Reformation 500 Celebration Audio

You can buy it here.

Book Report on The Pioneers

by Joshua Horn

The Pioneers contains two of Ballantyne's shorter stories. The first is The Pioneers. It is the tale of Reuben Guff and his son Lawrence as they travel on voyages of discovery in the northern wilderness of Canada in the 1780s. They first go to explore the wilderness with their faithful Indian friend Swiftarrow. Their adventure is cut short when the discover a Indian settlement which was destroyed by smallpox. In 1784 they set off again with the 'King of Pioneers' Alexander Mackenzie, one of the great explorers of Canada. They travel up a great river to discover whether it leads to the Pacific Ocean. They sail along the river in canoes amidst many dangers from ice, the natives and their own men, and they finally discover that the river leads to the Arctic Ocean. Several years later they go on an even more hazardous journey on the Peace River through the Rocky Mountains. They courageously ascend the river braving many dangers and hardships. This story does not contain as much dialog as some of Ballantyne's others, but it is still interesting as it tells the real life adventures in this oft-forgotten chapter of history.

The second story in this book is called, Fast in the Ice. It tells of a voyage of discovery to search for the North Pole. The commander of the Hope is Captain Harvey, and his crew includes his nephew Tom Gregory, Davy Butts, Sam Baker, and many other wonderful characters. When they arrive the the Arctic regions they have many adventures and Ballantyne tells how God protected them through their dangers. Their ship gets stuck fast in the ice during the winter, and they have to live through temperatures at times 60° below zero! They meet with Eskimos, hunt bears and walruses and fight hunger. Finally after many dangerous times the ship comes free in the summer, but the next day it is crushed in the ice and sinks, leaving the men stranded in the Arctic. Ballantyne tells much interesting information about the 'floes' and icebergs, the lives of the Eskimos and how they hunt the wild animals. This story was very interesting, and I would definitely recommend it.

Buy The Pioneers
Read online:
The Pioneers
Fast in the Ice

2008 Witherspoon School of Law and Public Policy

Vision Forum has given us the opportunity to review a copy of the 2008 Witherspoon School of Law and Public Policy through their affiliate program.

The Witherspoon School of Law and Public Policy is a three day conference that Vision Forum does to teach a Christian view of law. We wanted to go last year, but Daddy was working too much. In this CD set, the speakers explain that the Bible must be the foundation for our view of law. We must have a biblical worldview. They also talk about the current status of laws and court decisions that relate to different issues such as Biblical Marriage and the 2nd Amendment. The Witherspoon School is not just for lawyers, it is helpful for all Christians in deciding who they should vote for, etc.

Here are summaries of several of the messages:

Introduction to the Christian Foundations of Western Law
by Doug Phillips

This message is really an introduction to the entire album. After going through the different speakers, he talked about how we must have a biblical worldview. We can not abandon our Biblical worldview when we relate to unbelievers, even when we are witnessing to them. Mr. Phillips said that the bible is sufficient and must be our grid to interpret everything. He spoke on what our view of Old Testament law must be, that we must realize it still applies, and that we must get principles for our law from it.


Christian Jurisprudence: Biblical Law, Natural Law, or Positive Law?
by Bill Einwechter

In this message Mr. Einwechter, one of our favorite speakers, talks about biblical law, natural law and positive law. Positive law says that all law is derived from the state, and evolves and changes as the state makes new laws. Many lawyers today hold to it, and this is why they believe that they do not have to follow the intent of the founders when they wrote the Constitution of the United States. Natural law says that there are unchanging principles of law in nature, which just laws are derived from. Natural law is not to be confused with the laws of nature. Many people, from the ancient Greeks until now, have believed this. Biblical law is much different from the others; it is getting our law from the bible. Christians should believe in biblical law.


Symposium on the Reformation and Law
by Bill Einwechter and Doug Phillips

This message is a Q&A session. In it Mr. Phillips and Mr. Einwechter answer questions about many issues, including Christians in today's military, and whether or not Christians can hire women.


Christianity and the Courts
by Hon. Roy S. Moore

This is a special message by Chief Justice Roy Moore. He spoke on how God must be over our government. There was also a Q&A time. I really enjoyed it because his speaking style is easy to follow and he includes many personal anecdotes. He is an inspiring speaker because he has been tried by the fire for what he believes, which is that we must honor God in everything we do and all the decisions we make.

