#The other sects could do the parts where people are asking for wealth and blessings

[doctorlafayette]

So it is almost 2 in the morning, but I was struck with this and none of my friends are in these Fandoms. The Concept! Wei Wuxian singing God Help the Outcasts in Xie Lian's temple. This would be while he and the Wen Remnants are living in the Burial Mounds. For Xie Lian it would be some point post-canon. I imagine that he would be more well known and respected, but there would still be some hints to his more modest past as a trash collecting god. This would be so cool! It almost makes me want to write a fanfic, but what I would really like is to read said fanfic or watch an animatic lol!

[ian-iain]

How Did Satan Come To Be?

I recently read an essay by Lesli White, who is an excellent writer. Her prose are very readable. However, her essay, “How Did Lucifer Fall and Become Satan? Where Things Really Went Wrong,” is total rubbish and almost entirely lacking in anything resembling scholarship. She seems to merely regurgitate Catholic nonsense on the matter, while providing almost no evidence for her assertions (indeed, she sites only four passages of Scripture; but, she lacks the two or three witnesses necessary to establish a matter).

Feel free to read her essay, in one piece, before you read my response to it. Here's the URI:

https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/how-did-lucifer-fall-and-become-satan.aspx

If the URI turns out to be a dead link, search on one of the many sentences that I will quote, below, from Miss White's essay, and you should be able to find a copy of the article.

Agreeing with the Roman Catholic schism of the body of Christ, Miss White teaches that “Satan was once named Lucifer, meaning ‘day star.’” But, while this is commonly held belief, even among many Satanists, it's simply not true. But, let's let Miss White make her case:

“The story of his fall is described in two key Old Testament chapters – Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14. He was an angel who was powerful and full of wisdom. He was perhaps the most beautiful and splendid angel ever created by God and of the highest order, but his pride caused his downfall and God caste him from heaven.”

However, if you actually read Ezekiel 28, you'll discover that verses 1-19 are about the king of Tyre, not Satan. It is clearly said to be about the king of Tyre in verses 1 (where he is called the prince of Tyre) and 11. In verses 13 through 16, the language becomes poetic, and the king is referred to as a cherub who was in Eden. So, the Churchisees (so-called “fathers”) of the Catholic sect conclude, without warrant, that the king of Tyre represents Satan, rather than that the poetic language of 13-16 represents the king's longevity, knowledge, beauty, wealth, and other blessings. The remainder of the chapter isn't used by Miss White to explain Satan, so there's no need for me to discuss it, here.

Isaiah 14 is about Babylon and her king. The pertinent verses, used by the Churchisees of the Catholic clique, are these:

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations!And thou saidst in thy heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north;I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”

— Isaiah 14:12-14 (American Standard Version)

The words “day star," hyphenated in the American Standard Version, are deceitfully turned into the name, Lucifer, in Catholic versions of the Scriptures, as well as in some Protestant versions. But, modern scholarship has recognized that the Hebrew words rendered Lucifer are not, in fact, a name; they are merely a symbolic description of the king of Babylon. And any reader with common sense would not adduce from this passage anything about Satan.

Additionally, Miss White provides no evidence that Satan “was. . . full of wisdom,” other than her mistaken spiritualized interpretation of Ezekiel and Isaiah. Satan is cunning; he was never wise; this will be seen, further on.

Miss White's asserts, that Satan's “pride caused his downfall and God caste him from heaven” (sic). Again, this notion is dependent upon the assumption that the tradition of the Churchisees is correct. But, a little leaven leavens the whole loaf (Galatians 5:9), so it's doubtful if any unadulterated truth ever came from that divisive organization.

Without actually making a case that Satan is a fallen angel, from Ezekiel 28 or Isaiah 14, White then asks: “So where did the breakdown happen? Why did he rebel?” She then goes on to regurgitate the pablum of the Catholic denomination:

“In Ezekiel 28: 15, it says that he remained perfect in his ways until iniquity was found in him. We discover what this iniquity was in verse 17 which reads, “Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor.”

The problem with this, as I have noted, is that the passage is talking about the king of Tyre. Although symbolicly called a “cherub” (vv. 14 & 16), he is first called “a man” (v. 2). Moreover, the one spoken of has sanctuaries. Do angels have sanctuaries? Scripture never mentions them, if they do.

Of course, one could argue that this passage says they do; but, Scripture teaches us the principle that upon two or three witnesses every fact is to be confirmed (Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18:26; 2bd Corinthians 13:1; 1st Timothy 5:29; Hebrews 10:28). And tradition is no witness; it's just an opinion or idea that has been passed down, with people having no way to know the reliability of it's origin or the many steps along the historical path of it's transmission in which it may have been corrupted. Miss White continues, saying,

“It appears that Lucifer became so impressed with his own beauty, intelligence, power and position that he began to desire the high honor and glory that belonged to God. This sin corrupted him and was resulted from self-generated pride. This represented the actual beginning of sin in the universe, even before the fall of Adam and original sin.”

Wait. . . What? So, Satan “remained perfect” until he didn't, and not remaining perfect corrupted him? Am I reading Miss White correctly? And THIS wasn't the actual beginning of sin in the universe, but merely “represented the actual beginning of sin in the universe”?

I don't know if White intends to decieve, or if it just didn't occur to her that it is deceptive to say “he remained perfect in his ways until iniquity was found in him” (from the quotation previous to the one directly above). It's deceptive, because it gives the impression that that's what the text actually says; it doesn't. In every translation that I looked at (including two Catholic versions), the word “remained” was not used of the perfect state of the person of whom Ezekiel speaks! Every translation uses a word that denotes that he “was” (not “remained”) perfect until his transgression.

Why is this important? Because the word “remained,” as White uses it, in this instance, gives the impression that the text teaches that the one of whom Ezekiel speaks remained perfect, for as long as he did, of his own accord, and that, of his own accord he did that which was less than perfect. If this was a perfect angel, wouldn't turning to evil be an imperfect action? How does that which is perfect do that which is not perfect?

If Miss White is right, this is an important question: “What was the flaw in Satan's creation that allowed him to become corrupt without a tempter to goad him? Indeed, if this creature were created morally perfect, as God is morally perfect, then even with someone to tempt him, it would be impossible for him to sin; for moral perfection is immune to and resists temptation. God Himself cannot sin.

You say, “Wait a minute, Ian. Weren't Adam and Eve created morally perfect, and didn't they yeild to temptation?” That's an interesting question. The answer of Scripture is that Adam and Eve were not created morally perfect (Jeremiah 18:3-4; Romans 8:20; Colossians 3:22). Obviously, if they were created morally perfect, they could never have sinned. An essay of its own could be written on the origin of Adam and Eve's sinful nature; possibly even a book. But, logic and the testimony of three Scriptures makes it clear that Adam and Eve were created sinful by nature. I'll explore this, further, later on.

White continues, saying:

“As a result of Lucifer’s sin, he was rightfully judged by God. In Ezekiel 28:18 we learn that he was thrown to the earth. Satan was then completely cast out of God’s heavenly government and authority.”

Never mind the fact that the name Lucifer never actually appears in the original texts of either the Hebrew or the LXX, we do not learn from this passage that the day star, or anyone else, was thrown to earth. Moreover, we are told nowhere in Scripture that Satan ever had any part in God's heavenly government and authority. Satan was never thrown out of heaven, and unto this day he freely goes before the throne of God; for he continues to this day to acccuse the brethren (Revelation 12:10).

Miss White says, “He wanted to be like God and he discovered the consequences.” Again, this is the king of Tyre that Ezekiel is writing about. His sin was the same as the people of Babel (Genesis 11:4-9). But, Miss White goes on:

“Following his monstrous sin against God, Lucifer was banished from living in heaven which we are told about in Isaiah 14:12.”

Neither Satan nor the day star of Ezekiel’s prophecy were banished from living in heaven. There is zero evidence that Ezekiel's day star ever lived in God's heaven. And Satan's expulsion was foretold by the apostle John; so, it's apparent that Satan was not kicked out in Old Testament times:

“And there came war in the heaven; Michael and his messengers did war against the dragon, and the dragon did war, and his messengers,and they did not prevail, nor was their place found any more in the heaven;and the great dragon was cast forth -- the old serpent, who is called `Devil,' and `the Adversary,' who is leading astray the whole world -- he was cast forth to the earth, and his messengers were cast forth with him.”

— Revelation 12:7-9 (YLT)

Here's where Miss White demonstrates how little understanding she has about sin and corruption:

“After this, he became corrupt. He changed his name from Lucifer, meaning ‘day star’ or ‘morning star’ to Satan, meaning ‘adversary.’”

So, it was after he sinned, and after he was allegedly banned from living in heaven, that Satan became corrupt. That seems rather odd, to me; doesn't it seem odd to you? Because, my experience is that things stray from their proper function because they already are corrupt; they don't first go astray and then become corrupt.

