A Brief History of Supreme Court Silliness

The Constitutional safeguards against judicial tyranny having failed, the popular referenda in more than thirty states having been deemed meaningless, and a Republican Congress having proven utterly supine, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges on Friday 6/25/15.  Same-sex marriage is now “the law of the land” (to use the shopworn phrase favored by every pundit on television). 

That Americans both liberal and conservative now repose so much veneration in SCOTUS would astonish anyone who has examined SCOTUS’s wildly erratic jurisprudence.  In this commentary, Paul Vendredi lists eighteen SCOTUS decisions that countermand one another--including decisions on the issue of homosexuality!  Should Americans venerate a court that cannot even get its own legal theory straight? 

Following this, we briefly examine the third article of the Constitution, the vague wording whereof proved the seedbed of the judicial tyranny that began growing in cases like Marbury v. Madison and Gregg v. Georgia--a tyranny that reached its zenith of power in Obergefell v. Hodges. 

We then look at restraints on judicial power that Presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz have proposed in light of Obergefell v. Hodges. 

Run time: 13:52; Recorded: 6/29/15


The Atonement Part 68--Moot Court (o)

This final moot court session summarily refutes claim #17 of PSA (penal-substitutionary atonement).  This claim states: “The death of Christ ransoms mankind from the wrath of God, thereby paying in full for all the sins of mankind--past, present, and future.  Nothing at all is required on man’s part.”  Were one to break this claim into parts, it would divide as follows:

  1. The death of Christ ransoms mankind from the wrath of God.
  2. The death of Christ pays in full for all the sins of mankind--past, present, and future.
  3. Salvation requires nothing at all on man’s part. 

Part one is false because it assumes that the Bible uses the term “ransom” lexically to mean “liberation by payment of a price.”  In actual fact, passages such as Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45; and 1 Tim 2:5-6 use the term ransom as a synonym for rescue--specifically, rescue from a state of sinfulness and its consequences.  This is shown by looking at the use of cognate words in the Septuagint. 

Part two is false because it leads to double jeopardy: if Christ has paid for all of our sins, then why does God have to punish sin a second time in hell?  The only solution that PSA advocates have for this dilemma is the Calvinist concept of limited atonement, which proves decidedly unsatisfactory when one examines the biblical data. 

Part three is false because it requires one to believe a species of the antinomian heresy known as Sola Fide; that is, justification by faith alone--a dogma unknown in Christianity prior to the Protestant Reformation. 

In this lecture, you will hear from such standbys as R.C. Sproul, Robert Godfrey, and Bob Larson.  But you will also hear from a thinker not heard before in these lectures: therapist and radio personality Michael W. Smith. 

Run time: 30:16; Recorded: 6/21/15