was, however, not the way government actually operated up until the latter part of the 19th century. Jeffersonian ideals of limited, divided sovereignty still held a pulse until that time, but the times, as the song goes, were a’changing. It took a “crisis” in order to knock the supports out from under the republican form of government.
The crisis, the War between the States, allowed the administration of Abraham Lincoln, the “greatest disciple” of Hamilton according to DiLorenzo, unprecedented opportunity to radically shift the country toward a truly mercantilist position. The method of the manipulation took the form of Congressional acts supported by Lincoln after the point in the conflict when southern Democrat members of Congress had exited.
In order to revive the national banking system, the Legal Tender acts of 1862 were put into place, and a paper money system (greenbacks) was locked into place with the National Currency Acts of 1863-64. The interface between government interest and the banking industry was noted by the New York Times as having “crystallized a centralization of power, such as Hamilton might have eulogized as magnificent” (quote from page 129 of the book).
DiLorenzo goes into a long account of Lincoln’s tariff policy, showing that protectionism and its cousin autarky (economic isolationism) were very welcome in the “house that Lincoln built”. Ohio’s own Clement Vallandigham was willing to speak out against this radical consolidation of power in the hands of the national government, but was deported by the administration for his troubles.
The third leg of the stool, the establishment and nurturing of corporate welfare, took the form of: railroad subsidies; land grants in order to give railroad owners free access to construct; the creation of powerful lobbies; and eventually bribes in order to keep the whole profit-taking scheme going (the Credit Mobilier scandal).
Now, such welfare takes the forms of: subsidies through various bureaucracies (think farm subsidies); favored corporation status (think FDA and other governmental barriers to competition in various markets); the creation of powerful lobbies; and “stimulus” or “TARP” acts to give taxpayer dollars directly to non-competitive private corporations that are “too big to fail” according to the national government.
Then, as now, the public reaction to such scandals as Credit Mobilier and AIG consists of a demand for more governmental control of business, which happened to be the problem in the first place. Not that this is something that the corporations are really trying to avoid. In fact, the public is being hustled by very crafty operators all around. The public naivete is best summed up by DiLorenzo while quoting Butler Shaffer on page 141 “‘government regulation has generally served to further the very economic interests being regulated’ and that the advantages businesses sought were those ‘denied them in the marketplace.'”
From Lincoln through Obama, the mercantilist system advocated and advanced by Alexander Hamilton has grown steadily along with the growth of governmental power and control over all aspects of American life.
It’s just another part of the “curse”.
Institute For Principled Policy Chair on “The State of Ohio” This Week
Institute For Principled Policy Chairman Dr. Mark Hamilton will appear on this weeks “The State of Ohio” program. The program appears on PBS stations throughout Ohio.
The topic of the program is on the role of clergy in speaking on public policy. Taking an opposite position from Mark’s is Pastor Tim Ahrens of First Church in Columbus Ohio. Mark is the Teaching Elder at Providence Church in Mifflin Twp. (near Ashland). He is also a Professor of Philosophy at Ashland University.
Here is the air and station schedule of “The State of Ohio:”
Fridays
5:30 PM Columbus WOSU-TV34 and Portsmouth WPBO-TV42
7:30 PM Cleveland WVIZ-TV25
10:00 PM Cambridge WOUC-TV44 and
Athens WOUB-TV20
10:30 PM Toledo WGTE-TV30
Saturdays
5:30 AM Akron WEAO-TV49 and Alliance WNEO-TV45
Sundays
6:30AM Cincinnati WCET-TV48
7:00 AM Dayton WPTD-TV16
10:30 AM Oxford WPTO-TV14
12:00 Noon Bowling Green WBGU-TV27
12:00 Noon Cleveland WVIZ-TV25
12:30 PM Cambridge WOUC-TV44 and
Athens WOUB-TV20
CABLECAST on The Ohio Channel
Mondays 10AM, 6PM & 2AM
The Ohio Channel, available on:
Akron – Time Warner Channel 538
Athens – Time Warner Channel 0
Cincinnati – Anderson Union Channel 08, Cable Channel 22 Channel 23,
Media Bridges Channel 15, Norwood Community TV Channel 15,
Waycross Community Media Channel 4, Time Warner Channel 22
Clermont – Time Warner Channel 22
Cleveland – Cox Channel 201, Time Warner Channel 181
Columbus – Time Warner Channel 96 and Digital 34.2, Insight Channel 190,
WOW Channel 150
Dayton – Time Warner Channels 715 & 720
Toledo – Buckeye Cable System Channels 199
Ohio Public Television broadcast channels are also available on local cable channels.
Please let us know what you thought of what Dr. Hamilton had to say.
Your Local Library – Cornerstone of the Community?
“The library decades from now will look different, no question. But it will still be that cornerstone of the community.”