Also, Miss White gives zero evidence that Satan changed his name from any name at all to any other name. Most reputable modern translations don't even have the name Lucifer in them; they properly render the Hebrew as “day star” or “morning star.” It is Scripture, not Satan, that calls the Devil by the name of Satan (and, even that may be only a descriptive term, and not a name).

Now, you may be wondering, “If Miss White is mistaken about how the devil came to be evil, exactly how did Satan come to be this way?” Fortunately, Jesus himself provides the answer:

“He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

— John 8:44

John says something pretty similar in one of his letters:

“For the devil has been sinning from the beginning.”

— 1 John 3:8

Of course, those ensnared by the so-called “orthodoxy” of the Churchisees will suggest,, “Maybe that means from the beginning of the world, not Satan's beginning.” Hmm. Maybe. But, “maybe” isn't recognized by Scripture, or any scholars of Scripture, as a legitimate way to interpret the Scriptures.

Let those who use theories to maintain their idols of the heart, their corrupt understanding of Scripture, take heed to the apostle Paul's admonition:

“. . . learn through us the meaning of the saying, “Nothing beyond what is written,” so that none of you will be puffed up. . .”

— 1 Corinthians 4:6 (New Revised Standard Version)

The only reason to reject the idea that “from the beginning” in these verses means from the beginning of Satan himself, is that you don't like that understanding. But, the Scriptures don't care if you like what they say.

The fact is, in any language, when we make a time statement, such as “from the beginning,” it always pertains to the subject at hand unless another point of reference is indicated. Jesus was perfectly capable of saying the words “from the beginning of creation,” if it was that beginning, and not Satan's, that he meant:

“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’”

— Mark 10:6 (New King James Version)

“For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be.”

— Mark 13:19 (NKJV)

But, you'd be an idiot if you thought Jesus meant “the beginning of the creation” in the following verse:

“And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning.”

— John 15:27 (NKJV)

And yet, here Jesus doesn't specify what beginning; so, maybe he means the beginning of creation. Well, I guess if the obvious meaning doesn't suit you, if you have a doctrinal idol of the heart that demands that it mean the beginning of creation, then maybe it does. God is willing to let you be decieved by your maybe; for, if God will deceive a prophet, he will certainly deceive those who refuse to see the truth:

“If a prophet gives a false message, I am the one who caused that prophet to lie. But I will still reject him and cut him off from my people.”

— Ezekiel 14:9 (Contemporary English Version)

“The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

— 2nd Thessalonians 2:9-12 (NKJV)

Naturally, many will ask, “If Satan was evil from the beginning of his existence, where did he come from?” The Scriptures aren't as clear about this as they are about the creation of man. It is implied that God created Satan, possibly at the same time he created the animals:

“Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind’; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”

— Genesis 1:24-25 (NKJV)

“Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, ‘Has God indeed said, “You shall not eat of every tree of the garden”?’”

— Genesis 3:1(NKJV)

Since serpents were known to the Hebrews as beasts that creep upon the earth, one may infer that God created this beast that tempted Eve, in the garden.

Many will ask, “If God created Satan, and especially if he created him along with all the other beasts, how can that be good?” The answer is this: If any aspect of the creation of Satan (his evil nature, for example) was a mistake, if anything about the creation of Satan missed the mark that God was aiming for, then God sinned (the word sin comes from a Greek archery term, which means to miss the mark). But, if every aspect of Satan is just as God has intended, then God may well approve of his workmanship and declare it good. This is not the same as saying evil is good; it is saying only that God's intention is good, that his achievement (in hitting the mark) is good, and that his handiwork is good. Bringing an evil one into the world was good; the evil itself was not.

No doubt, some will want to know, “How could bringing evil into the world possibly be good?” The answer is this: Contrast and Opposition.

Let's consider contrast, first. Have you ever seen the reaction of a deaf child that, by means of cochlear implants, has been given the gift of hearing? Or the reaction of a color-blind man who has put on glasses that allow him to see the full spectrum of the rainbow? Most people take these things for granted; but, those who have had an experience of not knowing their goodness have an appreciation that goes beyond what most of us can truly comprehend.

Goodness cannot properly be understood or appreciated without the experience of evil. Beauty cannot be fully appreciated apart without knowing that which is truly ugly. Peace cannot be properly valued without having known horror. Truth cannot be properly valued without the experience of deceit. Light cannot be fully enjoyed if you've never known darkness. Unity cannot be appreciated if you've never known division. Spiritual life cannot be appreciated without having known spiritual death.

Moreover, opposition is critical to development and maturity. Without it, proper growth is impossible. It is that opposition that we call “gravity,” which causes objects to fall to the ground, that initially keeps a baby from standing up and walking about; but, without that opposition, the baby would not grow in strength. Likewise, it is evil that enables a spiritual man to grow in moral character by his resistance to it. Jesus grew in maturity (Luke 2:52; Hebrews 5:8-9) to an extent that few who claim to follow him ever have:

“In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.”

— Hebrews 12:4 (NRSV)

Next, Miss White gets off on a rabbit trail, leaving the issue of how Satan became evil, to doing her best to make sure her readers never even consider that what she teaches is demonic; but, she's clever, and starts out with obvious truth, before going on to doctrines she considers “orthodox,” but which most Christians have never really studied:

“It’s very important that we watch out for Satan and his advances. The enemy will do everything in his power to get you to focus your attention away from God. In a society where so many are driven by acquiring wealth, power and status, Satan wants you to believe that obtaining these things will bring you happiness and completeness. This is completely false.”

We can excuse her for not providing proof of this, because all believers know it to be true. However, in her next statement she brings up rejection of a so-called “orthodox” doctrine, as a means that Satan allegedly uses to deceive disciples of the Lord. Unlike the issues she has already mentioned, few believers have ever studied so-called “orthodox” doctrines; and, if they have, they probably have not considered any in-depth studies that are critical of these doctrines.

Those who accept something as scriptural on the basis of having been told it is so by someone they trust are not engaged in faith; they're engaged in assumption. Their “belief” merely assumes the truth of the “orthodox” doctrine. Well, in a sense such notions are faith. But, they are faith in tradition, not faith in God; it is trust in teachers, not trust in Christ.

Notice how clever Miss White is, in her attempt to make sure her readers remain twice the children of a burning garbage dump as herself. When speaking about Satan, she says:

“He also wants you to believe that hell doesn’t exist, not only because it puts us in a mental place where living a life of sin is acceptable but also because he wants to put us at odds with God.”

Here's the truth: Satan revels in the fact that millions of Christians believe in hell. Not only because it paralyses them with irrational fear (the fear their faith might not be the saving kind, and that their sins will result in them suffering unspeakably obscene torture for eternity), which consequently causes them think they might as well relax and enjoy their favorite sins; but, because also it causes Christians to blaspheme the everlasting love and grace of God and to belittle the cross of Christ.

If Satan wants people to believe that hell doesn't exist, then why did he promote belief in hell among the Egyptians at a time when the Israelites themselves did not believe in it? That's right! The first time in history, when we are introduced to the idea of dead people who are actually alive, but in a different realm, where those who were wicked in this life are tortured in flames upon death, is in Egyptian mythology.

Read the Old Testament. You may see the English word, “hell,” in some versions of the Hebrew Scriptures (the best translations do not have the word “hell” anywhere in the Old Testament); but, you will find no doctrine of hell in the Old Testament. The doctrine of everlasting torment, called “hell,” was the invention of the Catholic denomination's “saint” Augustine.

Are we to believe that, when God told Adam that the penalty for his disobedience was death, that he was enjoying a fiendish joke, knowing that, to Adam's surprise, when he died he wouldn't really be dead at all, and that, instead of death, Adam would be tortured for thousands upon thousands of hours, and after that, he'd continue to be tortured for thousands of thousands of days, and then, after that, the torture would continue for thousands and thousands of weeks, and then for thousands upon thousands of years. . . And that, in fact, the torture would never end? Since God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19; 1st Samuel 15:29; Hebrews 6:18), we can rest assured that Adam is actually quite dead, unaware of anything (much less torture).

“For the living will know that they shall die: but the dead know nothing, and there is no longer any reward to them; for their memory is lost.”

— Ecclesiastes 9:5 (Brenton Septuagint Translation)

“Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the [b]spirit will return to God who gave it.”

— Ecclesiastes 12:7 (NASB 1995)

“Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals.”

— Ecclesiastes 3:19 (NIV)

When the breath of God leaves a man and returns to Him, man ceases to be a living soul. He knows nothing, he can neither praise God (Isaiah 38:18) nor curse him, it is as a dreamless sleep (1st Kings 11:43, 22:50; Job 14:10-12; Psalm 13:3; Daniel 12:2; Luke 8:52-53; John 11:11-14; Acts 7:60; 1st Corinthians 15:6; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).

The Egyptians passed their doctrine of hell on to the Greeks, from which the Catholic schism got it. But, they also passed the doctrine on to the Arabs, from which Mohammed obtained it. Thus, we find the staunchest proponents of the Doctrine of Hell are not the various denominations of the body of Christ, but the false teachers of the so-called religion of “peace.”

