• About

anactofmind

~ If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. – Arthur Schopenhauer

anactofmind

Category Archives: Uncategorized

Is Roger Olson a Marcionite? Part 2

30 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by Paul Bassett in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Arminianism, Predestination, Roger Olson

A while ago, I asked the question, “Is Roger Olson a Marcionite”? I did so with no malice but the question was genuine in light of Dr. Olson’s pronouncements about the impossibility of Calvinism. Dr. Olson believes that the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination is untrue because it requires, in his estimation a God who is not “good”. Interestingly enough, Dr. Olson has continued his pitch here:

Must a truly good person give everyone under his or her influence an equal opportunity to flourish and succeed, to avoid disaster and failure? No. Such a good person must only give every person under his influence sufficient opportunity to avoid disaster and failure. That the “Arminian God” has done.

But I renew my earlier question. Does not this definition of “good” require the ignorance of the Old Testament?

I received a providential reminder of this today as I was meandering through one of the Bible apps on one of my mobile devices. (Life seems sometimes needlessly complicated, doesn’t it?) At any rate, when I clicked on “Start a Reading Plan” one category of plans took me immediately to 1 Samuel 15. And I was immediately struck how Dr. Olson’s definition of good could not in anyway apply to God in this story, the work of the prophet Samuel or the message of the text!

1 Samuel 15 is the story of God’s command to Saul, through Samuel to “attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” And Saul nearly accomplished his appointed task. Save for the Amalekite king and a few sheep and cows, all were destroyed – including “children and infants”.

Is Dr. Olson prepared to say that God was not good for His command?

The story continues with God’s displeasure that Saul did not complete his task as ordered. God was so incensed with Saul that He removed him as king of the Israelites and sent Samuel to personally kill Agag, the king of the Amalekites. What’s I find interesting from Dr. Olson’s perspective is that neither the “children and infants” nor King Agag was given a “sufficient opportunity to avoid disaster and failure”.

And Dr. Olson continues his clarification here:

Still, the point is that, according to Romans 1 and classical Arminian theology, God has given everyone sufficient opportunity to be saved. He has not closed the door in anyone’s face without them pulling it closed from their side.

So what is the point of 1 Samuel 15? Did not God “close the door” in the face of the infants? Women?

One of the main problems with the Arminian position is that it presupposes that man can have a comprehensive knowledge of God. But as Calvin rightly quotes from Scripture, “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing.” (Proverbs 25:2) By not recognizing that God has revealed His goodness while hiding its appearance in some circumstances is to deny Scripture. Scripture is very consistent that God is good (Psalm 100:5; 136:1) whether we understand it or not (Isaiah 55:8-9). And what is God’s meaning in Job if it’s not that we are not able to understand the totality of God’s goodness:

Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know. (Job 42:3)

At the end of it all, we can only know what God has revealed to us – and that He is eternally good. He has also revealed to us that His decrees are effective and accomplish His will (Isaiah 46:10). And lastly He has revealed that evil exists. To go beyond that and to ascribe some definition of “good” that makes sense of the means and ends of God is sinfulness.

And nobody has put the matter more eloquently that John Calvin, himself:

Therefore, in order to keep the legitimate course in this matter, we must return to the word of God, in which we are furnished with the right rule of understanding. For Scripture is the school of the Holy Spirit, in which as nothing useful and necessary to be known has been omitted, so nothing is taught but what it is of importance to know. Every thing, therefore delivered in Scripture on the subject of predestination, we must beware of keeping from the faithful, lest we seem either maliciously to deprive them of the blessing of God, or to accuse and scoff at the Spirit, as having divulged what ought on any account to be suppressed. Let us, I say, allow the Christian to unlock his mind and ears to all the words of God which are addressed to him, provided he do it with this moderation—viz. that whenever the Lord shuts his sacred mouth, he also desists from inquiry. The best rule of sobriety is, not only in learning to follow wherever God leads, but also when he makes an end of teaching, to cease also from wishing to be wise. The danger which they dread is not so great that we ought on account of it to turn away our minds from the oracles of God. There is a celebrated saying of Solomon, “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing,” (Prov. 25:2). But since both piety and common sense dictate that this is not to be understood of every thing, we must look for a distinction, lest under the pretence of modesty and sobriety we be satisfied with a brutish ignorance. This is clearly expressed by Moses in a few words, “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us, and to our children for ever,” (Deut. 29:29). We see how he exhorts the people to study the doctrine of the law in accordance with a heavenly decree, because God has been pleased to promulgate it, while he at the same time confines them within these boundaries, for the simple reason that it is not lawful for men to pry into the secret things of God. (Institutes III:21:3).