A Theology of Church and State
by Doug Phillips

This message is about the biblical view of the three different jurisdictions: family, church and state, and how they relate to one another. At different times throughout history, different jurisdictions have ruled over the others. For example, in the time when Roman Catholicism was dominant, the church ruled over the family and state. In the bible, we see that they should not rule over any of the others. The three jurisdictions should be equal.

The Battle for Biblical Marriage
by Jordan Lawrence

In this message Mr. Lawrence spoke on the issue of marriage being between one man and one woman. He spoke on how the bible definitely affirms that, as well as most of the state constitutions. He spoke on many of the current events relating to this, and he finished by encouraging the Christians to keep fighting the battle for traditional marriage.


You May Not Take Our Guns
by Larry Pratt

Mr. Pratt, director of Gun Owners for America, spoke on the Second Amendment: the right to keep and bear arms. Many people think that there will be less crime if guns are outlawed, but that is not actually the case. Guns stop crimes. Gun bans will not stop criminals from having guns, but prevents law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves. When gun bans are passed, crimes increase. Constitutionally, there should be neither a gun ban, nor a concealed carry law. In one part of the message he mentioned that one political leader said during a speech that anyone who thought that they needed to have a gun to defend himself was paranoid. At that time, that person was surrounded by six armed bodyguards. He also talked about the current state of the gun laws in the United States.

Other Messages

What the Bible says about Female Magistrates by Bill Einwechter
Defamation in the Blogosphere by Josh Carden
Biblical Law, Ethics, & Public Policy for Lawyers by Doug Phillips
Biblical Law, Ethics, & Public Policy Recap by Doug Phillips
The Significance of the Electoral College by Howard Phillips
Genesis & Geneva: The Emergence of Liberty in the West by Doug Phillips
Spheres of Sovereignty: Church Discipline, Autonomy, and the State by Bob Renaud
The State of Parental Rights in Light of the Texas Polygamy Case by Don Hart

You can buy the CD set here, or download it from behemoth here. If you would like to receive opportunities like this, join the Vision Forum Affiliate Program.

Ten P's in a Pod

Until the end of March, the audiobook Ten P's in a Pod is free at Behemoth.com. To download it, click here. Also, the book is 60% off. This book is really funny, and it is also convicting. Daddy thought it was convicting when he said that since you feed your family three times a day, it makes sense that you should feed your family from the word of God three times a day.

The Logical Fallacies in Erasmus’ Arguments

Martin Luther, Author of The Bondage of The Will

by Joshua Horn

from Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther

buy The Bondage of the Will

In 1525 Martin Luther published a book entitled, De Servo Arbitrio, or in English, Bondage of the Will. He wrote it in response to On Free Will by Desiderus Erasmus. In his book, Erasmus argued that man has free will and he must chose to be saved. Luther replied to him in Bondage of the Will and pointed out many flaws in his arguments. Three of the most important flaws were that Erasmus twisted scripture to meet his own interpretation, that he rejected the Bible rather than split with the Pope, and lastly that he contradicted himself in his definition for free will.

The first of Erasmus’ flaws was that he frequently twisted scripture to match his own opinions. When he deals with the text where God says that he hardened Pharaoh's heart¹, he claims that God really meant that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Luther says, “When God says: ‘I will harden the heart of Pharaoh’, you change the persons, and take it thus: ‘Pharaoh hardens himself by my long-suffering’!”² When the Bible says this, “I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing,”³ Erasmus says that “‘nothing’ may mean the same as ‘a little imperfect something.’”⁴ This is clear twisting of the words of scripture. If you take that nothing means ‘an imperfect little something’, than most of the doctrines of the Bible fall apart. From these two examples it is clear that Erasmus was forced to twist the words of scripture to make them fit with his position.

Erasmus’ second logical fallacy is that he would rather give up the scriptures than contradict the Pope. He was so afraid of contention that he was willing to give up what he knew was true rather than fight for it. Luther says this to Erasmus, “For your teaching is designed to induce us, out of consideration for Popes, princes, and peace, to abandon and yield up … the sure word of God. But when we abandon that, we abandon God, faith, salvation, and all Christianity!”⁵ The Bible says in Matthew 10:28, “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”⁶ The basic problem is that Erasmus feared man more than God.

Erasmus admitted in his book that free will is a slave to sin and can not will to do anything good. He says that, “the human will after sin is so depraved that it has lost its freedom and is forced to serve sin, and cannot recall itself to a better state.”⁷ But later in the book he claims that a human can will to seek God! This is a clear contradiction. Luther says this, “You say that ‘free-will’ is a power of the human will by which a man can apply himself to good; but here you say, and and approve of its being said, that man without grace cannot will good.”⁸ Erasmus realized that free will could not do any good, but he still contradicted himself and said that it is man who chooses to be saved.