Are we to believe that God inspired Egyptians and Arabs to have well-developed notions of hell, but never said a word about it to any Old Testament patriarch, prophet, or priest, and that Satan could not disuade heathen nations from belief in the torments of hell? Are we to believe that Satan can't convince Mohammedans that hell doesn't exist?

Miss White goes on to exult what she apparently views as the greater power of Adam to “break” mankind, and the superior strength of the will of man to resist what she clearly views as God's impotence to actually save. She also seems to praise the notion that God has a perversely fiendish penchant for nasty eternal surprises; for, if the Catholic/Protestant/Mohammedan doctrine of hell is true, it will certainly be a nasty surprise to millions of faithless Israelites who lived prior to the “good news” of God's (heretofore unrevealed) everlastingly failing mercy. In her view, it seems that man must have redeeming qualities as a prerequisite to salvation (namely, that man must have enough goodness, wisdom, and will to be saved). Listen to her utter twaddle:

“How could a God who loves us so deeply send any of his children to a place of such torment? While hell is just as real as heaven is, God doesn’t send us there. Our complete brokenness does. God does everything He possibly can to keep us away from hell.”

Miss White's God is pathetic. He does everything He can; but, he's just no match for the will of man to resist even His best efforts to save him. Her Christ is quite inferior, too. He's just not able to save as many as died in Adam, or He just doesn't want to. Isn't that something?

Miss White says nothing to prove that her Boogeyman (hell) is real. She just assumes it is, knowing that most of her readers are irrational and fearful in the ignorant belief they share with her, that God hates some people as much as he loves others.

I am not going to try to persuade you that hell is not real, even though I am entirely persuaded that it is complete nonsense. Nevertheless, search as you will, the notion of eternal torment formed no part of any proclamation of any gospel message anywhere in the New Testament. And wherever you find the word “hell,” coming out of Jesus mouth in English translations of Scripture, with one exception, it is always as a warning to people who believe in Christ, and not to the unbelieving Jews. And, even the one exception really isn't a warning so much as it is a rebuke (Matthew 23:15).

For the sake of argument, let's assume hell is real, that it actually is the teaching of Scripture. Miss White has offered zero evidence that God does not send people there, or that people send themselves there. That idea is asinine on the face of it. Until the 19th century, most of unbelieving humanity never heard of hell (think Asia, India, Africa, South America, and nearly all of North America); so, how could they have sent themselves to hell?

Now, here's something that actually is undisputably just as real as heaven: the Lake of Fire. It is a terrible refiners furnace, in which many legitimate servants of Jesus Christ, genuine spiritual virgins who are sincerely anticipating the Lord's return, and authentic ministers (so-called “priests” and “pastors”) of Christ's assemblies, will suffer (Matthew 18:28-35; 25:1-12 & 26-30; Luke 12:42-48).

And while the Lake of Fire is real, no one sends himself there, either; everyone who goes there is sent there by Christ! It is the second death; but, it will end, when that which is filthy, useless, and carnal is burnt away from polluting the images of God that suffer its torments, when at last Jesus conquers the last enemy (1st Corinthians 15:26).

Miss White says that, if we go to hell, “Our complete brokenness” is what sends us there. But, how did we become broken in the first place? Miss White, I'm sure, believes that we ourselves are responsible for that; but, as I mentioned earlier, this is not the teaching of Scripture! Here's what the Scriptures actually say about mankind's brokenness:

“The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: ‘Come, go down to the potter’s house, and there I will let you hear my words.’ So I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was working at his wheel. The vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand. . .”

— Jeremiah 18:1-4

“for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope.”

— Romans 8:20

“But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.”

— Galatians 3:22

When a Potter is making a vessel, and it becomes spoiled, marred, ruined, or defective, it's because of one or two reasons:

a. The clay is of low quality

b. The Potter applied too much pressure at the wrong time.

The apostle, Paul, is explicit in telling us that man was not a willing participant in his having become subjected to futility, saying that all have been imprisoned under the power of sin. Our sinfulness is part of God's plan. The responsibility for sin lies with Him, not us.

Will we be called to give an account for our deeds? Yes. Will we be punished for our wicked deeds, or rewarded for our good deeds? Yes! But, whether good or evil, we are not responsible for our deeds.

We have been marred, ruined, spoiled while still in the hand of the Potter. We have been subjected to vanity, not willingly; but, by Him who subjected us. We have been imprisoned by Scripture under the power of sin. And whatever good we do, as disciples of the Lord Jesus, it is Christ in us that does them (Matthew 10:20; Galatians 2:20; 1st Corinthians 15:10; 2nd Corinthians 4:7).

If we assume that hell is real, then Miss White's assertion that “God does everything He possibly can to keep us away from hell,” is asinine to anyone who truly knows the love and power of God. And anyone who has even a passing familiarity with the Scriptures should have an understanding of the power of God, even if they don't yet know his love. So, in 2000 years, how many people has God permitted Christ to stop in their tracks, and to call to them from heaven, to save them from their sins? Only one that I've ever heard about (Acts 9:3-16).

God does not appear to be doing anything at all, at this time, to save most of humanity. Nevertheless, God is in the process of reconciling all men to Himself through Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:17-19; Colossians 1:13-20). But, God does not do everything He possibly can to achieve this goal; He does everything he has, in ages past, determined He would do to save all men — and He will not fail.

Miss White goes on, returning to the obvious, which in this essay, merely serves as a distraction. Hell seems to be the real issue that she wants to drive home; and now, without having provided any evidence that hell is real, she wishes to move away from that issue before her readers have time to think critically about it:

“In addition, Satan wants you to believe he’s more powerful than God in hopes that you will lean on your own understanding, not God’s.”

This, of course, is just stupid. How would a person believing that Satan is more powerful than God lead him to lean on his own understanding? Wouldn't it cause him to lean on Satan's understanding? Isn't this what we see the whole world doing, now, with the so-called “science” that a few, select organizations and most governments are promoting as god? People are leaning on the “science,” rather than common sense, personal research, and rational analysis of facts, experience, and what they're being told.

Miss White continues:

“He wants you to hear his voice, which manifests itself in the form of stress, confusion, addiction, even depression, instead of talking to God and trusting that all things are possible through Him.”

But, while this is true, it's really pretty basic stuff. It has nothing to do with the question, “How Did Lucifer Fall and Become Satan?” or the subject of “Where things really went wrong.” But, it undoubtedly gets readers to think about something other than how she hasn't provided any evidence for any of her most important assertions. Miss White offers more filler to keep her readers distracted:

“If you believe God doesn’t have your back, Satan believes you will turn to him.”

Miss White talks like a fourth grader. This is complete rubbish. Although the day is fast approaching, when Satan will expect people to turn to him, this has not been his focus for the better part of 2000 years! Very few people turn to Satan when they turn from God.

I'm going to skip ahead in Miss White’s essay, because most of the rest is just more irrelevant, very basic, fourth grade religious primer type stuff that has nothing to do with the stated topic of her essay. It's not even an application of her unsubstantiated claims about how Satan became evil:

“God promises eternal life and salvation for those who believe.”

I believe two apples, when added to two other apples, equals four apples. So, I guess I have eternal life. Right? What if I believed in Zeus or some other false god? Does God promise eternal life and salvation for that? Or, maybe teaching what God actually promises is important, as well as providing evidence of the truth of it for those who are ignorant.

The fact is, although it is true that those who believe in Jesus Christ are promised immortality (Romans 2:7; 1 Corinthians 15:53-54; 2 Timothy 1:10), the Scriptures never promise “eternal life,” in those words. Every instance in which “eternal life” is mentioned in English versions of the Bible, the original Greek speaks of æonian life or ageistic life (life pertaining to the age). This can easily be seen in more literal translations (for example, the Concordant New Testament, Young's Literal Translation). While immortality is promised, the focus of the New Testament is life for the coming kingdom age.

The rest of Miss White's remarks are irrelevant to the subject of how Satan became evil, so I'm not going to pursue an examination of them. Rather, I'd like to conclude this review of her godless, albeit traditional views, by showing the significance of Satan in God's eternal scheme to create a family for Himself.

We have seen that it was necessary for God to have an adversary, in order that contrast and opposition might be provided for the development of appreciation of His goodness as well as the development of righteousness in His children. Likewise, for this reason it was important for man to be created from dust, as carnal or fleshly, earthly beings that lust after the flesh.

Adam and Eve, like Satan, were never morally perfect beings. If they were, why did they never eat from the Tree of Life? Every Christian theologian acknowledges that the Tree of Life was Christ. So, why didn't Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Life and live “forever”?