By ignoring the clear admonition of the Old Testament it appears to me that Arminians in general and Dr. Olson in particular are vulnerable to the charge of Marcionism.

If I’ve missed something or worse, if I’ve misstated something, I would love to hear about it.

Blessings,

 

 

 

Dialogue Continued – Dean Obeidallah and the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli

24 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by Paul Bassett in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

America's Christian Heritage, Barbary Pirates, Treaty of 1797, Tripoli

I continue to be grateful to Dean Obeidallah for his persistence in the matter of America’s Christian heritage.  His latest objection is common and has to do with the 1797 Treaty between the new American federation and the Muslim nations of North Africa which were pirating U.S. merchant ships.

Image

Here is the text which Dean thinks is problematic, from Article XI of said treaty:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

So a plain reading of this text might be understood to buttress Dean’s case but a closer look would seem otherwise.  To wit,

  1. The text of the article is correct – the “government of the United States of America” – that is the “Federal” government – was not founded on the Christian religion, as per the First Amendment to the Constitution.  But the Federal government is only a container for the participating states which were decidedly Christian and this phrase does not mean that the social or political framework was not founded on Christian principles.
  2. The treaty was negotiated from weakness by the United States.  Without a large navy from which to despatch sufficient power to police the Straits of Gibraltar and western Mediterranean the Americans had little choice but to capitulate – in the short term.
  3. Article XI is absent any of the Arabic copies of the treaty.  So the copies of the treaties that were in the hands of the non-Christian parties to it did not have this section.  (It is fair to point out, as Dean’s side of the debate will, that the article was in the version ratified by the Senate.  True enough but that only serves to amplify the mystery.
  4. Article XI was negotiated out of the treaty after only 8 years.  The Americans decision fight the Muslims resulted in a stronger position vis-à-vis the original.  So the problem for Dean’s position here is that if America was indeed not a Christian nation in 1797 it must have become one by 1805 when this article was removed.  Not likely the country changed its core – and changed it back again – so whimsically.
  5. During this same time period, the Congress of the United States approved the printing of a “recommended Bible” (1781-82); in 1783, John Hancock declared a “religiously observed…Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer” for Massachusetts; and emigres to Maryland had to swear his “belief in the Christian religion” as required by statute. 

 In sum, the 1797 Treaty with the Barbary pirates seemingly contains language problematic to the assertion of America’s Christian underpinning.  But a closer reading of it in context and an understanding of the continuing Christian operations of the country as a whole requires a reading different than that a total dismissal of America’s Christian foundation.   And the continuing public expression of Christian devotion after the enactment of this treaty shows that America was then and remains a Christian nation.

Follow me on Twitter:  @Colossianstwo8

A Dialogue with Dean Obeidallah – U S Laws are based on the Bible!

24 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by Paul Bassett in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

ImageI am delighted that Dean Obeidallah has graciously responded to my tweets about his recent article.

Dean is concerned that the rise of Mike Hucakbee and Rick Santorum may lead to what he calls a “Christian Sharia”.  And given Dean’s misunderstandings of the Bible, I can certainly see his point.  After all, if you think Deuteronomy 22:20-21 is representative of true Christianity then his fear may well be justified.  But I think Dean has missed the point and I would like to set the record straight.  In his recent tweet to me he expressed concern that our laws should not be based on the Bible.

First of all, America’s laws are already based on the Bible.  Nine of the thirteen colonies that came together to form the United States had established Christian religions.[i] The Founding Fathers were Christians and were committed to creating a new system based on Christian principles.   And that trend predated the Constitutional Convention by at least 150 years.

In 1636 the General Court of Massachusetts resolved to make a code of laws “agreeable to the word of God.”[ii]

At the time of the Convention, Delaware require the following oath of all people “appointed to any office or trust” including representatives to the Constitutional Convention:

” I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”[iii]

And Pennsylvania, likewise:

I do believe in one God, the Creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration. [iv]

And Massachusetts, likewise:

[All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _____, do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”[v]

And many more colonies had similar provisions but I hope the point has been made with these few.

