Citizens of an Eternal Kingdom

Just as a note, this rather dated. I wrote it back in November after the election but I feel that in the wake of economic decline, which was met with a policy that I believe is disasterous, this entry is still relevant.


As another election has come and gone it is cheerful to remember that as Christians we citizens, not in the kingdom of this world, but of the next. Ours is an imperishable glory that no election or revolution can steal away. It is woeful for me to think of those who are citizens only of this world and put their hopes in the hands of imperfect men. But as Christians our hope is in God, who is eternal perfection and will never disappoint us. The hope of the secularist is set upon the rough seas of this world and is tossed about by the its waves and winds. If men, whom they have so heavily invested in, fall so does his hope. But Christ is sure and his victory is ever-lasting and cannot be stolen away by the votes of fools. God will never disappoint us. Now, this does not mean that Christians should forsake this world and withdraw from it. Rather we should always work for good in this world so that the glory of God may be made known to those who reject Him. The Kingdom of Heaven is not something of the future but exists in the present and we should work to be make it known for the glory of its king. Let the world known that in this kingdom is love, mercy, charity, fellowship, hope, faith, kindness and knowledge. Let every Christian vote his conscience so that the world may know where he stands. Always work for the better of this world as even Christ prayed for those who crucified for him. The mercy and love of God knows no bounds and neither should those of His kingdom.

On Nihilism

My fears that naturalism was in fact true during my senior year in high school and freshman year of college produced in me the feelings of nausea that I associated with the nihilism which was the logical conclusion of naturalism. In the darkness of winter I constantly felt the meaninglessness of life that naturalism seemed to impress upon me. The barrenness of the Western Pennsylvanian winter with the trees stripped of their leaves, appearing dead, and the biting cold seemed symbolic to me of the meaningless world without God. This emptiness more than anything constituted my horror that came from the fear that God might not exist.

These feelings were especially immanent when I went ice skating with my friends once. As I skated around the indoor rink I felt a sickness and emptiness in my stomachas I contemplated the vast inanity of the naturalistic universe. It was like the walls and ceiling of the rink at been torn away and the blackemptiness of space, devoid of any transcendent God, was appearing visibly to me. It filled me with such dread and horror that I longed to escape from its hollowness but I could not. There was no escape from the question of God's existence and the nihilism that would resultif his existence proved lacking. The ultimate conclusion of naturalism is that by chance our universe came into existence without a cause, and by something of trillion trillionths of a chance it proved suitable for life. By that same amount our galaxy came into existence and
our solar system formed, by sheer luck, in a manner that provided for the evolution of creatures such as ourselves. Then by a billion billionths of a chance the right chemicals for life formed and, following a series of accidental mutations men came into existence. We are cosmic accidents lacking in value or meaning. We are no different than a rock or tree other than millions of years of evolution. We live, reproduce, and then are completely annihilated at death. We may hope to influence human society for the better, if "better" has any meaning at all, or do deeds that are worthy of remembrance, but such undertakings are foolhardy. What memories does time not erode completely? As for society, the human species will at some point become extinct, either by destroying itself in war or at that time when universe proves no longer capable of sustaining life. Then all life and its achievements will descend into oblivion as energy becomes evenly distributed throughout the void and there, in the cold vastness of impersonal space no memory will exist of man or his achievements.This absurd universe will have the last laugh as man, who so vainly tried to defy his meaninglessness by building civilization and attributing purpose to his life, becomes utterly extinct. The universe becomes utterly dark and lifeless, with n o remembrance of the past or hope or the future. No mind to perceive or recollect thoughts. In the end there is abysmal nothingness for all eternity.

It was this vanity and hopelessness that confronted me that night but fortunately the sun again dawned on this dark night and my faith restored. But it vividlyimpressed on me the utter absurdity of a life without God.

From St. Augustine, A Literal Interpretation of Genesis (5th century AD).

Contrary to popular held belief, arguments about a literal interpretation of Genesis and the meaning of the days that are mentioned in the first chapter existed 1400 years before 19th c. advances in geology and biology. St. Augustine personally believed that the days served a literary function that God created everything all at once. St. Jerome (also 5th century)noted that the early chapters of Genesis resembled folk stories. The following excerpt ought to give people pause when they claim that those who do not have a literal interpretation of certain parts of Scripture are unbiblical.