The answer is because, Adam and Eve were not spiritually perfect. In fact, they were not even especially spiritual. They were created carnal, as soulish or soulical beings:

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

— Genesis 2:7 (KJV)

Yes, God breathed a spirit into man, and the binding of that spirit to the dust that is man created a living soul. So, man because he is made from the dust of the ground is earthy, dusty, slimey, clayish, mundane. But, the apostle Paul tells us:

“And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

— 1 Corinthians 15:45-50 (KJV)

The Tree of Life (Christ) didn't appeal to Adam and Eve because it was heavenly and they were earthly. Otherwise, surely they would have eaten from it. Indeed, Adam had time to name many animals before Eve was created; but, he never found time to eat from the Tree of Life.

If Adam and Eve were created spiritually perfect, the Serpent's temptation would have been resisted:

“But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.”

— James 1:14 (NKJV)

“For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world.

— 1 John 2:16 (NKJV)

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food [that's the lust of the flesh that John listed first, in the verse above], that it was pleasant to the eyes [the lust of the eyes he spoke of second], and a tree desirable to make one wise [the pride of life he mentioned lastly], she [was drawn away by her own desires and enticed, as mentioned by James, and so she] took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

— Genesis 3:6 (NKJV)

So, we see that, even before Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, their souls were earthly, not heavenly; they were of the world and not of the Father. Indeed, if God wanted to create spiritually perfect children, he wouldn't have made them from the dust of the earth; he would have given them spiritual bodies:

“There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

— 1 Corinthians 15:44 (NKJV)

God wants children who aren't just spiritual, but who are “mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil (Hebrews 5:14 NASB 1995). Adam and Eve gained a knowledge of good and evil; but, they were neither mature nor discerning; moreover, they were not spiritual.

Adam and Eve needed a savior even before they ate the Forbidden Fruit; but, they were unaware of their need, or of their unacceptable nature, until they ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Satan was necessary to necessary to help them overcome their fear of the consequence of eating from the tree, so they could realize their nakedness (their unacceptable state as fleshly souls, and their need to be clothed with the righteousness of Christ); thus Satan has been God's tool, to provide opposition and contrast ever since. God does not tempt men; but, he did create Satan; in part, for this very purpose (Job 1:8-12).

[quietya]

If You Like...Sarah J. Maas

At the end of 2016, I asked if there was anything you guys wanted to see on the blog. A couple of you mentioned posts that linked popular books with underrated books. I’ve been sitting on this for a while, trying to come up with matches, and right now my easiest match? Is Throne of Glass by Sarah J. Maas. One, because a lot of you love it, and two, because I’ve actually read it.

So, without further delay, here are some books you probably haven’t heard of but you might like if you love Throne of Glass.

Death Sworn by Leah Cypress

When Ileni lost her magic, she lost everything: her place in society, her purpose in life, and the man she had expected to spend her life with. So when the Elders sent her to be magic tutor to a secret sect of assassins, she went willingly, even though the last two tutors had died under mysterious circumstances. But beneath the assassins’ caves, Ileni will discover a new place and a new purpose… and a new and dangerous love. She will struggle to keep her lost magic a secret while teaching it to her deadly students, and to find out what happened to the two tutors who preceded her. But what she discovers will change not only her future, but the future of her people, the assassins… and possibly the entire world.

Grave Mercy by Robin LaFevers

Seventeen-year-old Ismae escapes from the brutality of an arranged marriage into the sanctuary of the convent of St. Mortain, where the sisters still serve the gods of old. Here she learns that the god of Death Himself has blessed her with dangerous gifts—and a violent destiny. If she chooses to stay at the convent, she will be trained as an assassin and serve as a handmaiden to Death. To claim her new life, she must destroy the lives of others. Ismae’s most important assignment takes her straight into the high court of Brittany—where she finds herself woefully under prepared—not only for the deadly games of intrigue and treason, but for the impossible choices she must make. For how can she deliver Death’s vengeance upon a target who, against her will, has stolen her heart?

Scarlet by A.C. Gaughen

Will Scarlet is good at two things: stealing from the rich and keeping secrets - skills that are in high demand in Robin Hood’s band of thieves, who protect the people of Nottingham from the evil sheriff. Scarlet’s biggest secret of all is one only Robin and his men know…that she is posing as a thief; that the slip of a boy who is fast with sharp knives is really a girl.

The terrible events in her past that led Scarlet to hide her real identity are in danger of being exposed when the thief taker Lord Gisbourne arrives in town to rid Nottingham of the Hood and his men once and for all. As Gisbourne closes in a put innocent lives at risk, Scarlet must decide how much the people of Nottingham mean to her, especially John Little, a flirtatious fellow outlaw, and Robin, whose quick smiles have the rare power to unsettle her. There is real honor among these thieves and so much more - making this a fight worth dying for.

Mask of Shadows by Linsey Miller (coming September 5, 2017)

Sallot Leon is a thief, and a good one at that. But gender fluid Sal wants nothing more than to escape the drudgery of life as a highway robber and get closer to the upper-class―and the nobles who destroyed their home. When Sal steals a flyer for an audition to become a member of The Left Hand―the Queen’s personal assassins, named after the rings she wears―Sal jumps at the chance to infiltrate the court and get revenge. But the audition is a fight to the death filled with clever circus acrobats, lethal apothecaries, and vicious ex-soldiers. A childhood as a common criminal hardly prepared Sal for the trials. And as Sal succeeds in the competition, and wins the heart of Elise, an intriguing scribe at court, they start to dream of a new life and a different future, but one that Sal can have only if they survive.

Shadowfell by Juliet Marillier

Sixteen-year-old Neryn is alone in the land of Alban, where the oppressive king has ordered anyone with magical strengths captured and brought before him. Eager to hide her own canny skill–a uniquely powerful ability to communicate with the fairy-like Good Folk–Neryn sets out for the legendary Shadowfell, a home and training ground for a secret rebel group determined to overthrow the evil King Keldec. During her dangerous journey, she receives aid from the Good Folk, who tell her she must pass a series of tests in order to recognize her full potential. She also finds help from a handsome young man, Flint, who rescues her from certain death–but whose motives in doing so remain unclear. Neryn struggles to trust her only allies. They both hint that she alone may be the key to Alban’s release from Keldec’s rule. Homeless, unsure of who to trust, and trapped in an empire determined to crush her, Neryn must make it to Shadowfell not only to save herself, but to save Alban.

Midnight Thief by Livia Blackburne

Growing up on Forge’s streets has taught Kyra how to stretch a coin. And when that’s not enough, her uncanny ability to scale walls and bypass guards helps her take what she needs. But when the leader of the Assassins Guild offers Kyra a lucrative job, she hesitates. She knows how to get by on her own, and she’s not sure she wants to play by his rules. But he’s persistent—and darkly attractive—and Kyra can’t quite resist his pull. Tristam of Brancel is a young Palace knight on a mission. After his best friend is brutally murdered by Demon Riders, a clan of vicious warriors who ride bloodthirsty wildcats, Tristam vows to take them down. But as his investigation deepens, he finds his efforts thwarted by a talented thief, one who sneaks past Palace defenses with uncanny ease. When a fateful raid throws Kyra and Tristam together, the two enemies realize that their best chance at survival—and vengeance—might be to join forces. And as their loyalties are tested to the breaking point, they learn a startling secret about Kyra’s past that threatens to reshape both their lives.

StarCrossed by Elizabeth C. Bunce

Digger thrives as a spy and sneak-thief among the feuding religious factions of Gerse, dodging the Greenmen who have banned all magic. But when a routine job goes horribly wrong and her partner and lover Tegen is killed, she has to get out of the city, fast, and hides herself in a merry group of nobles to do so. Accepted as a lady’s maid to shy young Merista Nemair, Digger finds new peace and friendship at the Nemair stronghold–as well as plenty of jewels for the taking. But after the devious Lord Daul catches her in the act of thievery, he blackmails her into becoming his personal spy in the castle, and Digger soon realizes that her noble hosts aren’t as apolitical as she thought… that indeed, she may be at the heart of a magical rebellion.

The Orphan Queen by Jodi Meadows

Wilhelmina has a hundred identities. She is a princess. When the Indigo Kingdom conquered her homeland, Wilhelmina and other orphaned children of nobility were taken to Skyvale, the Indigo Kingdom’s capital. Ten years later, they are the Ospreys, experts at stealth and theft. With them, Wilhelmina means to take back her throne. She is a spy. Wil and her best friend, Melanie, infiltrate Skyvale Palace to study their foes. They assume the identities of nobles from a wraith-fallen kingdom, but enemies fill the palace, and Melanie’s behavior grows suspicious. With Osprey missions becoming increasingly dangerous and their leader more unstable, Wil can’t trust anyone. She is a threat. Wraith is the toxic by-product of magic, and for a century using magic has been forbidden. Still the wraith pours across the continent, reshaping the land and animals into fresh horrors. Soon it will reach the Indigo Kingdom. Wilhelmina’s magic might be the key to stopping the wraith, but if the vigilante Black Knife discovers Wil’s magic, she will vanish like all the others.