So when the Founders came together in Philadelphia they were not acting contrary to the history of the colonies they there were there to represent.  In fact, the Christian foundation of the American culture was so established around the world that the famed German historian, Leopold von Ranke declared that John Calvin was the true founder of America! [vi]

Lastly, Dr. Eidsmoe documents how the Bible was the source most frequently cited by the Founders.  And that John Locke’s ideas of liberty and the “consent of the governed” are biblical concepts themselves:

The concept of “consent of the governed” has its roots in John Locke’s social compact, which is in turn rooted in the Calvinist concept of the covenant, by which men, in the presence of God, join themselves together into a body politic. And correctly understood, the concept is biblical.[vii]

In sum, when America’s Constitution – the “Supreme Law of the Land” – was contemplated and enacted it was done by professing Christians whose intent was to create a Christian nation.  The colonies that sent representatives to the Constitution had either established Christian religions supported by the taxpayer or had overwhelmingly Christian populations without an established church.  They only sent people to represent them at Philadelphia that could swear allegiance to a Trinitarian Christianity.

Were America’s laws based on the Bible?  How could they not be?

Thanks again, to Dean Obeidallah for this dialogue.

You can find Dean on Twitter here:  @Deanofcomedy

You can follow me here:  @Colossianstwo8


[i] Holmes, David L.  “The Faiths of the Founding Fathers”; Oxford University Press, 2006.  Kindle Location 191-192.  See also Eidsmoe, cited below, Kindle location 556-558

[ii] Eidsmoe, John.  “Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of our Founding Fathers”;  Baker Academic, 1995.  Kindle Location 239-240

[iii]  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/de02.asp

[iv] http://www.duq.edu/academics/schools/law/pa-constitution/texts-of-the-constitution/1776

[v] Skillman, Thomas T., “The Constitutions of All the United States According to the Latest Amendments” as quoted in Barton, David, “The Myth of Separation”, 5th ed., Wallbuilders Press, 1992.  P. 24

[vi] Eidsmoe, John.  Ibid.  Kindle location 68-70.

[vii] Eidsmoe, ibid.  Kindle location 4090-4092.

Video

Carlo Curley, RIP

21 Friday Feb 2014

Posted by Paul Bassett in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Back, Carlo Curley, Organ

Carlo Curley died. It was almost 30 years ago when I met him and heard him play in person. He was truly a great musician as this performance of the great Bach Prelude and Fugue in a minor attests. Rest well, Carlo!

My Review of “Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers”

21 Friday Jun 2013

Posted by Paul Bassett in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

According to a Newsweek study 70% of Americans don’t know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  Or that Susan B. Anthony fought for women’s rights – or that John Boehner is the Speaker of the House of Representatives!  And that is a problem specifically because the freedoms we all enjoy as Americans are apt to be lost in this sea of ignorance.  So I recommend that you put John Eidsmoe’s book, “Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers” on your reading list.Dr. Eidsmoe divides his study into three parts: the first is a study of the philosophical and theological roots of America’s founding followed by an examination of thirteen of the Founding Fathers and how those roots impacted their thinking.  He concludes with an examination entitled, “The Constitution: Then and Now” which outlines the vast distance we have traveled since our founding.

The first surprise is that ideological father of America is not George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin – but John Calvin!  Eidsmoe shows fully “two-thirds of the colonial population had been trained in the school of Calvin.”  And that fact underscored the very essence of Americanism.  To begin with, the Calvinistic notion of the “total depravity” of man (based on Genesis 6:5 and 8:21) required the extensive system of “checks and balances” that are built into the DNA of the American government.  Secondly, the notion Calvin promoted of the “priesthood of all believers” required everyone to be conversant in the biblical principles upon which this country was founded.  And this required that everyone be able to read the Bible and hence to read generally.  This produced the highest literacy rate in the then known world.  Lastly, Eidsmoe shows how the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura – the doctrine that the Word of God is the sole, infallible standard for faith and morals – produced an objectivity in the nature of law at the time.  One of the master strokes of Eidsmoe’s work is his documenting of America’s departure from this idea of an objective standard of law into something that looks at the Constitution as a “living document”.  That concept was foreign to the Founders precisely because of Calvin’s influence but has crept in to American life through the influence of other religions which hold that “objective truth” can be determined outside of God’s Word through the functioning of a human magisterium, quorum or other governing body.

I suspect that the respondents to the Newsweek survey are much less acquainted with the work of John Calvin than they were with that of the Founders.  But I believe that recent history proves the worst fears of those Founders – that a government unchecked becomes tyrannical and that the best check against tyranny is an educated, Calvinistic society.  Whatever your take on the matter, this book provides myriad insights into what gave the world the greatest government in history.  And it is to be hoped that more than 30% of us would avail ourselves of that understanding.

New Pope may end priestly celibacy

25 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by Paul Bassett in Uncategorized

≈ 6 Comments

A good friend of mine gave me a print copy of this article whose authors think the new pope may end priestly celibacy.  Apparently, Pope Francis was supportive of a woman who was romantically involved with a bishop and was eventually married to him.