It is also frequently asked what our belief must be about the form and
shape of heaven according to Sacred Scripture. Many scholars engage in
lengthy discussions on these matters, but the sacred writers with their
deeper wisdom have omitted them. Such subjects are of no profit for those
who seek beatitude, and, what is worse, they take up precious time that
ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial. What concern is it of mine
whether heaven is like a sphere and the earth is enclosed by it and suspended
in the middle of the universe, or whether heaven like a disk above the
earth covers it over on one side?…The Spirit of God, who spoke through them
[sacred writers], did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no
avail for their salvation.

Justification: Part II - Justification by Faith Alone (Sola Fide)

In the last section it was reasoned that if God were to grant salvation to mankind, the only way he could do it, given his nature, was to send his Son to earth so that he could become a man. On earth he would suffer and die, taking on the sins of the whole world, so that it made satisfaction for man’s affront to God, and by doing so he acquired merit which he gives freely to his people so that they may be redeemed. We have faith that God has done this through what is written in the Scripture concerning the person of Jesus Christ. However, it still remains to be seen how it is that this gift of redemption is given to man that he may be saved from his sinful nature and transformed to the likeness of Christ.

All orthodox Christians (which include Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox) have affirmed that that this gift is given freely by God and, as noticed in the last section, none of man’s works can merit it. Instead, our justification before God comes through our faith. Faith does not simply mean that we believe in Christ although belief in God and His Son is part of this. Faith is us trusting in Christ as our savior and by doing so surrendering ourselves to Him. This is because of when he trust Christ we no longer trust in ourselves and our works but lean entirely upon Christ and what he has achieved on our behalf.

However, while all orthodox Christians have understood that justification comes by faith there has been discussion among the churches as to when a person is justified and what justification means. The Catholics have a very different doctrine of justification than the Protestant Doctrine of Justification; sola fide or “by faith alone.” The Catholic Church holds that a person becomes a Christian by faith and that his justification is a free gift of God. It must be understood here that tale often told by Protestants that Catholics believe in justification by works is false. The Catholic Church condemned this belief which was held by the British monk Pelagius. This is misconception about justification exists in most Protestant circles as well as among many lay Catholics who are not well versed in their theology. What the Catholics do believe is that justification does not follow conversion. A person may come to faith in Christ but they are not automatically justified. This is because Jerome, when he translated the Greek New Testament into Latin in the fourth century choose a poor word for justification; justificare. Justificare carries the connotation of being made righteous.

During the Middle Ages when theologians were attempting to rationally understand the doctrine of justification they used the Latin Vulgate Bible and thus held a view of justification that was erroneous. Since it was clear that upon conversion people were not made righteous, the medieval theologians did not believe that justification followed saving faith but rather follow sanctification. Sanctification (which will be discussed in later sections) is the process by which we conformed to Christ (literally it means setting aside). Since it is sanctification is the processed by which we are made righteous and if the medieval Catholics understood justification to mean to be made righteous, it is quite logically then that they would believe that justification followed a long process of works. Also, since a Christian is not justified until after sanctification, the Christian is not on firm footing and he can “fall off” the process at anytime by committing a carnal sin. Finally, if at death the Christian has cooperated with God in his sanctification but is still not made fully righteous something must be done to finish the process of sanctification because God has promised salvation to all of those who cooperate with his grace. Thus, imperfect Christians entered into Purgatory where the sanctification process is completed.

During the Reformation, however, the true meaning of justification was recovered as greater study was done on languages, especially the Greek New Testament, which was the original New Testament. They understood that the justification that Paul refers to in his epistles does not mean “to be made righteous” but rather means “to be declared righteous.” That is, we are not righteous yet, but God accounts us as righteous before sanctification is completed. This is because God’s promise is given, through the sacrament of baptism, “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 1:6). We are adopted as God’s sons before He has actually conformed to Christ because He has promised to do so and God never fails his promises.
Thus in the Protestant Reformation it was understood that justification is by faith alone. Justification directly follows saving faith and it is only this saving faith that is required for us to be justified. Paul nicely proclaims this in his Epistle to the Ephesians:
“But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:4-9).
We come to faith in Christ and then immediately following we are justified and then adopted as His sons. When we profess our faith in Christ, either as children or converted adults, we are giving the sacrament of baptism as a sign of God’s promise to us so that we can have assurance that God has saved us and continue conform us to Christ. The pouring of water symbolizes our purification before it has occurred.

