Sanctified By God

We recently finished my father's first book, Sanctified By God: A Call to Keep the Christian Sabbath. It is currently at the printers, and will be available this weekend at the Sufficiency of Scripture conference.

We are commanded by God to "Be holy for I am holy." But the first time God declares something holy, it is not a person but a day. By setting that day apart, He set a pattern for all men everywhere to follow, and those who do not do so are rebelling against God. We are to treat the Sabbath holy as a sign that God has set us apart to Himself. This book is a call for Christians to return to keeping the Sabbath and walking as a people sanctified by God.

If you will not be at the Sufficiency of Scripture conference, you can preorder it online now. It is on our new website, ReformingToScripture.com, which is currently under construction.

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

Lexington and Concord Essay

Lexington and Concord

by Rachel Horn

In the book, Paul Revere's Ride, the author, David Hackett Fischer, gives a detailed account of the battle of Lexington and Concord, including the events leading up to and following the battle. The British were tyrannizing over the Americans, and the Americans were getting angry, so when General Gage sends his men out to take away the Americans' weapons of war in Concord, the Americans prepared to fight them. This battle was a very important battle, so we should know who really got the victory at this battlefield, because both sides said they did.

One would first start with who won the first part of the battle, which is the battle of Lexington. The British were ordered to start marching on the evening of April 18, 1775, but they were not told where they were going, or why. They reached Lexington early in the morning of the nineteenth, with about 250 men, who were commanded by Major John Pitcairn. The Americans who were gathered at Lexington had between 60 and 70 men, commanded by Captain Parker. Both sides were told by their commanders not to fire unless they were fired upon, so after the first shot was fired, the British infantry just started firing without orders. They did not fire for very long however, before they recklessly charged the Americans. Most of the Americans did not fire, because they did not have orders, and because things were happening very quickly. The Americans were told by their commander to disperse, but many did not hear, and some of those who did were shot. The British had conquered the Americans, because the Americans had retreated out of the city. The Americans had lost more men than the British also, and they knew they were defeated. They were not totally discouraged however, and they started marching to Concord to fight the British again.

The Americans were preparing for the British to arrive. The Americans withdrew out of the city to wait for more men, who were quickly arriving. They now had about 500 men, and the British had about 115. The British followed the Americans, and did pretty much no harm to the undefended city. The Americans had crossed the North Bridge, just outside of Concord, and when the British crossed it the British started to destroy it. The Americans marched down to stop the destruction, and the British fired a couple times, then fled into the city. The Americans were surprised at how quickly they fled. During this battle, Colonel Smith was sent to for reinforcements. While his men were marching, they met the rest of their soldiers running down the road, away from the Americans. The Americans then marched toward the town, and took a defensive position behind a stone wall, and waited for the British to come up. The British came up, but they did not get very close until they halted, and stayed where they were for a few minutes, and then marched back to the town. While marching back, the british went under the fire of the Americans, and lost some more men. The Americans began to move over the hills, threatening to cut off the road from Concord to Boston. Colonel Smith sent some men to keep the line of retreat open. The Americans were on the hills surrounding the road, and they were ready to shoot at the British. The Americans made a circle around the British column, and kept shooting until the British made a camp to stop in for the night. The British had sent for more troops, and those started marching from Boston on the morning of the twentieth, and they reached the battle too late to be of much help. The Americans soon made them retreat with the other British. The British were under incessant fire, and by the time they reached the safety of Charlestown, they had lost most of their men.

We now see how the British won the battle of Lexington, and how the Americans won the battle of Concord. The Americans forced the British to retreat into safety, and they lost most of their men at Concord, so we say they won. So, even though the British had won Lexington, and both sides said they won the battle, the Americans really won because they had the final victory.