The Falconer by Elizabeth May

She’s a stunner. Edinburgh, 1844. Eighteen-year-old Lady Aileana Kameron, the only daughter of the Marquess of Douglas, has everything a girl could dream of: brains, charm, wealth, a title—and drop-dead beauty. She’s a liar. But Aileana only looks the part of an aristocratic young lady. she’s leading a double life: She has a rare ability to sense the sìthíchean—the faery race obsessed with slaughtering humans—and, with the aid of a mysterious mentor, has spent the year since her mother died learning how to kill them. She’s a murderer. Now Aileana is dedicated to slaying the fae before they take innocent lives. With her knack for inventing ingenious tools and weapons—from flying machines to detonators to lightning pistols—ruthless Aileana has one goal: Destroy the faery who destroyed her mother. She’s a Falconer. The last in a line of female warriors born with a gift for hunting and killing the fae, Aileana is the sole hope of preventing a powerful faery population from massacring all of humanity. Suddenly, her quest is a lot more complicated. She still longs to avenge her mother’s murder—but she’ll have to save the world first.

Daughters of Ruin by K.D. Castner

Rhea, Cadis, Suki, and Iren have lived together since they were children. They are called sisters. They are not. They are called equals. They are not. They are princesses. And they are enemies. A brutal war ravaged their kingdoms, and Rhea’s father was the victor. As a gesture of peace, King Declan brought the daughters of his rivals to live under his protection—and his ever-watchful eye. For ten years they have trained together as diplomats and warriors, raised to accept their thrones and unite their kingdoms in peace. But there is no peace among sisters, and all plans shatter when the palace is attacked. As their intended future lies in ashes, Rhea, Cadis, Suki, and Iren must decide where their loyalties lie: to their nations, or to each other.

The Storyteller by Becky Wallace

In a world where dukes plot their way to the throne, a Performer’s life can get tricky. And in Johanna Von Arlo’s case, it can be fatal. Expelled from her troupe after her father’s death, Johanna is forced to work for the handsome Lord Rafael DeSilva. Too bad they don’t get along. But while Johanna’s father’s death was deemed an accident, the Keepers aren’t so sure. The Keepers, a race of people with magical abilities, are on a quest to find the princess—the same princess who is supposed to be dead and whose throne the dukes are fighting over. But they aren’t the only ones looking for her. And in the wake of their search, murdered girls keep turning up—girls who look exactly like the princess, and exactly like Johanna. With dukes, Keepers, and a killer all after the princess, Johanna finds herself caught up in political machinations for the throne, threats on her life, and an unexpected romance that could change everything.

The Shadow Queen by C.J. Redwine

Lorelai Diederich, crown princess and fugitive at large, has one mission: kill the wicked queen who took both the Ravenspire throne and the life of her father. To do that, Lorelai needs to use the one weapon she and Queen Irina have in common—magic. She’ll have to be stronger, faster, and more powerful than Irina, the most dangerous sorceress Ravenspire has ever seen. In the neighboring kingdom of Eldr, when Prince Kol’s father and older brother are killed by an invading army of magic-wielding ogres, the second-born prince is suddenly given the responsibility of saving his kingdom. To do that, Kol needs magic—and the only way to get it is to make a deal with the queen of Ravenspire, promise to become her personal huntsman…and bring her Lorelai’s heart. But Lorelai is nothing like Kol expected—beautiful, fierce, and unstoppable—and despite dark magic, Lorelai is drawn in by the passionate and troubled king. Fighting to stay one step ahead of the dragon huntsman—who she likes far more than she should—Lorelai does everything in her power to ruin the wicked queen. But Irina isn’t going down without a fight, and her final move may cost the princess the one thing she still has left to lose.

Assassin’s Heart by Sarah Ahiers

 In the kingdom of Lovero, nine rival Families of assassins lawfully kill people for a price. As a highly skilled member of one of these powerful clans, seventeen-year-old Lea Saldana has always trusted in the strength of her Family. Until she awakens to find them murdered and her home in flames. The Da Vias, the Saldanas’ biggest enemy, must be responsible—and Lea should have seen it coming. But her secret relationship with the Da Vias’ son, Val, has clouded her otherwise killer instinct—and given the Da Vias more reason than ever to take her Family down. Racked with guilt and shattered over Val’s probable betrayal, Lea sets out to even the score, with her heart set on retaliation and only one thought clear in her mind: make the Da Vias pay.

Sword and Verse by Kathy MacMillan

Raisa was only a child when she was kidnapped and enslaved in Qilara. Forced to serve in the palace of the King, she’s endured hunger, abuse, and the harrowing fear of discovery. Everyone knows that Raisa is Arnath, but not that she is a Learned One, a part of an Arnath group educated in higher order symbols. In Qilara, this language is so fiercely protected that only the King, the Prince, and Tutors are allowed to know it. So when the current Tutor-in-training is executed for sharing the guarded language with slaves and Raisa is chosen to replace her, Raisa knows that, although she may have a privileged position among slaves, any slipup could mean death. That would be challenging enough, but training alongside Prince Mati could be her real undoing. And when a romance blossoms between them, she’s suddenly filled with a dangerous hope for something she never before thought possible: more. Then she’s approached by the Resistance—an underground army of slaves—to help liberate the Arnath people. Joining the Resistance could mean freeing her people…but she’d also be aiding in the war against her beloved, an honorable man she knows wants to help the slaves. Working against the one she loves—and a palace full of deadly political renegades—has some heady consequences. As Raisa struggles with what’s right, she unwittingly uncovers a secret that the Qilarites have long since buried…one that, unlocked, could bring the current world order to its knees. And Raisa is the one holding the key.

Cruel Beauty by Rosamund Hodge

Since birth, Nyx has been betrothed to the evil ruler of her kingdom-all because of a foolish bargain struck by her father. And since birth, she has been in training to kill him. With no choice but to fulfill her duty, Nyx resents her family for never trying to save her and hates herself for wanting to escape her fate. Still, on her seventeenth birthday, Nyx abandons everything she's ever known to marry the all-powerful, immortal Ignifex. Her plan? Seduce him, destroy his enchanted castle, and break the nine-hundred-year-old curse he put on her people. But Ignifex is not at all what Nyx expected. The strangely charming lord beguiles her, and his castle—a shifting maze of magical rooms—enthralls her. As Nyx searches for a way to free her homeland by uncovering Ignifex's secrets, she finds herself unwillingly drawn to him. Even if she could bring herself to love her sworn enemy, how can she refuse her duty to kill him? With time running out, Nyx must decide what is more important: the future of her kingdom, or the man she was never supposed to love.

The Kingdom of Little Wounds by Susann Cokal

On the eve of Princess Sophia’s wedding, the Scandinavian city of Skyggehavn prepares to fete the occasion with a sumptuous display of riches. Yet beneath the veneer of celebration, a shiver of darkness creeps through the palace halls. A mysterious illness plagues the royal family, threatening the lives of the throne’s heirs, and a courtier’s wolfish hunger for the king’s favors sets a devious plot in motion. Here in the palace at Skyggehavn, things are seldom as they seem—and when a single errant prick of a needle sets off a series of events that will alter the course of history, the fates of seamstress Ava Bingen and mute nursemaid Midi Sorte become irrevocably intertwined. As they navigate a tangled web of palace intrigue, power-lust, and deception, Ava and Midi must carve out their own survival any way they can.

The Great Hunt by Wendy Higgins

When a strange beast terrorizes the kingdom of Lochlanach, fear stirs revolt. In an act of desperation, a proclamation is sent to all of Eurona—kill the creature and win the ultimate prize: the daughter of King Lochson’s hand in marriage. Princess Aerity knows her duty to the kingdom but cannot bear the idea of marrying a stranger... until a brooding local hunter, Paxton Seabolt, catches her attention. There’s no denying the unspoken lure between them... or his mysterious resentment. Paxton is not the marrying type. Nor does he care much for spoiled royals and their arcane laws. He’s determined to keep his focus on the task at hand—ridding the kingdom of the beast—but the princess continues to surprise him, and the perilous secrets he’s buried begin to surface.

Hunted by Meagan Spooner (coming March 14, 2017)

Beauty knows the Beast’s forest in her bones—and in her blood. Though she grew up with the city’s highest aristocrats, far from her father’s old lodge, she knows that the forest holds secrets and that her father is the only hunter who’s ever come close to discovering them. So when her father loses his fortune and moves Yeva and her sisters back to the outskirts of town, Yeva is secretly relieved. Out in the wilderness, there’s no pressure to make idle chatter with vapid baronessas…or to submit to marrying a wealthy gentleman. But Yeva’s father’s misfortune may have cost him his mind, and when he goes missing in the woods, Yeva sets her sights on one prey: the creature he’d been obsessively tracking just before his disappearance. Deaf to her sisters’ protests, Yeva hunts this strange Beast back into his own territory—a cursed valley, a ruined castle, and a world of creatures that Yeva’s only heard about in fairy tales. A world that can bring her ruin or salvation. Who will survive: the Beauty, or the Beast?