We have just seen Erasmus' three most important mistakes. They are that he twisted the words of scripture, that he rejected the Bible rather than split with the Pope, and thirdly that he contradicted himself in his definition of free will. After Luther pointed out Erasmus' fallacies and destroyed his arguments, there were no good arguments left for free will. Many people today who defend free will have the same problems and make the same logical fallacies as Erasmus did when arguing with Martin Luther. Being able to recognize these problems can help us defend the Biblical doctrine of the will.

1 Exodus 7:13, etc.

2Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 2003) trans. J. I. Packer and O.R. Johnston, p. 195

3 John 15:5, KJV

4 Bondage of the Will, p. 260

5 Ibid, p. 91

6 Matthew 10:28, KJV

7 As quoted in Bondage of the Will, p. 145

8 Ibid, p. 145

Buy The Bondage of the Will Here

8 New Henty Books from Vision Fourm

	A Chapter of Adventures
	The Cornet of Horse
	In Greek Waters
	The Plague Ship

With Roberts to Pretoria

Redskin and Cowboy

John Hawk's Fortune

Colonel Thorndyke's Secret

Buy the 8 new ones here.
Or the entire set here.

The Most Common and Disastrous Military Mistakes of History

by Joshua Horn

From 100 Decisive Battles by Paul K. David

In the Bible we learn that God controls every aspect of history. He preordains every victory and defeat that has happened, and will happen, in all of time. God often uses the mistakes that military commanders make, to change the course of history. Now we will examine three of the most common mistakes of military commanders: the problem of relying on numbers too heavily, hesitating whether to attack or not, and not being prepared for an attack by the enemy at any time.

The first common blunder we will consider is relying on numerical superiority and prestige instead of their actual fighting power or tactical superiority. For example, in the battle of Crécy, in 1346, the French had more than five times as many men as the English, but the English longbowmen easily slaughtered the French knights. The proud French knights believed that they could not be stopped by archers, and so they charged headlong at the prepared English position. Another example is the defeat of the Russian fleet by the Japanese at the battle of Tsushima in 1905. The outdated Russian ships were easily defeated by the newer Japanese vessels. The Russians had relied too much on their prestige as having one of the most powerful navies in the world. This mistake of relying too much on numerical superiority has occurred during many battles in history.

Many times battles are lost because of a hesitation on the part of the generals. One example of this is in the Battle of Gettysburg in the American Civil War. On the first day of the battle, July 1, 1863, the Confederate army stumbled upon a few Union brigades. They attacked, and after a hard fight drove the Unions off of the hill. General Richard S. Ewell, who commanded the Confederate forces who were leading the attack, instead of attacking and pressing the retreating Federal army, could not decide whether to attack the Union position, which he probably would have carried. This hesitation on his part probably cost the Confederacy the battle, and possibly even the war. Another example of this same mistake is in the battle of Dunkirk in 1940 during World War II. For some reason, Adolf Hitler delayed pressing his attack on the British at Dunkirk, who he had surrounded, which allowed the British army to escape back to Britain. This allowed England to have trained troops to defeat Hitler's attack in the Battle of Britain. If Hitler had not decided to hold off on his attack on Dunkirk for three days, Britain might very well be part of Germany to this day.

The third common strategic blunder is not always being prepared for an attack. Many times generals feel too secure and do not set out guard to watch for an approaching enemy. One example of this is in the battle of San Jacinto in the war for Texan independence. Santa Anna, the commander of the Mexicans, believed that he had the Texan army trapped between two rivers, and so he allowed his army to take a nap during the midday heat. Sam Houston ordered his outnumbered army of Texans forward against the Mexicans. They were completely surprised, and were easily routed and defeated. George Washington used a similar tactic during his attack on Trenton in the winter of 1776. He chose to attack on the day after Christmas, when the Hessian garrison was sound asleep from parties the night before. He crossed the icy river when no one expected him to be able to, and his army easily overcame the surprised Hessians. This victory at Trenton gave a moral boost to the Americans, and it gave encouragement to soldiers to join the American army, so that they could continue the war. Many surprise attacks such as these two have changed the course of wars, and ultimately of history. One of the most important principles of war is to not let yourself be surprised, and battles and wars have been lost by not paying attention to it.

