Jay’s Analysis-In Defense of Capitalism

*Note: I misspoke and meant to state that Austrian school investors are bullish* on Asian markets.

In this installment, I deal with an overview of other systems, including Marxism/socialism and its variants, mixed economies, Catholic distributism, and Austrian Economics, as well as analyzing the arguments of collectivist positions in general, laying the groundwork for the biblical basis for capitalism, private property, human action and prosperity. I also look at theology in the history of the West and its relationship to religious systems, focusing primarily on the philosophic basis for market capitalism. I chiefly answer the criticisms of a distributist friend.

Recommended reading:
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal By: Ayn Rand
How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes By: Peter Schiff
Meltdown By: Tom Woods
http://www.mises.org
http://www.jaysanalysis.com

Who is God?

Jewish Objections to Christianity, Part 2

Elijah kills the prophets of Ba'al

Continuation.

By: Jay

1. The doctrine of a third Person was not clearly taught in the first few centuries. Indeed, even by Basil’s time, he expressed hesitation about declaring for sure that the Spirit was a third hypostasis in the godhead. The problem with this is that we must either admit a very extreme form of doctrinal development, which few are willing to admit, or we must say that in some way the fathers of the 1-3 centuries were utterly deficient in their doctrine of God. How did they carry on the apostolic Tradition, if many of them did not even grasp the divinity and Personhood of the Spirit? In fact, Justin Martyr posited a Dyad. Consider also the “development” of the notion from Athanasius that the Son is generated from the essence of God, to the Cappadocian idea  that He is generated from the Father proper. Once you read Plotinus, though, it becomes clear how influential the Platonic tradition was on the Alexandrians and the Latins in their triadic formulations. But once we admit this, we have moved far from the Hebraic and Mosaic tradition, into what appears to be a Greek Hellenic mystery religion.  Indeed, if you pay attention to Christian writers, notice how often when speaking of God, it is a singular Person, with a singular will acting. Yet when we come to Trinitarian theology and God acting, we are immediately caught in a whirlwind of explaining how three Persons act in different way, yet don’t. It’s a maze that ends up being miles away from the Shema. Peruse the 5th Ennead for yourself, which Augustine openly borrowed heavily from: http://classics.mit.edu/Plotinus/enneads.5.fifth.html

2. Can we pray impreccatory prayers now? C.S. Lewis found them offensive and demanded we cannot. Aquinas says we must in no wise despise our enemies.  If no, this would be absurd, since it would mean God composed many prayers in the Psalms that are now useless. Although some might resort to lengthy explanations as to how we can pray them, this would run counter the tradition of many of the saints, who forbid such an idea. And based on a simple reading of the Sermon on the Mount, it would appear we cannot pray them. Other examples of how this is fuzzy would be something like martyrdom – does God want me to fight my opponents and possibly save the lives of others, or am I bound to martyrdom? When we look at the Church of the first few centuries, pacifism was almost the absolute law.  Why such a radical change in God’s social rules? Read more of this post

The Death Penalty

Vindicating the Justice of the Death Penalty

By: Jay

It has become popular in certain circles of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism, to oppose the death penalty as something “unchristian.”  I have had many discussions on this topic with professing Christians from all stripes.  However, this response usually comes from a misplaced “sentimentalism,” rather than the divine founts of Scripture and Tradition.  Purveyors of this anti-death penalty view usually fall back on saying that “God is love,” or they cite an obscure saint somewhere who was overflowing with compassion and hated to see men die.  While I understand the compassion in mind here, we need not be more compassionate than Christ Himself.  God is love, but He is also just (Matt. 12:18).  But, “evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand all” (Prov. 28:5).

The usual response at this point is that, “if one opposes abortion, he must also oppose the death penalty.”  This confuses two issues.  All murders are killings, but not all killings are murders.  One can be just and is a virtue, while the other is a vice and a crime.  God Himself ordained civil government to be a restraint on the wickedness of men, and part of that ordination includes the death penalty.  In Genesis 9:6, God states that whoever sheds man’s blood, deserves to have his blood shed because he has defaced the image of God.  Such is God’s reasoning. Read more of this post

R.J. Rushdoony Was Nestorian

By: Jay Dyer

Lately, I have been re-reading some old reformed Protestant materials I read several years ago. One of these books is by a very respected reformed thinker named Rousas J. Rushdoony. Rushdoony wrote and did some good things, like defending homseschoolers and giving that movement an initial impetus. However, these things don’t magically make him orthodox or erase his denials of the Incarnation. In my many dealings with reformed pastors and theologians, I’ve learned that it generally doesn’t matter what heresies their heroes have, nor does it matter how serious the heresies are. No, reformed thinkers have their demi-gods and none dare challenge them. So it doesn’t matter that Rushdoony also promoted the Jewish food laws, which is condemned by St. Paul. It doesn’t matter that Van Til said the essence of God was a Person. It doesn’t matter that Bahnsen thought one could have pictures of Christ and that he celebrated Christmas, which John Knox thought worthy of death. And none of this stuff would be so bad if the reformed didn’t claim to hold to the ecumenical councils.

No, if the reformed thinkers decide you’re a hero, you can, in fact, get away with quite a bit. Forgiving men for errors and passing them over is one thing, and it’s an aspect of love. However, when it comes to the point of excusing men or ignoring their substantial heresies on Christ and/or the Trinity, that’s another story. The reformed thinkers and pastors that have despised and blasted me, fail to realize that whatever errors I have held, I haven’t promoted serious Trinitarian and Christological errors like Van Til and Rushdoony. And none of this would be so bad if Rushdoony’s foundation wasn’t named “Chalcedon.” Other men in these circles also name their publications and churches after Chalcedon. Read more of this post

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 155 other followers