My Aunt Teri holding my newborn mother
My mother's family soon after my mother was born
My Aunt Teri and my mother
My mother (about 4)Embry Family Photos
I recently finished scanning my maternal grandmother's old slides. Here are some of them in chronological order.
My Aunt Teri holding my newborn mother
My mother's family soon after my mother was born
My Aunt Teri and my mother
My mother (about 4)
My Aunt Teri holding my newborn motherMy mother's family soon after my mother was bornMy Aunt Teri and my motherMy mother (about 4)CLEP
About a month ago, I (Joshua) took a CLEP test. I took the Information Systems and Computer Applications test. I had been studying for about a month using InstantCert. I passed it! I think that InstantCert was very helpful in my preperation. I am taking it so that I can earn college credit before I graduate from high school, so that it will be less expensive and quicker to get a college degree. From passing this test, I earned 3 credit hours. We first learned about CLEP tests from a book called Accelerated Disance Learing by Brad Voeller. I am currently working on English Composition, which I will take in a couple of weeks. I am hoping to pass 2 or 3 more CLEP tests before my birthday, May 5, because my father asked me.
The Three most Important things that Patrick Henry did for the Establishment of the United States
Click here to buy the book: The True Patrick Henry
Patrick Henry was a man who was one of the most eloquent orators at the time of the American War for Independence. In his youth, “He was 'thoughtful,' 'mild,' 'benevolent,' 'humane.'”1 When he was young he certainly was not a model for boys with his slovenly dress and slothfulness, but when he was old he was one of the fire brands in the American War for Independence. Three of the most important things he did were, his speech at the Continental Congress, his presence at the Convention, and his criticism of the Constitution of the United States.
The first of his acts that we will discuss is his celebrated speech in St. Johns Church on the 23rd of March, 1775. This is what Patrick Henry himself said about it, “My heart was hot within me, and while I was thus musing the fire kindled, and at last I spake with my tongue.”2 In this speech he explained that if the people of America did not want to be slaves they would have to fight the British and drive them out. “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God!”3 These were Patrick Henry's words about what he thought that the colonists should do. After his speech, “No applause followed. For some seconds there was silence. Henry's former opponents were dumb; and they were without the wish to be otherwise than dumb.”4 They did not have an answer for what he had said. He inspired many people with this burst of fire from his mouth. “The war is inevitable. And let it come! I repeat it, sir; let it come!”5 These were the words that he spoke about what he thought about the war. He did not think it could be avoided without going into complete slavery. He spoke about those who wanted to wait, “They tell us, sir, that we are weak—unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction?”6 He thought that if America was going to be a free people they had to fight then or she would never have another chance at liberty. “There is no retreat but in submission and slavery.”7 He said that the only things to do other than fighting and slavery were only illusions of hope. He said that, “I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British Ministry, for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss.”8
Another of his important contributions was his presence and his eloquence at the convention. Henry was one of the main contributors in writing the Declaration of Independence, and he was very helpful. Before the Declaration of Independence almost everyone realized the need for one, and Henry saw it too. Henry saw, “that the work of the Convention was to be constructive, and that the unity of the action was a prerequisite to success. To him the Committee of Safety was a failure. Better government was needed.”9 The man appointed to be the president of the convention was one of Henry’s enemies, and he did not fight back for this reason. He believed that the unity of the convention was more important than his beliefs. He knew that the country needed a government, and he also knew that it could not happen in disunity of the makers. “Then, in the Committee of the Whole, at Henry’s request, General Thomas Nelson introduced some ‘rough resolutions’ (still preserved, in Henry’s handwriting enjoining the Virginia delegates in Congress ‘to procure an immediate, clear, and full Declaration of Independence’”10 “‘The party of Henry’ was never better led than now. It cooperated with Pendleton in all pressing matters, and did not raise its voice for independence until the 14th of May, when the delegates were free to give the measure their full and solemn consideration.”11 He was not only helpful in the writing of the Declaration of Independence but also in the writing of the Constitution of the United States.
The next thing important Henry did was his criticism of the Constitution of the United States. “Nor should we forget that Henry’s hostility to the Federal Constitution served a beneficial purpose. It was necessary to put the new instrument through fire in order to test it and temper it. Henry certainly put it through fire. Not only that, he forced the adoption of the first ten amendments, and so, practically, was one of the great makers of the Constitution.”12 Henry was not for the Constitution, and he fought against it, but in the end he was for the Constitution, because it needed to have the dross removed. He did not want a Constitution, so he fought against it, which in the end helped what he had been fighting against. Henry, in looking at the Constitution thought that the government would swallow up all of the state’s rights, which it did at the time of the Civil War. What he feared has happened, a government which is too big. He thought that the Constitution gave the federal government too much power, so they could do anything. What Henry feared has happened, even though he thought it would come through obedience to the Constitution, but it actually came through the breaking of the Constitution.
Here we have a discussion of how his speech at the Continental Congress, his presence at the Convention, and Henry's criticism of the Constitution Of the United States are the most important things he did in his life towards the making of The United States of America. It is hard to say which is the most important of his actions because they all have good things which resulted from them. His speech could easily be said of that it was the most important because it lit up the American War for Independence. But truly, it was only a spark to what was already there. He was one of the important men of the American War for Independence for this, but he probably is not the most important. His criticism of the Constitution, and his work on the Declaration of Independence were important, but not quite as important as his speech.