We have just looked at three of the most common mistakes in military history. These are relying on numerical superiority, not being always prepared for an attack, and hesitating at the critical moment of the battle. God has used them many times in the course of history, and many battles and wars have been lost because the generals did not consider what military mistakes God had ordained to happen in the past, and did not watch out for those mistakes in their own generalship. These mistakes have occurred many times throughout the course of history, and God will probably use them many times more before the end of the world.

Buy the Book - 100 Decisive Battles: From Ancient Times to the Present

Why the Army of Northern Virgina Surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse

by Joshua Horn
from Lee's Lieutentants by D. S. Freeman

Buy the Books Here

On April 9^th, 1865 Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virgina to U. S. Grant near Appomattox Courthouse. This was the same army that for the past four years had defeated army after army. It was the same army that had won brilliant victories such as Bull Run, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. What caused this army to be forced to surrender? Douglas S. Freeman says this in his book, Lee's Lieutenants, “Wherever the blame might be placed, it did not rest on the men in the ranks.”¹ If it was not the soldiers' fault, what was the cause of this defeat? There were three main causes: lack of troops, inadequate command, and the troop's hunger and fatigue.

As the Civil War progressed, the Confederate army began to have less and less troops. They had been outnumbered throughout the whole war, but as the war neared its close, the Confederates had the recurring problem of not being able to replace the troops that they lost. For example, at the Battle of Fredericksburg, in the middle of the war, the Union Army numbered about 114,000 while the Confederates numbered 72,500. When the siege of Petersburg was finished, just a few weeks before the end, 45,000 Confederates were opposing over 100,000 Federals. When the Army of Northern Virgina surrendered, only 27,000 troops were left.

Near the end of the war, the Union's cavalry sent raids to destroy all the railroads running to Richmond. The goal of these attacks was to cut off supplies and reinforcements to the troops defending the Confederate capital. While the infantry was trying to hold an eleven mile front of trenches against the more powerful Union infantry, it had to send out more troops to defend attacks at the railways it still had in operation. This weakened the meager forces holding the trenches, until they had only 1,000 troops per mile of trenches. Because many of the railroads were captured by the enemy, and also because of the incompetence of the Confederate quartermaster department, the soldiers were very short on food and other supplies that were necessary for the army to operate.

Much of the hard, constant fighting near the end of the war was at close quarters. Several times the troops were driven back from their positions, and the commanders had to lead their troops forward personally to retake the ground they had lost to the enemy. This created many casualties among the command. Douglas S. Freeman writes, “More frequent battles at close quarters had prompted officers to take more desperate personal risks when their men fought somewhat less well and the Federals fought better.”² As an example, there were only eighty-five colonels with Lee when he surrendered, even though 200 were required to command the regiments he had.³ Because of this killing off of the officers, fit officers of lower rank could not be found to replace those who were killed in higher positions. This resulted in men being put in positions that they were not fit for. Inexperienced or incapable generals did not lead the soldiers as well, which resulted in more defeats for the army.

On April 2, the Union army penetrated the thin Confederate line, forcing the Confederate army to abandon Richmond and retreat. They tried to reach to one of the few railroads in operation, to receive rations and travel down to North Carolina to join up with another army. They were forced to march quickly, so that they were not caught and pinned down by the powerful Union army. Because of this need for speed, the soldiers were ordered to march all day and night. Added to this hardship was the fact that they did not have any food for several days. One soldier said, “The constant marching and fighting without sleep or food are rapidly thinning the ranks of this grand old army. Men who have stood by their flags since the beginning of the war fall out of their ranks and are captured, simply because it is beyond their power of physical endurance to go any farther.”⁴ All but the most tough and loyal troops fell out of ranks from hunger and fatigue.

On the night of April 6^th, the Confederate column which was marching to the railroad was split up by Federal troops because of a misunderstanding between the tired generals. Greatly outnumbered, half the army surrendered after a short but desperate fight. The other half of the army was finally cut off and surrounded on April 8^th, and Lee realized that the tired troops were too outnumbered to be able to fight their way out. The army surrendered on April 9^th, 1865.

We see that there were several reasons why Lee was forced to surrender. His army was driven back and finally surrounded because of the lack of troops and also because they had been marching and fighting for several days without food or sleep. This situation was worsened by the fact that there were not enough good commanders to lead the troops well. These are the three main reasons why Lee's army was forced to surrender.

1Douglas Southall Freeman, Lee's Lieutenants, a Study in Command (New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons) volume 3 Gettysburg to Appomattox, p. 189

2Ibid, p. 547

3Ibid, p. 744

4Ibid, p. 718

Buy the Books Here