Poison by Bridget Zinn

Sixteen-year-old Kyra, a highly-skilled potions master, is the only one who knows her kingdom is on the verge of destruction—which means she’s the only one who can save it. Faced with no other choice, Kyra decides to do what she does best: poison the kingdom’s future ruler, who also happens to be her former best friend. But, for the first time ever, her poisoned dart . . . misses. Now a fugitive instead of a hero, Kyra is caught in a game of hide-and-seek with the king’s army and her potioner ex-boyfriend, Hal. At least she’s not alone. She’s armed with her vital potions, a too-cute pig, and Fred, the charming adventurer she can’t stop thinking about. Kyra is determined to get herself a second chance (at murder), but will she be able to find and defeat the princess before Hal and the army find her? Kyra is not your typical murderer, and she’s certainly no damsel-in-distress—she’s the lovable and quick-witted hero of this romantic novel that has all the right ingredients to make teen girls swoon.

Frostblood by Elly Blake

Seventeen-year-old Ruby is a Fireblood who has concealed her powers of heat and flame from the cruel Frostblood ruling class her entire life. But when her mother is killed trying to protect her, and rebel Frostbloods demand her help to overthrow their bloodthirsty king, she agrees to come out of hiding, desperate to have her revenge. Despite her unpredictable abilities, Ruby trains with the rebels and the infuriating—yet irresistible—Arcus, who seems to think of her as nothing more than a weapon. But before they can take action, Ruby is captured and forced to compete in the king’s tournaments that pit Fireblood prisoners against Frostblood champions. Now she has only one chance to destroy the maniacal ruler who has taken everything from her—and from the icy young man she has come to love.

I wish this list was more diverse, but that’s what I can think of/find at the moment that I know aren’t super popular. If there’s something YOU think should be on this list, definitely let me know! And if you want more posts like this, I want to know that too! I have a bunch of drafts along these lines, but it’ll help to know what you want to see most.

[frederickwiddowson]

1Corinthians 10:1-33: Christian liberty versus self-restraint (part three)

1 ¶  Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2  And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3  And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4  And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 5  But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

 This is a hint that many of the Corinthian Christians had been Jews. In the beginning Christianity was thought to be merely a sect of first century Judaism. Paul refers to all our fathers in a clear reference to the Hebrews who passed through the Red Sea. Not only is the Red Sea crossing a type of baptism but also the cloud which God moved in, a clear indication of how not all references to baptism refer to getting wet.

 Exodus 13:21  And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:

 Exodus 14:19  And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them:

 A reference to Manna is made and to the rock from which the Hebrews were supernaturally able to drink.

 Exodus 17:6  Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

 Paul here, I believe, by the wisdom given to him by the Holy Spirit, makes a metaphor as a rock was not literally, actually Christ which Moses was told to strike. Christ wasn’t physically transformed into a rock or disguising Himself as a rock. The rock represented Him. There are those that would say that the rock as actually Christ in a type of disguise, which doesn’t seem in keeping with the way the Bible is written. Paul uses a great many metaphors in his arguments from the Christian’s body being a temple, from Christians being a building, and the church as Christ’s body on earth. All of these things mean something important but you are not made of stone, nor are your fellow church members bricks, and Christ is not a disembodied head floating around in the heavenly realm.

    6 ¶  Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 7  Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is

written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. 8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. 9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. 10  Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. 11  Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 12  Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. 13  There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. 14  Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

 Things that were revealed to us in the past were revealed for a reason. Brush aside all of the sermons on the events of Exodus mentioned here and see how the Holy Spirit, through Paul, interprets their meaning. The warning here is against idolatry, elevating false gods. Paul here also reveals his personal opinion and hope, like ours, that the end must be coming soon.

 The word temptation here is not a reference to our modern notion of being tempted by something like gazing at the air-brushed images on the magazine rack in the grocery store or gossiping. This, in context, is about the traps that are out there that encourage us, attempt to trick us even, to defile our worship of God. A temptation urges us to worship it rather than God. It is also a trial, suffering, and grief that causes us to doubt our faith. In fact, it is anything that damages our faith and trust in God.

 A personal disaster and grief, persecution for one’s faith, elevating something like sex, education, employment, or material possessions above God, and sin itself are temptations to turn away from the faith.

 I recently have seen someone so bound up in their desire to do what they know God has forbidden that they not only did not repent of their ways but even began to deny their faith. And yet, they once prayed fervently and often for loved ones who did not trust and believe in God. Their desire to sin was a temptation that damaged their faith.

 The Hebrews followed God and received a type of baptism but then afterwards committed idolatry and many were killed as a result. Paul warns the Corinthians to run from the idol worship which permeated the Graeco-Roman world of the first century. Many today have made their preferred sin an idol and now worship it rather than God.

 Paul and the Corinthians lived in a world where a Christian’s life could be threatened with a warning, to renounce Christ or lose your property and your life. It was a world full of involuntary temptation that presented itself to you in a forceful way.

 Lead us not into temptation…is a plea to protect us from malicious things that challenge our faith…but deliver us from evil. The greatest trouble, calamity, or evil is one that draws you to turn your back on your Creator.

    15 ¶  I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 16  The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17  For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18  Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19  What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20  But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils. 22  Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

 Here, Paul draws a parallel between the Lord’s Supper and the religious feasts of the pagans. The Christian honors the Lord and calls to remembrance his death, burial, and resurrection. The pagan worships not God, but devils. We are not to have fellowship with, to worship, or to honor devils. It is inconsistent and wrong to partake of both.

 I’ve read that when Christianity was made into the state religion of Rome hundreds of years later that people, still pagan in heart, would sacrifice an animal to a pagan god on the steps of a church building before entering to attend a service.

    23 ¶  All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. 24  Let no man seek his own, but every man

another’s wealth. 25  Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: 26 For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof. 27  If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. 28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof: 29  Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience? 30  For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? 31  Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 32  Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: 33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

  Paul speaks of Christian liberty here. We are free to do what we want to do but not all things that we can do are good or set good examples. Whatever is sold in the market, the shambles, is perfectly fine to eat. It all belongs to God anyway. If a Corinthian is invited to a feast and he is disposed to go he need not ask if the food was offered to an idol. But, if he is told that Christian must not eat if he is told that the food was part of a pagan sacrifice for the sake of the person offering him the food.

 Whatever we eat and drink must be to the glory of God. But, what we do should not give offence, that is, to causes someone else to stumble, to wound their conscience toward God.

 Matthew 18:7  Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

 The Corinthians were told not to do anything that would prevent someone from coming to Christ, something that would impede the gospel working in their heart. This included eating at a religious feast where it was obvious the food was offered to an idol.

 Here, also, we have the three divisions of humanity from a religious perspective. There are Jews, non-Jews or Gentiles, and then there is the Church, which consists of the saved of both of the former.

 We are trying to save people, not to justify their idolatry, or to use our liberty in a way that blinds them to the truth. Paul has made it clear that he does not approve of the Corinthian Christian dabbling in both worlds, that of the church and that of the heathen. Paul has defined the limits of Christian liberty.

[cabiba]

Three years ago, the New York Times asked whether “the libertarian moment” had finally arrived. Since then, we have seen no libertarian revolution in politics or policy, leading many to ask whether the libertarian moment had indeed come… and gone.

Perhaps, the thinking goes, the libertarians had their political American Idol audition, delivered a pitchy performance, and were sent home: end of story.

In a sense, to even frame things in this way is silly. It would only make sense if libertarians were a curious sect with quirky ideas that somehow gained outsize national attention, giving us a one-time chance to seize the reins of power: like how the South Korean presidency was won by a member of the Church of Eternal Life cult. Since that president was recently forced from office, surely the Church of Eternal Life’s “moment” has come and gone.

A Branding Problem

Poor branding is partly to blame: specifically, the use of the label “libertarian” instead of the philosophy's original name, “liberalism.” In defense of those who made that name change, they didn’t have much of a choice. By the time “libertarianism” was adopted, “liberalism” had already been long lost: hopelessly hitched to a decidedly illiberal ideology.

But the new label has created the false impression that the liberty tradition is much younger and more idiosyncratic than it really is: as if it’s a new-fangled left/right hybrid cooked up in the 1970s. Yet the truth is quite the opposite. As I will discuss below, what we now call “liberalism” and what we now call “conservatism” are both themselves hybrid descendants of what we now call “libertarianism.”

Abandoning “liberalism” has detached the philosophy from its long and glorious history and heritage. Liberalism/libertarianism is actually a centuries-old tradition with millennia-old roots. It is the founding philosophy of America, the catalyst of the rise of the West, and the source of almost all things sweet and splendid about the modern world around us.

The Struggle against Absolutism

Where did it begin? The liberal philosopher Herbert Spencer, writing in the 1880s, traced its origins to England's Restoration period (1660-1688), when the monarchy had been restored after having been abolished in the English Civil War.

The great political divide of the time was between Tories and Whigs. As Spencer wrote, “Whiggism began with resistance to Charles II and his cabal, in their efforts to re-establish unchecked monarchical power.”