Click Here to Buy the Book: Paul Revere's Ride

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

How Basic Economics Lines up with the Bible

by Joshua Horn

I read Basic Economics in the spring of 2008. It is by Calence B. Carson, and it advocates a free market economy. For this report, we will examine whether this book speaks of Biblical things, or if it is contrary to the Bible. We will look at what it says about private property, morality, and the welfare system.

In this book, the author advocates private property. He says that there can not be common property, because in the end someone has to control the use of the property. The Bible speaks a lot about private property. For example,

“Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.”
(Deuteronomy 5:21 KJV)

From this passage we see that property is not supposed to be shared by everyone, or your neighbor would not have an ox, it would be shared by you and him. In Basic Economics, the author shows what a disaster communism was in Russia during and around World War II. Communism says that everything should be held in common. Communism also rejected God and other spiritual things. When the Communists in Russia rejected God, and the things that He created, like private property, they should not have been surprised when they failed.
Another thing talked of in this book is how morality plays into economics. Carson says that morality is necessary, whether taught in church or elsewhere, because if everyone did what was best for them in the moment, without thought of whether it is good and right or not, it would be impossible to do business. People would constantly lie, cheat, and steal to get the best temporal result. The Bible says,

“Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
(Exodus 20:13-16)

Here God stopped people who obeyed his laws from destroying the economy by commanding them not to do what is right in their own eyes. One thing that the author of Basic Economics does not emphasize is that the only way to give people a real morality is to teach them about Christ and God and why they must obey Him as their creator.

Another thing that this book speaks of is the welfare system. In the end of the book, he goes through several different economics systems from history, and this is one of them. The basic idea of this system is to take from those who have goods, and give to those who do not have them. It is an economic system where the government controls the production of all goods, and also the distribution of them. Those who advocate this system say that everyone should get paid by the government, even if they can not provide for themselves. The Bible says, “The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing: but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat.” (Proverbs 13:4) Carson says that the government should not give people money. It is not their job, but rather the person's family or the church should provide for them. The Bible says that if there is a widow who does not have a family, the church should support her. (I Timothy 5:3-16) The Bible tells us that the government should not have a welfare system.

Here I have shown a few examples of how this book does, and does not, line up with scripture. I have shown it in these situations: private property, morality and the welfare system. I think that in general Carson aligns pretty closely with the Bible, but he does not reference it explicitly. He just recommends what practically works the best, and because of the way God set it up, it works out right. I think that even though most of his ideas are biblical, it would have improved the book if he had put more scripture in it.

Buy this book from Amazon.com: Basic Economics

Lee's Lieutenants, a Study in Command – Volume 1 Manassas to Malvern Hill

Lee's Lieutenants, a Study in Command – Volume 1 Manassas to Malvern Hill

by Joshua Horn

book by Douglas Southall Freeman

Lee's Lieutenants is a three volume work written by Douglas S. Freeman. It is biography of Lee's lieutenants: the generals of the Confederate army during the American Civil War. It is a biography of all of them – how they led their troops, interacted with each other, and how they fought battles. I started reading this book January 17, 2008 and finished March 13, 2008. This book is 731 pages of reading, not including the Appendix.

Even though it was intended to be about the generals under Robert E. Lee, it starts at the beginning of the war, when Lee was not in command, to give a background of the characters who where under Lee. When the book beginnings, P. T. Beauregard, the hero of Fort Sumter, comes to take command of the Army in Virgina. He has a tendency to make great plans, but not be able to do them. He takes command of the army, and fights his first battle. This battle was the first battle of Manassas, called by the Unions the first battle of Bull Run. Joseph E. Johnson was really in command in this battle, but Beauregard pretended that he was in command. Even though Manassas was a Confederate victory, it was not well planed by Beauregard. He sent out many conflicting order which confused the generals under him.

