Monthly Archives: January 2009

Election in the B – I – B – L – E (proved from Westminster)

does God call a reprobate person elect to the extent and duration that he is a member of the visible body, or, for that matter, does God call a reprobate person elect to any extent or duration at all?

via Election in the New Testament – Part 1 « Green Baggins.

What follows is rather selective evidence

John 6.70: “απεκριθη αυτοις ο ιησους ουκ εγω υμας τους δωδεκα εξελεξαμην και εξ υμων εις διαβολος εστιν”

John 6.70: “Jesus answered them, ‘Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.’”

God elects reprobate and elect-to-eternal-salvation alike into his kingdom just as he chose the twelve to be his disciples, including Judas, who fell away as fore-ordained.

Another text that is relevant:

1 Peter 2.9: “υμεις δε γενος εκλεκτον βασιλειον ιερατευμα εθνος αγιον λαος εις περιποιησιν οπως τας αρετας εξαγγειλητε του εκ σκοτους υμας καλεσαντος εις το θαυμαστον αυτου φως”

1 Peter 2.9: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light”

Peter is making a rather obvious reference to Exodus 19–just as God chose Israel, God has chosen the institutional church composed of both Jew and Gentile.

Or, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it (if we consider the relationship between Exodus 19 and 20.2):

The preface to the Ten Commandments is contained in these words, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Wherein God manifesteth his sovereignty, as being JEHOVAH, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God; having his being in and of himself, and giving being to all his words and works: and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people; who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivereth us from our spiritual thraldom; and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments (101; boldface added).


A related post on election in the Bible, note: not part of the Bible.

Inflation or deflation?

Since I’ve posted and linked many videos of Peter Schiff, I feel obligated to post this link to “Peter Schiff was wrong.”

I’ve always associated inflation with an increase in the money supply.  But what if “money” is not only cash?  What if it includes easy credit.  If everything has been priced on the assumption that consumers had easy credit, then prices are already inflated.  The credit itself is part of the inflation.

Then when credit stops, prices have to fall.  A lot.

Basically, via credit we are bringing “new money” into the economy from the future.  If that suddenly goes away, then the money supply decreases.

So I have no idea what the future holds.  I don’t know how all this will translate.  I just thought I’d let readers no.

What I find much more confusing is the claim that foreign markets will not recover without our buying.  This seems counter intuitive.  You would think that people who make things in India and China would be able to trade with each other and leave US behind.  But that doesn’t seem to be happening.

Because protectionism worked so well during the last Depression

The stimulus bill passed by the House last night contains a controversial provision that would mostly bar foreign steel and iron from the infrastructure projects laid out by the $819 billion economic package.

A Senate version, yet to be acted upon, goes further, requiring, with few exceptions, that all stimulus funded projects use only American-made equipment and goods.

Read the rest: ‘Buy American’ Rider Sparks Trade Debate –

Pravda for the UltraPork Bill

An unusual aspect of the recent debate in Washington is the lengths that supporters have gone to marginalize anyone who questions the so-called stimulus plan.

Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s labor secretary and member of President Obama’s transition team, claims “almost every economist will tell you the stimulus has to be massive.” Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman accuses skeptics of “making totally non-serious arguments.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, says “economists agree” that doling out large sums to state governments is “effective.” Vice President Joe Biden says that “every economist that I’ve spoken to” believes the spending package “has to be big.”

Perhaps the vice president should broaden his social circles. The truth is that, instead of being uniformly in favor of the massive spending bill, which is being championed by congressional Democrats with Obama’s support, economists remain divided.

You may have heard that respectable economists, including Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, say stimulus spending should be high or higher. But some news organizations have been less than diligent in telling you that other respectable economists are deeply skeptical of the idea, flatly oppose it or favor competing proposals such as additional tax relief.

Read the rest: For Many Economists, Stimulus Falls Flat, Declan McCullagh: Amid Loud Calls For Economic Rescue, Skepticism Abundant – CBS News.

Atheist kitsch

In case you missed my friendfeed entry, make sure you read Takin’ it to the streets! at Femina.  It is about the bus ads claiming, “there’s probably no god.”

It brings up a point that is slightly serious.  How many modern atheists actually read Nietszche or Voltaire?  I have to wonder.  Would Nietszche even be that well remembered if Christians did not value him?