The Tories were the king’s cabal and the defenders of his prerogatives over the lives, liberties, and property of his subjects.

At first, the anti-absolutist movement led by the Whigs had no coherent ideology. But Spencer identified a trend in their causes, which could be seen from the effects of their policy victories against the Crown: like, for example, the Habaeus Corpus Act of 1679. As Spencer wrote, “The principle of compulsory co-operation throughout social life was weakened by them, and the principle of voluntary co-operation strengthened.”

Whig anti-absolutism culminated in the so-called “Glorious Revolution” which overthrew Charles’s successor James II. Charles’s niece Mary and her husband William, a Dutch prince, were placed on the throne. Shortly after this transfer of power, the English Bill of Rights (precursor to our own) was enacted. England had become a constitutional monarchy.

The Idea of Liberty Takes Shape

When Mary sailed from the Netherlands to England to claim her crown, her entourage included a Whig-affiliated philosopher named John Locke, who had been cooling his heels in Holland since he fell under suspicion of plotting to assassinate Charles.

But Locke’s real threat to absolute monarchy lay in his prowess with the literary, not the lethal, arts. His great work on political philosophy was so subversive that he published it anonymously.

In his Two Treatises of Government, Locke proclaimed and philosophically defended the universal rights of every individual to life, liberty, and property. He also relegated government to a limited, servile role: to doing little (if anything) more than securing those rights. This contrasted starkly with the Tory glorification of the monarch as the “Delegate of Heaven” wielding the divine right to rule.

In this hugely influential work, Locke, now regarded as “the Father of Liberalism,” provided the theoretical coherence and grounding that the proto-liberalism of the Whigs had hitherto lacked.

Whigs Ascendant

After the death of Queen Anne (1714), successor to William and Mary, the Whig Party came to dominate Parliament, where they rapidly liberalized England. As historian John Richard Green (quoted by Spencer) wrote of this period:

“Before the fifty years of their rule had passed, Englishmen had forgotten that it was possible to persecute for differences of religion, or to put down the liberty of the press, or to tamper with the administration of justice, or to rule without a Parliament.”

These reforms stimulated great advances in trade and industry, science and technology, literature and the arts. It was truly an Age of Enlightenment. As early as the 1720s, England’s liberal, tolerant culture moved Voltaire to eloquent admiration. “English laws,” he wrote, “are on the side of humanity…”

The trials and triumphs of the Whigs in their fight for English liberty against the Tories were deeply inspiring to America’s founding generation. Thomas Jefferson went so far as to classify all of humanity as either dispositional Whigs or Tories. In one letter, he wrote:

"The parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature. They exist in all countries, whether called by these names or by those of Aristocrats and Democrats, Cote Droite and Cote Gauche, Ultras and Radicals, Serviles and Liberals. The sickly, weakly, timid man fears the people, and is a Tory by nature. The healthy, strong and bold cherishes them, and is formed a Whig by nature.”

And in another letter, Jefferson elaborated:

"The division into Whig and Tory is founded in the nature of man; the weakly and nerveless, the rich and the corrupt, seeing more safety and accessibility in a strong executive; the healthy, firm, and virtuous, feeling confidence in their physical and moral resources, and willing to part with only so much power as is necessary for their good government; and, therefore, to retain the rest in the hands of the many, the division will substantially be into Whig and Tory.”

Whig liberalism was the founding ideology of America. The political philosophy of Locke deeply informed the Declaration of Independence. Whig resistance against the crown inspired the American Revolution. Whig constitutionalism influenced the American Constitution. And the Whig-won English Bill of Rights was a model for the America's.

(Ironically, the later American Whig Party would distinguish itself as one of the most stridently illiberal parties in US history.)

Locke-Smith

In the same year that the Declaration of Independence was issued, a very different kind of document was also published which would do much to define the liberalism of the 19th century.

In An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), Enlightenment philosopher Adam Smith asked why unprecedented opulence had blessed Britain in recent decades. Using the new science of economics, Smith explained how the credit was due to Britain’s “liberal principles,” including free trade (“the liberal system of free exportation and free importation”) and liberty in general (“allowing every man to pursue his own interest his own way, upon the liberal plan of equality, liberty and justice”).

Economist Daniel Klein recently used Google’s digitized book trove and its big data technology to trace the widespread adoption of the word “liberalism” in its political sense to the enormous popularity of Smith’s book and its use of the word “liberal.”

Smith and the classical economists who followed in his footsteps convinced much of literate Britain that the doctrine of liberty and limited government, previously developed by Locke, was not only just and right, but unleashed humanity’s productive powers to the enrichment of all.

Whig proto-liberalism had fostered the Enlightenment, which gave birth to the science of economics, which in turn filled in the intellectual groundwork for liberalism proper: a more deliberate, self-conscious, and principled movement for universal individual freedom.

The Age of Liberalism

After an anti-liberty interlude during the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815), the Whigs and their allies (which, around mid-century, came to include a new Liberal Party) inaugurated in Britain what Ludwig von Mises called “the Age of Liberalism.”

The freedoms of speech, the press, and religion were further advanced, women were emancipated, labor was further deregulated, and capital was further secured. Slavery was abolished, as was the East India Company’s trade monopoly.

The “Manchester Liberals,” led by Richard Cobden and John Bright, used popular writing and speeches to turn the British public against protectionism and war.

Influential liberal movements sprang up in France and other European countries as well. The continent was soon blessed with an era of free trade and relative peace.

These liberal policies intensified and spread the Industrial Revolution, creating seemingly miraculous levels of widespread prosperity never before seen on the earth. As Ludwig von Mises wrote in the 1962 preface to his classic book Liberalism:

“The greatness of the period between the Napoleonic Wars and the first World War consisted precisely in the fact that the social ideal after the realization of which the most eminent men were striving was free trade in a peaceful world of free nations. It was an age of unprecedented improvement in the standard of living for a rapidly increasing population. It was the age of liberalism.”

Moreover, as Mises wrote in his greatest treatise, Human Action:

“It is a purposeful distortion of facts to blame the age of liberalism for an alleged materialism. The nineteenth century was not only a century of unprecedented improvement in technical methods of production and in the material well-being of the masses. It did much more than extend the average length of human life. Its scientific and artistic accomplishments are imperishable. It was an age of immortal musicians, writers, poets, painters, and sculptors; it revolutionized philosophy, economics, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology. And, for the first time in history, it made the great works and the great thoughts accessible to the common man.”

The modern world of ever improving living standards, marvelous technology, and astounding opportunity that we enjoy today is a product of the Age of Liberalism.

Tory Liberals

But even in the middle of this triumph, the corruption of liberalism had already begun. By the 1880s, Spencer was already lamenting that the self-styled Liberals of his day were all about hyperactively legislating against liberty, quite as fervently as the absolutist Tories [at that time renamed Conservatives] ever did. In his essay “The New Toryism,” Spencer argued that, “Most of those who now pass as Liberals, are Tories of a new type.”

From 1860 onward, as Spencer meticulously detailed, Parliament under the Liberal Party became a non-stop geyser of “social” legislation: fixing prices, regulating working hours, mandating all kinds of inspections, financing public works, restricting “vices,” corralling children into public schools, putting trades under license requirements (including a “Pedlars Act, inflicting penalties for hawking without a certificate”), establishing a state monopoly in telegraphy, and even enacting a “Sea-birds Preservation Act” that ended up harming the fishing industry by causing a “greater mortality of fish.”

And, as Spencer noted, the Liberals funded all of this with endless increases in taxation.

And yet, some of the more “advanced” Liberals of Spencer’s day pooh-poohed even these policies as so much “tinkering.” One Liberal cabinet minister insisted that full coercion should be, “exercised over owners of small houses, over land-owners, and over ratepayers.” Another Liberal politician,

“…addressing his constituents, speaks slightingly of the doings of philanthropic societies and religious bodies to help the poor, and says that ‘the whole of the people of this country ought to look upon this work as being their own work’”

Already in the 1880s, British Liberals were promoting what Americans today call Social Security. We learn from Spencer that:

“…plausible proposals are made that there should be organized a system of compulsory insurance, by which men during their early lives shall be forced to provide for the time when they will be incapacitated.”

After recounting this legislative litany, an exasperated Spencer concludes:

“Such, then, are the doings of the party which claims the name of Liberal; and which calls itself Liberal as being the advocate of extended freedom!”

The betrayal of liberalism would only get worse following Spencer’s death in 1903. After a brief period out of power, the Liberals won a landslide election in 1906 and immediately passed a series of welfare laws that established the modern British welfare state. A few years later, the Liberal government led Britain into the calamitous World War I, which put a bloody end to the Age of Liberalism and inaugurated a new age of total war, totalitarianism, and managerial statism.