After Manassas, Beauregard was moved to a different arena of war because of his conduct as Manassas, and Johnson remained in command. Johnson was from the United States Army, and he had a bad relationship with President Jefferson Davis and the Secretary of War. Johnson retreated before the Union army twice, and was criticized for destroying stores when he should have brought them with him. Finally, Johnson was trying to hold of the Unions just a few miles away from Richmond. He had to prevent two Union Armies from joining up. He attacked a part of the Union army that was stationed at Seven Pines. He needed to overpower them before they could receive reinforcements. Johnson's plan was very complex, and his subordinates made mistakes. The most important thing that happened in the battle was that Johnson was wounded. He could no longer command the army, so Robert E. Lee was put in command.

During this time, General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson and Richard Ewell had been campaigning in the Shenandoah Valley. Jackson fought several battles, and did very well. Then he and his army moved to Richmond to drive back the Unions from before the capital. This series of battles in driving the Unions back was called the Seven Days Battles, and occurred from June 25 to July 1, 1862. Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, and several other subordinates, developed a plan where the army currently before Richmond would attack from the front and Jackson would attack the Union's rear. Jackson's troops did not march fast enough, because of muddy roads. The Unions got news of the plan and began to retreat. The Confederate army began to pursue them. Here is what Freeman says of this campaign:

“The strategic aim of the campaign had been achieved despite bad-co-ordination, worse tactics and the worst imaginable staff work: Richmond had been relieved. McClellan no longer was at the city's gates.”1

The bad tactics of the generals resulted in two of them being removed from their place in the Army of Northern Virgina.

There are many characters in this book. One is Robert E. Lee. Before he became the commander of the Army of Northern Virgina, he was a military adviser to the President. One of his strong points was keeping the peace between generals. He knew the President well after working with him, and so he had a better relationship with him than Johnson did.

Stonewall Jackson is another important character. After commanding the First Brigade, he was appointed commander of the “Army of the Valley” in the Shenandoah Valley. During this campaign he did very well, and he used his infantry, artillery and calvary together better than any other general. He was very strict in disciple, and kept his plans well hidden. Sometimes he created problems by not telling his generals what the plans where.

I think this book is useful to learn about the Confederate generals who served under Lee and his predecessors. It does not provide an overview of the Union side, or different fronts in the war, but it does do a good job of speaking of the battles and commanders in Virgina. I like the way the author wrote it, and I am looking forward to finish the other two volumes.

1Douglas Southall Freeman, Lee's Lieutentants, a Study in Command (New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons) volume 1, p. 604

Buy this book from Amazon.com: Lee's Lieutentants

Scotland Book Recomendation

Here are the books that we read before we went to Scotland a few years ago. If you click on the title, it will take you to a page where you can buy the book. Here are our blog posts we did about it a year afterwards: Horn Herald March 2007

Tales of a Scottish Grandfather by Sir Walter Scott
Originally written to his grandchildren about Scottish history, we read most of these books by Sir Walter Scott before we went to Scotland:

Volume 1- From Bannockburn to Flodden

Volume 2 -From Gileskirk to Greyfriars

Volume 3 - From Glencoe to Stirling

Volume 4 - From Montrose to Culloden

Memorial to Bonny Prince Charlie where he returned to Scotland

G. A. Henty Books based in Scotland:
Bonnie Prince Charlie

In Freedom's Cause

Castle Campbell

The Scottish Worthies - A book about most of the Scottish Reformers.

Stories of the Covenanters in Scotland - A book of three short stories about covenanters in Scotland, originally printed in the late 1800's.

Crown and Covenant Series - This is a series of three books by Douglas Bond. They are historical novels based in Scotland in the time of the covenanters. The three books are Duncan's War, King's Arrow and Rebels Keep.

Books on Scottish Battles:

Stirling Bridge and Falkirk 1297 - 98 William Wallace's rebellion

Bannockburn 1314 - Robert the Bruce's Greatest Victory

Culloden Moor 1746 - The death of the Jacobite cause

Other Books my Father Read:

John Knox - Trumpeter of God

Blind Harry's Wallace

The Life and African Explorations of Dr. David Livingston