Luther struggled with assurance. Given a man’s unstable position under the medieval notion of understanding where justification depended on our cooperation with sanctification he could never be sure if enough was being done for his salvation. After reading the book of Romans, Luther understood that salvation was firm and sure. It was given to us and justified after our saving faith so that we may be “sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38-39).

Justification: Part I – The Atonement

The question why did Jesus need to come to die is one of the deepest questions concerning the Christian Faith. The fact that God had to come and take on the flesh of a man in the Incarnation and then suffer and die in order to redeem his creation seems to limit the power of God. Why did not God merely forgive our sins without the Atonement of Christ or achieve in it a way that did not involve the suffering and death of the Son of God? Critics would point out that Christians claim that God is omnipotent, meaning that God is all-powerful.
While it is true that God is all-powerful and capable of doing great acts such as creating the world out of nothing (ex nihilo) it is not true that God is capable of doing anything. God is limited by his self-existent nature. For instance, God is incapable of sin because his nature is characteristically perfect. Understanding the Atonement begins with understanding that God will never go against his nature. In a sense, God limits Himself. Therefore, because God is just he could not simply “wink” at sin and forgive it without satisfaction because if he did so he would no longer be just. In the same way, if a judge simply forgave a person found guilty of theft without anything being done to make satisfaction for his crimes he would not be worthy to be a judge,
The argument I am going to use for the first part of the doctrine of justification – the Atonement - was put forth by Anselm of Canterbury during the Middle Ages. He was a forerunner of the Scholastic movement which sought to rationally understand the doctrines of the Christian faith. One of his distinctive works was outlining the rationality of the Atonement so to persuade Christians and non-Christians (such as Muslims) of the validity of the Christian religion. Anselm’s argument is as follows:
First we are to understand that as God’s creatures we owe to Him certain duties such as our obedience to His laws and giving Him worship as our Creator. However, it is clear that all of humanity does not do this. Instead, we fall short of our duty to God and therefore we insult God and incur his wrath upon us. In order to make up for our transgressions against God we need to perform certain works as a repayment not only for the duties we have failed to perform but also the insult it has caused to God. Just in the same way a thief is required to do more than simply pay back what he has stolen.
However, the question arises how are we to pay back God? What works of righteousness can we perform for Him that we do not already owe? If we live a perfect life for the rest of our lives we are only giving to God what is already our duty to Him. The same goes for God’s entire creation, that is, everything other than God. They have nothing to give God which is not already required of them. Therefore only God, who owes Himself nothing, is in a position to make satisfaction for the wrong done. There is an immediate problem here. Only God is in a position to make satisfaction but it is man that must do the satisfying. The solution is that God becomes man so that is still fully God yet fully man. This is one of the great mysteries of the Christian faith but if it has not occurred then we are in our sins and have no hope for salvation because there is nothing to atone for our unrighteousness.
What act does the God-Man do in order to atone for the sins of mankind? Anselm poses the question: If is God-Man was before you and you were that unless you killed him then all creatures; humans, other races that may exist in this universe or other universes, and angelic beings, would perish would you kill him? Boso, the man who Anselm is having the conversation with his work, replies he would not. What, asks Anselm, if it was asked that you bear all the sins of the world or else kill this man? Again Boso answers he would rather suffer the consequences of not killing the man than killing him. Thus the death of the Son of God is of such immeasurable magnitude all other sins pale in comparison. Also, he notes that God was not forced to become Man but did it willingly, thus the righteousness achieved by such an act is equally immeasurable. Thus on the cross Christ achieves enough righteousness to pay for the sins of the entire world.
Thus Christ has earned a great reward for suffering, willingly, for sins committed against the Father. He has acquired merit. Yet Christ is God and is fully content and perfect and needs not this merit. Since this merit is his own he has the right to do with it as he pleases. He chooses to give it to humanity whom he loves so much that he died for so that satisfaction could be made for their sins. The question of how this righteousness is given to man will be discussed in the later section entitled “The Doctrine of Sanctification.”