The rot spread to America as well. As Ludwig von Mises wrote in 1962:

“Today the tenets of this nineteenth-century philosophy of liberalism are almost forgotten. In continental Europe it is remembered only by a few. In England the term “liberal” is mostly used to signify a program that only in details differs from the totalitarianism of the socialists. In the United States “liberal” means today a set of ideas and political postulates that in every regard are the opposite of all that liberalism meant to the preceding generations. The American self-styled liberal aims at government omnipotence, is a resolute foe of free enterprise, and advocates all-round planning by the authorities, i.e., socialism.”

Spencer’s Autopsy

How did this happen? How did the meaning of "liberalism" become so confused to the point of being completely reversed? According to Spencer, “Liberalism has lost itself” because Liberals gave unduly narrow emphasis on the fruits of liberalism (widespread public welfare) at the expense of the very principles of liberalism (the individual's right to life, liberty, and property) that bore those fruits.

As Spencer put it, “the welfare of the many came to be conceived alike by Liberal statesmen and Liberal voters as the aim of Liberalism.” (Emphasis added.)

And this welfare came to be seen, “not as an end to be indirectly gained by relaxations of restraints, but as the end to be directly gained. And seeking to gain it directly, they have used methods intrinsically opposed to those originally used.”

(Those methods, of course, were government controls and impositions.)

In other words, the cause of Liberalism slipped from "liberty from the state for the welfare of the people" to simply "the welfare of the people" and ultimately to "a total welfare state for the people."

What is fascinating about this is that widespread prosperity (“the welfare of the many”) was not even a political issue before true liberalism showed that it was even possible. For most of history, it was considered an immutable fact of the stinginess of nature that only a tiny ruling elite could live large, while the masses were condemned to a grueling life of hard labor and grim poverty. It was only after liberalism unleashed humanity’s productive potential that the notion of regular people enjoying ever increasing welfare became a real-world possibility.

The dreams of welfare state “liberalism” were only even conceivable (if not realizable) thanks to the actual accomplishments of original liberalism.

The Deeper Cause

The fatal slipping of focus that Spencer identified in the Liberal platform may have been inevitable, however. The first liberal movement may have been doomed from the start, afflicted as it was by a terminal disease contracted at birth. The congenital defect of which I speak is politics.

As chronicled above, liberalism was born out of Whiggism. And Whiggism was an inherently political movement. Like all political factions, Whigs had their constituents and their enemies. And it just so happened that their constituents were disempowered and oppressed political underdogs (first the middle, and later the lower, classes), while their enemies were empowered and oppressing top dogs (the king and his dependents).

Given this, it is only natural that their policies would have the liberal tendency that Spencer identified: the lifting of oppressions and the mitigation of the power to oppress. Again, it was only later that intellectuals provided universalist philosophical ammunition that could be used for what was, from the beginning, a particularist political project.

But the Whigs were not only out to liberate their constituents, but to politically empower them: first through strengthening Parliament, and later by extending voting rights.

As Parliament gained the upper hand, it was at first mostly used to further liberate commoners from royal oppression. But it didn’t stop there. It went beyond liberation to aggrandizement: and naturally so, since political factions are essentially all about member interests, and not moral principles. Given this fundamental orientation, it is only natural that, as voting rights expanded to encompass ever more commoners, Whig/Liberal Britain devolved into a welfare state.

The Divine Right of Parliaments

As Spencer related, the Parliamentary Liberals of his time tried to excuse their resort to the Tory means of state power by pointing out that, while the Tories used state power under a divine mandate for the interests of a few, the new Liberals did so under a popular mandate for the good of the many.

Spencer thoroughly demolished this as an irrelevant distinction, but to no avail, since his contemporaries had become fanatical devotees of a new civic religion. As Spencer wrote in another essay, “The Great Political Superstition”:

“The great political superstition of the past was the divine right of kings. The great political superstition of the present is the divine right of parliaments. The oil of anointing seems unawares to have dripped from the head of the one on to the heads of the many, and given sacredness to them also and to their decrees.”

This superstition too may have been inevitable, given that “popular sovereignty” was a key plank in the anti-monarchical platform of the Whigs/Liberals from the beginning. This plank would inevitably evolve into "tyranny of the majority" democracy.

Locke’s concept of the State as an "Agent of the People” may have seemed like an improvement upon the Tory portrait of the king as “Delegate of Heaven.” But “the People” is an incoherent, collectivist abstraction, and as such is just as mute as “Heaven.” So when officials feign to speak on "the People's" behalf, the situation can be just as dangerously irresponsible as when kings and courtiers issued proclamations in the name of God: perhaps even more dangerous, since the resistance of the subjects is weakened by the myth that they are participating in “self-government.”

Liberal Tories

In a quite prophetic addendum to his great essay, Spencer highlighted one more fascinating political phenomenon. The statist Liberals had become so overbearing that they were driving the original statists, the Tories/Conservatives, toward liberty, simply out of self-defense.

“…the laws made by Liberals are so greatly increasing the compulsions and restraints exercised over citizens, that among Conservatives who suffer from this aggressiveness there is growing up a tendency to resist it. Proof is furnished by the fact that the “Liberty and Property Defense League,” largely consisting of Conservatives, has taken for its motto “Individualism versus Socialism.” So that if the present drift of things continues, it may by and by really happen that the Tories will be defenders of liberties which the Liberals, in pursuit of what they think popular welfare, trample under foot.”

And indeed, that is exactly what happened. It was the Tories, as led by Margaret Thatcher from 1975 to 1990, who reintroduced the rhetoric of liberty and property into British politics after a long dark night of semi-socialism and hyperactive statism.

And Thatcherism helped pave the way for Reaganism in America. Reagan conservatism also had native roots extending back to the resistance movement against the hyperactive, “liberal” New Deal: a hodgepodge coalition that Murray Rothbard dubbed “the Old Right.”

Like Whiggism long before it, the new “conservative movement” seized upon the universal principles of true liberalism as intellectual ammo (as found in the works of Locke, Smith, Mises, F.A. Hayek, etc) to cynically deploy in its political battles. This is shown to be cynical by the tendency of conservatives to jettison liberal principles, like the Whigs and Liberals did before them, whenever they think it serves the narrow interests of their constituents.

Conservatives are particularly wont to violate the rights of non-constituents in the name of preemptively securing the rights of their constituents. "Drug users must be preemptively incarcerated to keep the streets safe." "Muslim countries must be preemptively bombed lest their rulers possibly acquire, and maybe someday use, weapons of mass destruction against my people."

Misbegotten Children

Now we see why it is so egregious to trivialize liberalism/libertarianism as a curious right/left hybrid: “socially liberal and fiscally conservative,” and such tripe. In fact, modern liberalism and modern conservatism are both corrupt offspring of the classical liberal tradition that transformed the world. Modern liberalism emerged as a confused perversion of the original liberalism. And modern conservatism emerged as a quasi-liberal reaction to modern liberalism.

Moreover, it is modern conservatism and modern liberalism that are the hybrids. As explained above, modern liberals pursue liberal ends (the welfare of the many) with conservative means (state power). And modern conservatives pursue conservative ends (the welfare of the few) with liberal means (free markets, gun rights, religious liberty, etc). And the above is only true when the modern liberals and conservatives in question are not total hypocrites or sell-outs.

As Spencer explained, modern liberalism tries to use the state to directly provide benefits to its constituents: benefits that authentic liberalism indirectly provides to all by simply setting people free to provide for themselves.

And with the “preemptive violence” analysis above, we can complement Spencer’s analysis with the following insight. Modern conservatism tries to use the state to indirectly secure rights (life, liberty, and property) to its constituents: rights that liberalism directly provides to all as a matter of principle.

It is worth noting that the efforts of both factions fail miserably. The welfare/nanny state measures of modern liberals only leave their constituents poorer. And the warfare/police state measures of modern conservatives only leave their constituents less safe.

With the left, you're left with nothing in the name of providing for you.

With the right, your rights are nullified in the name of protecting them.

Liberalism Today

For generations, modern liberalism and conservatism have been vying with each other to wreck the wondrous modern civilization that the original liberalism built: weighing it down with their hyperactive wars and interventions, and hampering the heroic accomplishments that individuals in their private capacities still manage to achieve in spite of it all.

This two-pronged barbarian attack has continued unabated, because, since the corruption and downfall of original liberalism, the left and the right have held a statist duopoly on the ideological imagination of the world. That duopoly needs to be broken. Our civilization desperately needs to remember the long-forgotten liberal tradition that lifted it up and first gave humanity a glimpse of what we're truly capable of. That is the task of the liberalism of today.

But that project will only be sustainable if we avoid the fatal errors of the liberalism of yesterday. As Ambrose Bierce said, politics is, “a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.” Any moral movement that entangles itself in the machinery of politics will inevitably be captured by unprincipled, factional interests, just as the original liberalism was. We can already see the early stages of this as right-leaning libertarians dabble in culture wars and flirt with nationalism while left-leaning libertarians dabble in identity politics and flirt with paternalistic globalism, all for the sake of winning points with political allies and scoring points against political enemies.

The cause of liberty must be championed in the realm of ideas and individual ethics if its future triumphs are to be lasting ones.