So says Pat Losinski, director of the Columbus Metropolitan Library, in the Columbus Dispatch (5/17/09). The article was about the brave new world of central Ohio libraries as they desire to become urban trendsetters as they “get their groove on” by embracing the latest electronic toys, rather than being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. Specifically, these toys are electronic readers, such as Amazon’s Kindle and Playaways (several hundred of which were recently purchased by the Westerville Library). These electronic readers appeal to a younger demographic who would much prefer to be passively read to, rather than being forced to expend mentally energy on reading comprehension. State librarian Jo Budler rallies behind the exponential dumbing down of our society by proclaiming that taxpayers are “getting more for our money, not less”. Why, this is no less than a “digital arms race” in which we must plow ahead full steam ahead, according to the Delaware County Library director! In fact, Delaware County voters just passed a ten-year property tax on themselves to build another library branch, and of course beef up their arsenal of Playaways – without which civilization evidently cannot advance.
And pray tell, what shining example is used for these technological wonders that will lead our “cow towns and cornfields” out of drudgery of obsolete paper books? What bastion of truth is hoisted up as the beacon of the new enlightenment emanating from the cornerstone of our community?  What literary classic will herald the new Information Age – James Fenimore Cooper or the Federalist Papers or perhaps the Annals of the World?  Sorry, not trendy enough. Instead the Dispatch article features a picture of Linda Uhler of the Westerville Library, with a big Gidget smile and a proud sparkle in her eye, holding up the latest addition to the Westerville Public Radio Shack – yes, it’s Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code!
Finally! We can all breathe a sigh of relief, as society cannot move forward without numerous copies this electronic book widely available for public listening. The Da Vinci Code of course has been a worldwide phenomenon, as this fast-paced thriller expertly dices apart thousands of years of accepted Christian theology by calling Jesus Christ a liar and venerating Mary Magdeline to goddess worship. We can all rest easy as our communities are wisely using our tax dollars to spread critical knowledge, advance the arts, and benefit society.
Meanwhile, dozens of Ohio libraries - those precious community cornerstones – routinely ban the use of public facilities for “religious activity”. This would include any meeting where prayer, singing, or other religious elements are practiced.
Of course, we can’t mix “state and religion” together. Unless of course you’re using taxpayer dollars to order electronic readers which trash the religion on which our nation was founded.    Before the accusations fly about those wacky fundamentalist Christians screaming for censorship – time out, not the point.  But let’s stop the nonsense that public libraries that propagate relativistic truth while denying religious meetings are the “cornerstones of our community”. After all, the word “cornerstone” in this context would be defined as the essential and in fact the indispensable foundation upon which to build a community. Such hyperbole may stroke the egos of those in the library profession or help pass tax levies, but communities could certainly function without taxpayer-financed libraries and their hip electronic toys.
Maybe it’s time to at least question the wisdom of attaching Da Vinci Code electronic readers to our property taxes. At most, maybe we should conjure up debate about whether or not running libraries is a legitimate function of civil government in the first place.  Could these institutions not be nonprofit entities, financed by donations from the community and grants from businesses?    That way the community could decide with its dollars whether or not to have the Satanic Bible on audio.
Camp American- Class Samples and a Special Offer!
It will come as no shock that the Institute For Principled Policy is involved in biblical worldview education for young men and women. You only need to look at our Divisions and About Us pages to see that education in biblical worldview is one of our main functions.
In keeping with our commitment to solid biblical worldview education the Institute partners with groups whose specialty is biblical worldview training on issues like government, economics, critical thinking skills, history, etc.
Every year the Institute partners with Camp American, a non-partisan, non-denominational Christian worldview and recreation summer camp which specializes in the Institute’s target areas. Several of Camp American’s teachers over the last few years have been members of the Institute For Principled Policy’s board.
And we’re doing it again this year. From June 14-20, 2009 Camp American is being held at Pokagon State Park in Angola IN. Among the teachers from the Institute For Principled Policy will be Executive Director Barry Sheets and Vice-chairman Chuck Michaelis, who is also Executive Director of Camp American. Other teachers include Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center, Pastor David Whitney head instructor of the Institute On The Constitution, Mark Harrington of the midwest office of the Center For Bio-ethical Reform, Dr. Charles Rice Professor Emeritus of Notre Dame Law School and Charlie Smith, a political consultant from Pennsylvania.
You might be asking what Camp American’s classes are like. Here are some short excerpts ofclasses taught last year at Camp American
First, a class on the religuious and philosophical foundations of the Founders taught by Institute Executive Director Barry Sheets
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egg2SfJmdoo[/youtube]
Next is a class taught by Institute Vice-chairman Chuck Michaelis on the Electoral College
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh97UZa8SNQ[/youtube]
Third is a class taught by Pastor David Whitney of the Institute On The Constitution on the rights and responsibilities of a fully informed jury
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEmVsy7g4E0[/youtube]
Last (but definitely not least) is a class on property rights, globalism and globa warming taught by Dr. Michael Coffman CEO of Environmental Perspectives, Inc.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgmmPFOjdEg[/youtube]
If you want to attend there’s a special offer for our blog readers. You can sign up for Camp American on their online store and you can use a special coupon designed for our readers that you can use to get a $50 discount at checkout. The coupon is IPP. Don’t wait. Spaces will fill up.