Patrick Henry was a man who was one of the most eloquent orators at the time of the American War for Independence. In his youth, “He was 'thoughtful,' 'mild,' 'benevolent,' 'humane.'”1 When he was young he certainly was not a model for boys with his slovenly dress and slothfulness, but when he was old he was one of the fire brands in the American War for Independence. Three of the most important things he did were, his speech at the Continental Congress, his presence at the Convention, and his criticism of the Constitution of the United States.
The first of his acts that we will discuss is his celebrated speech in St. Johns Church on the 23rd of March, 1775. This is what Patrick Henry himself said about it, “My heart was hot within me, and while I was thus musing the fire kindled, and at last I spake with my tongue.”2 In this speech he explained that if the people of America did not want to be slaves they would have to fight the British and drive them out. “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God!”3 These were Patrick Henry's words about what he thought that the colonists should do. After his speech, “No applause followed. For some seconds there was silence. Henry's former opponents were dumb; and they were without the wish to be otherwise than dumb.”4 They did not have an answer for what he had said. He inspired many people with this burst of fire from his mouth. “The war is inevitable. And let it come! I repeat it, sir; let it come!”5 These were the words that he spoke about what he thought about the war. He did not think it could be avoided without going into complete slavery. He spoke about those who wanted to wait, “They tell us, sir, that we are weak—unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction?”6 He thought that if America was going to be a free people they had to fight then or she would never have another chance at liberty. “There is no retreat but in submission and slavery.”7 He said that the only things to do other than fighting and slavery were only illusions of hope. He said that, “I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British Ministry, for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss.”8
Another of his important contributions was his presence and his eloquence at the convention. Henry was one of the main contributors in writing the Declaration of Independence, and he was very helpful. Before the Declaration of Independence almost everyone realized the need for one, and Henry saw it too. Henry saw, “that the work of the Convention was to be constructive, and that the unity of the action was a prerequisite to success. To him the Committee of Safety was a failure. Better government was needed.”9 The man appointed to be the president of the convention was one of Henry’s enemies, and he did not fight back for this reason. He believed that the unity of the convention was more important than his beliefs. He knew that the country needed a government, and he also knew that it could not happen in disunity of the makers. “Then, in the Committee of the Whole, at Henry’s request, General Thomas Nelson introduced some ‘rough resolutions’ (still preserved, in Henry’s handwriting enjoining the Virginia delegates in Congress ‘to procure an immediate, clear, and full Declaration of Independence’”10 “‘The party of Henry’ was never better led than now. It cooperated with Pendleton in all pressing matters, and did not raise its voice for independence until the 14th of May, when the delegates were free to give the measure their full and solemn consideration.”11 He was not only helpful in the writing of the Declaration of Independence but also in the writing of the Constitution of the United States.
The next thing important Henry did was his criticism of the Constitution of the United States. “Nor should we forget that Henry’s hostility to the Federal Constitution served a beneficial purpose. It was necessary to put the new instrument through fire in order to test it and temper it. Henry certainly put it through fire. Not only that, he forced the adoption of the first ten amendments, and so, practically, was one of the great makers of the Constitution.”12 Henry was not for the Constitution, and he fought against it, but in the end he was for the Constitution, because it needed to have the dross removed. He did not want a Constitution, so he fought against it, which in the end helped what he had been fighting against. Henry, in looking at the Constitution thought that the government would swallow up all of the state’s rights, which it did at the time of the Civil War. What he feared has happened, a government which is too big. He thought that the Constitution gave the federal government too much power, so they could do anything. What Henry feared has happened, even though he thought it would come through obedience to the Constitution, but it actually came through the breaking of the Constitution.
Here we have a discussion of how his speech at the Continental Congress, his presence at the Convention, and Henry's criticism of the Constitution Of the United States are the most important things he did in his life towards the making of The United States of America. It is hard to say which is the most important of his actions because they all have good things which resulted from them. His speech could easily be said of that it was the most important because it lit up the American War for Independence. But truly, it was only a spark to what was already there. He was one of the important men of the American War for Independence for this, but he probably is not the most important. His criticism of the Constitution, and his work on the Declaration of Independence were important, but not quite as important as his speech.
6As quoted in Ibid, p. 191
12Ibid, p. 329
Labels:
"Give me Liberty or Give Me death",
American Revolution,
book report,
congress,
Constituion,
convention,
Declaration of Independance,
Essay,
Patrick Henry,
Speech,
Stephen
.
Comments:
1
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
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
Labels:
affilate link,
book recomendations,
book report,
books,
Calvin,
calvinism,
free will,
Joshua,
Martin Luther,
paper,
Reformation,
Reformation character,
Reformers
.
Comments:
0
Falling in the Creek
Yesterday we went to our Grandmother's house, like we normally do on Tuesday, and since it was nice out we decided to go down to the creek. It is a very nice creek, with rapids in some places:
And calm in others:
And calm in others:
I almost fell in a couple of times:
But I did not fall in, until I crossed the stream, and went on some rocks to get a stick Joshua threw, and stepped on a wet rock, then I slipped in. Providentially, Joshua had the camera out. Here are the pictures:
Me about to fall in:
The exact precise moment of me falling in:
Where I fell in(I slipped on the middle rock):
Me showing Joshua my bruised ankle:
Posts