The Fallacy of the Rich/Poor Gap

For some time now it has been fashionable to speak of the increasing gap between rich and poor and that this is a serious problem for our economy. It is no doubt that adherents to this theory that have come out to support Mr. Obama's plans for redistribution. However I would caution that this theory of a widening gap between rich and poor be more closely examined before canonize its merit and conduct economic policy based on it. I, like many others, am concerned with the economic progress of my fellow Americans, especially as we are being hit with hard economic times. I have always emphasized by belief that businessmen should give liberally in terms of wages and that employees should always earn fair wages for their production. However, I also believe it is the right of the entrepreneur or businessman to enjoy the fruits of his garden. The company is his and has been built with his capital. Give the unreliability of business ventures he has taken great risks to found his company. Or, if he is a CEO, his skills have demanded that his pay be a certain level. Whatever his salary the board clearly thought it was worth what skills and knowledge he brings to the corporation. But I do condemn this vain consumerism and the accumulation of wealth for the sake of pride, those who have been entrusted with great wealth out to use it for the benefit of their fellow men in addition to their personal pleasures. However, such is between him and God and not him and the government.

That being said, let us explore a major flaw in the rich/poor gap theory. Let us say that the average person in the lower 80% of society (in terms of wealth) makes $50,000 a year. Let us also say that the average person in the remaining upper 20% makes $200,000 a year. Then let us look twenty five years in the future (no inflation is assumed). The average person in the bottom 80% is earning $100,000 annually and the average person in the top 20% is earning $300,000 annually. The average middle class person has seen his wage double
over that twenty-five year period while the average rich person has seen his wage increase only by 50%. The growth of the middle class income is far greater than that of the rich income. However, the rich/poor gap has increased. Where there was previously only a difference
of $150,000 between the two, there is now a $200,000 difference. The gap has increased by 25%. Yet, who's income has experienced more dynamic growth in the period of 25 years? Is it not the middle class person's income? This is why the gap between rich and poor is an inadequate measurement of economic progress. What ought to be considered is the increase in income per individual over the time period being assessed as a marker of economic growth. This you will find has increased over the last twenty-five years despite all the cries of an increasing gap between rich and poor.

Economic Sense from a Communist?

“Mr Wen [Jiabao,The Chinese Prime Minister] said that among the reasons behind the current global downturn were ‘inappropriate macroeconomic policies in some economies, characterised by [a] low savings rate and high consumption’.”

-Cited from a bbc.co.uk article “Crisis has ‘hit Chinese economy.’” 1/28/09, 1:45 pm.
It is pathetic when a CCP official better understands economics than the president of a free market country like the United States. Granted China is more of a fascist country with a state capitalist economy than a communist. But still a CCP official is making better economic sense than the American president? I am sick of people blaming the “greedy CEO’s” for the economic crisis. Yes certainly they are responsible but they are not solely (or even largely) responsible for the economic crisis. What truly caused the crisis was fiscal irresponsibility by the government and private individuals. For decades America has become a country that has spent with reckless abandon with no thought the consequences. Now many Americans are deep in debt and our federal government is in virtual bankruptcy. Yet the economic advice from both the past and current presidents has been “spend more.” Mr. Bush after the 9/11 attacks told Americans to go out and shop. Both he and Mr. Obama have proposed gigantic bailout plans worth over a trillion dollars. We are in the midst of an economic crisis our leaders advise us not to save for rebuilding the economy for the future but to spend more?

Money, unfortunately, does not grow on trees. If President Obama plans on spending a trillion dollars on a bailout plan I would ask him and his advisors where he plans to get the funds for such a bailout. Both he and Mr. McCain stressed fiscal responsibility in their election platforms yet the programs that both suggested are fiscally irresponsible. The government does not produce wealth. It must raise taxes in order to fill its treasury. It can borrow money but this only delays the inevitable raise in taxes. And borrowing can be dangerous since it indebts our nation to foreign countries such as China, which can potentially complicate up our foreign policy.
The points is that more wanton spending in the form a bailout is not what our country needs right now. What we need is a return to fiscal conservatism and make people realize that there are consequences when they foolishly squander capital. America is a wealthy nation but our wealth is not infinite. The government and the common American cannot continue to pile up debt. When John Maynard Keynes was questioned about the potential fiscal consequences of his recommendation to use deficit spending to extract the world from the Great Depression he replied, rather cynically, that we would all be dead soon anyway. I pray that Americans would not be so short sighted and narcissistic. That they would not look to immediate quick fixes that will only indebt ourselves further and save for the long term.