That possibility will certainly cause the far-right Catholic epologists some considerable heartburn.

Soli Deo Gloria

A Further Example for my friend, Joseph Richardson

20 Saturday Apr 2013

Posted by Paul Bassett in Uncategorized

≈ 5 Comments

In my ongoing interaction with my friend, Joseph, it is very clear that Joseph doesn’t want to believe what I say that the Catholic Church actually teaches with regard to the use of Holy Scripture. Fair enough. So I thought I would provide some further historical evidence to help us in our discussion.

It is well to remember Joseph’s recent question to me in order to understand his concern:

What makes Protestants able to offer their own interpretations of Scripture, and Catholics unable?

I explained earlier that the answer to that question is Rome itself, specifically in the canons and decrees of the Councils of Trent and both Vatican Councils as well as the dogmatic Creed of Pope St. Pius IV. That is the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.

But just to augment that further, I would like to focus some attention on another dogmatic Catholic document, “PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on the Study of Holy Scripture.”[i] This is important for several reasons and the most important for our purposes is that this encyclical, like all others, is “irreformable”. That means that Catholics must believe it as if it were written today. Additionally, PD accurately cites Catholic Tradition to that point and provides the groundwork for the later second Vatican council.

So let’s see what Pope Leo XIII had to say about Catholics and Bible study:

1. “For the language of the Bible is employed to express, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, many things which are beyond the power and scope of the reason of man…”[ii]

This should be helpful in understanding why it is that Catholics cannot rely on their own “reason”.

2. “Wherefore it must be recognized that the sacred writings are wrapt in a certain religious obscurity, and that no one can enter into their interior without a guide…”[iii]

This aligns clearly with what we saw earlier about the Magisterium being the “sole” (only) interpreter of Scripture. Even where Catholics are permitted to engage in the study of Scripture they must always adhere to the “true sense” which only the Magisterium can pronounce.

And then Leo goes on to lay out Catholic Tradition further….

3. “His [Irenaeus’] teaching, and that of other Holy Fathers, is taken up by the Council of the Vatican, which, in renewing the decree of Trent declares its “mind” to be this – that “in things of faith and morals, belonging to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be considered the true sense of Holy Scripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the Church, whose place it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against such sense or also against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.”

Here we clearly see the use of the idea of the “true sense” of Scripture which Leo traces back to Irenaeus and which we have seen was codified at Trent. And it must be remembered that Trent put two qualifications on this “true sense”: it must be officially pronounced by the Magisterium and it must be consonant with Tradition. What else is clear is that “no one” may interpret Scripture against that sense, that is, in any other way.

The noted Catholic historian Dr. Garry Wills writes,

A further implication of Leo’s position is that the church, as the guardian of the historical tradition, holds a monopoly on the relevant evidence: [quoting from Providentissimus Deus] “The uncontaminated sense of Holy Scripture cannot be discovered at all [neutiquam] without the church. And laypersons cannot study scripture on their own since, “no one can penetrate its ambiguities without moral guidance [aliquo vitae duce].[iv]

Dr. Wills, it should be noted, was educated in a Jesuit seminary. He went on to earn one of his two Masters degrees at Xavier University in Cincinnati which is also a fine Jesuit institution.

What Happens when Catholics rely on Tradition and dispense with Reason

Shortly after Leo penned PD, he established the Pontifical Biblical Commission. The PBC’s function was to “police Catholic thought on the Bible, threatening and punishing any exegetes who departed from its directives.” In effect, Leo was using the PBC to enforce the “true sense” interpretation of Scripture that the Roman Catholics had reserved to the Magisterium for the last 500 years. So how did that work out? Not so well, it seems.

Dr. Wills, once more:

The pope did his most lasting damage to Bible scholarship when he set up the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1902, which for decades would police Catholic thought on the Bible, threatening and punishing any exegetes who departed from its directives. These directives included, in the decades to come, that Catholic priests must be taught in their seminaries that the first five books were written personally by Moses, that Eve was literally created from Adam’s rib, and that the Beloved Disciple wrote the fourth gospel. Catholic professors, thus fettered, became a laughingstock in the world of biblical scholarship.[v]

This incident shows two things that are important for my interaction with Joseph. First, that the PBC under the direction of five popes guided Catholics away from using reason. Second, it shows that the final authority for interpreting the Scriptures is only the Magisterium – even when it contradicts reason.

Soli Deo Gloria


[i] http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Wills, Garry. Why I am a Catholic. New York. Houghton Mifflin Company: 2002. P. 202

[v] Ibid.

