While America was still under British rule, the British government lowered the tax on tea imported from overseas. The tax decrease on foreign tea flooded the market and hurt the sales of domestic teas. This lead to several colonists seizing ships carrying the tea and tossing it overboard. This event became known as the Boston Tea Party. Today most Americans believe that the British taxed the tea and we wanted the tax lowered. The colonists supported a form of protectionism.
In 2006, the Democratic party took control of both houses of Congress. In 2008, Democrat Barack Obama was elected to the presidency. Before President Bush left office, a fund was created to handle the economic crisis. President Obama, when he took office, instituted a second fund. President Obama's plan to get out of the recession included several spending increases. He has also created a new health care system. This inspired many who were usually not politically involved to get involved. Then, on April 15, 2009, a series of Tea Parties all over the country were convened. At first it was non-partisan. Then Republican leaders, like Dick Army and Sarah Palin, tried to get it under the Republican banner.
The Tea Party has begun to flex its political muscles. The helped elect Scott Brown, taking the seat held by Edward Kennedy. In Utah, they helped unseat the long time Republican incumbent Bob Bennet. In Nevada, they made unqualified candidate Sharon Engle the Senate nominee. They helped little known candidate Paul LePage get the gubernatorial nomination in Maine. This week, they unseated archconservative Bob Engialls of South Carolina. They may get their nominee in Florida. The Tea Party seems to be taking over the Republican Party. This is similar to the take over by Barry Goldwater in 1964.
While I am a conservative and registered Republican, I do not support the Tea Party movement. They are ill defined. They have no clear platform and they like it that way. They will not take a stand on abortion or immigration. They say they do not have time to deal with abortion because the proverbial house is on fire. But abortion is a bight on our nation. Any one born after 1973 could have been aborted and no one cares. Immigration is also an important issue. Michael Savage has rightfully declared that a nation is defined by its borders, language and culture. The Tea Partiers do not want to take a stand on immigration because they do not want to offend Hispanics. We are being continually invaded on the Southern border. The house is on fire.
I believe that eventually the Tea Party will go away. I don't think that we will still be talking about the Tea Party ten years from now. It is a movement built on sensationalism. It is anger in no particular direction. It is a slogan driven movement. While anger against the Bush and Obama administration is warranted, this movement does not seem to be about anything. They are just angry and they don't know why.
Election and Predestination: A Book Review
Election and Predestination by Samuel Fisk seeks to give a middle of the road view of the debate over God's sovereignty and man's free will. Fisk claims to reject both Calvinism and Armenians. He, however, has far more criticism of Calvinism than he dies Armenianism. His criticism of Calvinism is far more scathing than his criticism of Armenianism.
The book contains many quotes from other authors. It has very little of Fisk's own thoughts, but a series of quotes melded together. he only quotes from people who agree with him. He will quote from Calvinist's if they say something that proves his point. He loves to call Calvinist's on their uncalvinistic comments. He also enjoys picking apart people like Spurgeon, who Calvinist's claim as their own. He fails to see that many Calvinists are not Calvinists because famous people are, but because they believe it is close to the Biblical view.
According to Fisk, election is not to individuals, but groups. He says that in the Old Testament, Israel was an elect nation. In the New Testament, the church was elect. He believes that predestination was linked to foreknowledge and good works. He fails to see that calling an predestination in Romans 8:30 are two different things. Calling is not associated with good works.
One of the most dangerous aspects of the books is his view on foreknowledge. Throughout the book he presents the fact that God knows what is going to happen. In one of hi9s many appendixes, he suggest that God's foreknowledge is limited. He uses the example of prayer. He says that God knows one outcome, but the outcome changes because he capitulates to people's prayers. He says that God's mind can be changed by prayer.
While Fisk is not a full fledged Armenian, he is closer to Armenianism than Calvinism. This book gives a glimpse into the mindset of centrist Armenians. If you want a thoughtful discussion of election and predestination, this is not it. I would not read it for that purpose.
The book contains many quotes from other authors. It has very little of Fisk's own thoughts, but a series of quotes melded together. he only quotes from people who agree with him. He will quote from Calvinist's if they say something that proves his point. He loves to call Calvinist's on their uncalvinistic comments. He also enjoys picking apart people like Spurgeon, who Calvinist's claim as their own. He fails to see that many Calvinists are not Calvinists because famous people are, but because they believe it is close to the Biblical view.
According to Fisk, election is not to individuals, but groups. He says that in the Old Testament, Israel was an elect nation. In the New Testament, the church was elect. He believes that predestination was linked to foreknowledge and good works. He fails to see that calling an predestination in Romans 8:30 are two different things. Calling is not associated with good works.
One of the most dangerous aspects of the books is his view on foreknowledge. Throughout the book he presents the fact that God knows what is going to happen. In one of hi9s many appendixes, he suggest that God's foreknowledge is limited. He uses the example of prayer. He says that God knows one outcome, but the outcome changes because he capitulates to people's prayers. He says that God's mind can be changed by prayer.
While Fisk is not a full fledged Armenian, he is closer to Armenianism than Calvinism. This book gives a glimpse into the mindset of centrist Armenians. If you want a thoughtful discussion of election and predestination, this is not it. I would not read it for that purpose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