Prayer: The New Common Denominator?
Do you pray? Have you thought about prayer? Christians pray. Muslims pray. Hindus pray. Buddhists pray. Just about everyone prays.
And this, says Mark Siljander in his book, A Deadly Misunderstanding— is something that can unite people from different faiths.
Especially, he says if they can unite around the person of Jesus. The Qur’an speaks highly of Jesus, in many ways similarly to the Gospels. All the great religions have a place for Jesus — or Isa, as He is known in the Qur’an.
So Mr Siljander has been wandering around the world as an ambassador for world peace trying to find ways to bring warring people together. And this is his solution.
Now, if prayer and Jesus are to be linked together, a proposition I think highly worthy, then I wonder if Mr. Siljander has in mind this prayer:
Our Father, who art in heaven Hallowed by they name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done On earth, as it is in heaven.
I can’t help but wonder if this is the kind of prayer these men of different faiths had when they came together. The very idea of a God who exists — in heaven — is a problem for many religions, and, of course, the idea of doing His will on earth, as it is in heaven raises another range of issues many people would rather not talk about.
First and foremost, what is God’s will? How do we know what it is? Is it subjective or objective? Is it merely a matter of the inward leading of the . . . . I was about to say Holy Spirit, but that seems disallowed in the dialogue. Are the characteristics of the Three Persons of the Trinity merely attributes of a one-Person God? How can an “attribute” speak to an individual inwardly? This is a question I would like to see Mr. Siljander answer.
Or, on the other hand, is God’s will a matter of written authority? But now we’re back to the perplexing question of last week. Should it be Torah, New Testament or Qur’an that takes the top spot?
Keep thinking. We’re not done, yet.
Have a great week.
Ian Hodge, Ph.D.
P.S. If you like what you read here, forward this essay to your friends. For a FREE subscription, go to www.biblicallandmarks.com and select the Subscribe button.
Are Christians, Jews and Muslims all of the one Faith?
This perplexing question is answered in a new book by former Michigan Congressman, Mark Siljander. It’s an interesting proposition.I had the fortune to meet Mr. Siljander in 1991, when he attempted a new run at Congress from the state of Virginia. He was not successful. But he has been successful in the diplomatic front in some interesting ways.
Now, in a book entitled  A Deadly Misunderstanding: A Congressman’s Quest to Bridge the Muslim-Christian Divide, Siljander tells us of his own theological journey. He started with the idea that Islam was the antithesis to Christianity, but has ended with the idea that the Muslim’s Allah is the same as the Christian’s Jehovah, and it is merely that our understanding of God is different, but we’re all referring to the same Person.
For example, Siljander argues that the Muslims attribute to Allah the things that Christians attribute to the Trinity. He raises the Eastern Orthodox rejection of the Trinity, attempting to argue that in the end it may not really matter whether or not we call the Persons of the Trinity simply “attributes”. It is apparently merely a matter of semantics. He says,
All three holy books (Torah, New Testament, and Qur’an) describe these three same entities or attributes as Deity — God, Holy Spirit, and Messiah. I have asked distinguished clerics, both Muslim and Christian, if they could explain to me the interaction of these three deified attributes, and after much bantering back and forth, in the end they have all given me the exact same answer: “Mark, it’s a mystery.” So what are we arguing about?
This is an interesting proposition. One that entertains the mind in a number of ways. All three books are holy?
You can see in this statement the very question that started me on these series of e-mails 59 weeks ago. What is your rock-bottom, starting place in theology in terms of the written Word? This is what determines what the holy books really should be. Now, Siljander raises the Qur’an to the same level as the Torah and New Testament.
Here’s the challenge: Where’s the starting point in God’s revelation? Torah, New Testament, or Qur’an. Your answer will reveal your basic presupposition about God’s revelation and how we should be seeking that revelation today.
So it seems that the question Siljander has come to is this:Â Why can’t the Qur’an have at least equal value with the Torah and the New Testament?
On the other hand, I’ve simply been asking how did the New Testament get equal authority to the Torah. Now I’ll have to expand this: How does the Qur’an get equal authority with the Torah? Or, in the case of the Muslims, how did the Qur’an get raised above the Torah?
That ought to get your mind working overtime. Next week, I’ll add some other questions Mr. Siljander does not appear to ask. Maybe there’s a reason.
Until then, God bless you in your efforts for His Kingdom.
Ian Hodge, Ph.D.
P.S. If you like what you read here, forward this essay to your friends. For a FREE subscription, go to www.biblicallandmarks.com and select the Subscribe button