Who Knew Priests Could Read?

19 Saturday Jan 2013

Posted by Paul Bassett in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

 

Steven Wedgeworth has a work posted here (http://calvinistinternational.com/2013/01/17/literary-habits-of-the-pre-modern-clergy/).  It struck me as I have found the same sort of thing in the various sources I have read.  The illiteracy of the priesthood at and before the Reformation is rather striking.

 

 

 

 

The Theology of Les Miserables

29 Saturday Dec 2012

Posted by Paul Bassett in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Timothy Dalrymple has offered some interesting insights into the theological themes of this recent movie here…

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2012/12/29/the-theology-of-les-miserables/

I’ve been a fan of Les Mis for decades and have seen several outstanding live performances.  Unfortunately, those set the bar so high as to dull my appreciation for the movie.  I much prefer the Queen’s Company Production from 2010 which is currently airing on PBS.

Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools.

21 Friday Dec 2012

Posted by Paul Bassett in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Gun control

John Fund at NRO lays out the case that the cause of mass shootings is the imbalance in power in favor of lawbreakers.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#

 

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Goodreads

Recent Posts

  • A General Theory about the 2020 Election Fraud July 9, 2021
  • Why the Roman Catholic Church MUST canonize Donald Trump June 16, 2018
  • What Everyone Needs to Know about the Paris Climate Accords June 14, 2017
  • Greg Bahnsen – an homage December 11, 2015
  • Pittsburgh, PA Mayor Peduto: Bring us Syrian Muslims! November 11, 2015

Archives

  • July 2021
  • June 2018
  • June 2017
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • March 2015
  • September 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • December 2013
  • October 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012

Categories

  • Abortion
  • Acts 17
  • America's Christian Heritage
  • Andrew McCarthy
  • Apologetics
  • Armnianism
  • Authority
  • Bryan Cross
  • C2C IP
  • Caste system
  • Catholicism
  • Charles Chaput
  • Christianity
  • Climate Change
  • Darryl Hart
  • David Wood
  • Edgardo Mortara
  • Elections
  • Eucharist
  • Founding Fathers
  • Freedom
  • Garry Wills
  • George Weigel
  • Greg Bahnsen
  • Hermeneutics
  • Islam
  • Jihad
  • Kidnapping
  • Matthew 16
  • Movie Reviews
  • Papacy
  • Paris Climate Accords
  • Pat Buchanan
  • Quran
  • Raymond Brown
  • Reformation
  • Religious Freedom
  • Roger Olson
  • Roman Catholicism
  • SCOTUS
  • Trent
  • U S Constitution
  • Uncategorized
  • Unity
  • William Donohue

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Blogs I Follow

  • anactofmind
  • Roger E. Olson
  • Blogs – The Gospel Coalition
  • The Heidelblog
  • The Jagged Word
  • "In verbo veritatis" (2 Cor 6:7)
  • Old Life
  • John Bugay
  • Glass House
  • Highlands Ministries Online Podcast
  • Return to Rome
  • Mark D. Roberts
  • Called to Communion
  • Larry Hurtado's Blog
  • Societas Christiana (2.0)
  • John Calvin Quotes
  • The Lonely Pilgrim
  • Reformation500
  • Viewpoint
  • Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics

Blog at WordPress.com.

anactofmind

If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. - Arthur Schopenhauer

Roger E. Olson

If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. - Arthur Schopenhauer

Blogs – The Gospel Coalition

If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. - Arthur Schopenhauer

The Heidelblog

Recovering the Reformed Confession

The Jagged Word

What the Hell is going on

"In verbo veritatis" (2 Cor 6:7)

Thoughts and writings of Fr. Joseph A. Komonchak

Old Life

If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. - Arthur Schopenhauer

John Bugay

God, life, politics, and business

Glass House

My lies will get better

Highlands Ministries Online Podcast

If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. - Arthur Schopenhauer

Return to Rome

If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. - Arthur Schopenhauer

Mark D. Roberts

If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. - Arthur Schopenhauer

Called to Communion

Reformation meets Rome

Larry Hurtado's Blog

Comments on the New Testament and Early Christianity (and related matters)

Societas Christiana (2.0)

If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. - Arthur Schopenhauer

John Calvin Quotes

The Lonely Pilgrim

A Christian's Road Home to Rome and Journey Onward

Reformation500

Viewpoint

If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. - Arthur Schopenhauer

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics

If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. - Arthur Schopenhauer

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • anactofmind
    • Join 117 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • anactofmind
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar