Pastor's Blog

In chapter four of In Praise of Prejudice, Dalrymple explains why it is that social engineers prefer a history of disaster to a history of achievement. A country whose problems, by comparison with those of all other countries are minor, and disproportionately caused by the inherent and inescapable difficulties of human existence…rather than by defective political arrangements, does not necessarily please the intellectuals, who are left with nothing, or nothing very much, to think about and rectify. This is why history often has to be revised—to justify taking power and making radical political alterations. If history is indeed but the record of extreme nastiness, then we have nothing to learn from it except that we, who of course are people of unalloyed good will, must do things—everything—differently in the future. And if this means we must to sacrifice historical truth for political power, well then, so be it. The love of truth, while it exists, is generally weaker than the love of p

From In Praise of Prejudice , chapter three: “History Teaches Us Anything We Like.” In a recent book entitled Menace in Europe…the talented American journalist Claire Berlinski tells us that war and genocide are not part of the history of Europe, but constitute the whole of its history. She arrives at this conclusion by looking at European history through the lens of the Holocaust and a list of wars that fills an entire page of print… Miss Berlinski’s is an example of what might be called the nothing-but school of historiography, by means of which a narrative is constricted [constructed?] from highly selected facts in order to verify a key to the understanding of everything… A present discontent is read backwards, or traced by a golden thread through the whole of history, and made to supply that history with an immanent meaning and teleology. (pp. 8-9) Inconvenient facts usually spur us to heroic efforts of rationalization to preserve our outlook, rather than to honest re-examination;

In chapter two of In Praise of Prejudice , Dalrymple observes that unlike Rene Descartes, the 17th century philosopher who systematically subjected everything to doubt in order to see if there was anything of which he could be absolutely certain, modern Cartesians wish to destroy certainty itself. The popularity of the Cartesian method is not the consequence of a desire to remove metaphysical doubt, and find certainty, but precisely the opposite: to cast doubt on everything, and thereby increase the scope of personal license, by destroying in advance any philosophical basis for the limitation of our own appetites. The radical skeptic, nowadays at least, is in search not so much of truth, as of liberty—that is to say, of liberty conceived of the largest field imaginable for the satisfaction of his whims. He is in the realm of moral conceptions what the man who refuses to marry is in the realm of relationships: he is reluctant to foreclose on any possibilities by imposing limits on himse

In chapter one of In Praise of Prejudice , Dalrymple cites the Oxford Shorter Dictionary , which defines prejudice as, A previous judgement, especially a premature or hasty judgement. Preconceived opinion; bias favourable or unfavourable; prepossession…usually with unfavourable connotation. An unreasoning predilection or objection. He goes on to point out that nowadays the idea of prejudice is usually associated with race (“the word race and prejudice go together like Mercedes and Benz, or Dolce and Gabbana”). Surely in this connection prejudice is a vice to be diligently avoided. But does it follow from this that all prejudice is vicious? Is it really possible to live without preconceived ideas? Are all preconceived ideas necessarily wrong? The man without prejudices, or rather, the man who declares himself such, is a man who is terrified to be thought first bigoted, and second, so weak of mind, so lacking in individuality and mental power, that he cannot think for himself. For his op

Ever wonder what vast amounts of state and federal money and powerful unions will do for city? Check out out Steven Crowder's visit to Detroit .

In commenting on the abortion compromise in the Senate health care bill, Senator Barbara Boxer said, "You have both sides criticizing it [the compromise], which means we did what we had to do, we compromised in a fair way." Let's say an innocent man is put on trial for murder. The prosecution wants him to be found guilty and executed. The defense seeks his acquital and release. The judge wishing to give something to both sides, finds him guilty and gives him 20 years in prison with eligibility for parole after 10. Neither side got everything it wanted. They both complain. But the judge tells the press, "You have both sides criticizing it, which means I did what I had to do, I compromised in a fair way."

I have just begun what appears to be a very profitable read, In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas , by Theodore Dalrymple. To call someone prejudiced is to relegate him to the lowest rung of intellectual life. But is there anyone who isn’t prejudiced? As Dr. Dalrymple argues in this brief and bracing rehabilitation of both prejudice itself and the necessity of prejudice, someone who walks out into the world completely unprejudiced is as helpless as a newborn babe. In fact, as Dr. Dalrymple shows, prejudice is at the root of most virtue as well as of a lot of vice. To expect people to work out all their morals for themselves from abstract first principles is to expect far too much from them. It is not only unrealistic, it is harmful. The pretense that we can be totally unprejudiced, argues Dr. Dalrymple, who speaks from wide clinical experience as a doctor in a slum hospital and the prison next door, is a pretext for licentiousness and lack of self-control, to the

Good article on the subject over at Newsmax .

Question: When Christ said on the cross, “Forgive them for they know not what they do”, who was he praying for? It seems he wants the Father to forgive the people who put him to death. Surely they are not saved without faith? So does this mean that He asked for forgiveness that was short of salvation? And how was his prayer answered? Answer: The degree of guilt in any particular instance of sin is measured in part by the degree of one’s knowledge of right and wrong. James writes, “Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (Jas. 4:17). Jesus told the Pharisees, “If you were blind [lacking knowledge], you would have no guilt [relatively, not absolutely]; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (Jn. 9:41). And in another place he said, “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more b

There's a good interview with Timothy P. Carney, author of Obamanomics , over at PJTV.

Question: Please explain what the Bible teaches about infant baptism. Should we not wait until a child has grown up and become a believer? Answer: To ask the question of whether or not infants are to be baptized is really to ask the question, “What is the relationship of the children of believers to the covenants of God?” There is no doubt that when God made covenants with men in the Old Testament, those covenants included their children. We have several examples of this (Gen. 6:18; 17:7-14; Num. 25:12-13; Ps. 89:3-4; Jer. 35:18-19). Even covenants between men included the children of the parties concerned. David’s kindness to Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth is a prime example (2 Sam. 9:1-7). David and Jonathan had made a covenant with each other (1 Sam. 18:3; cf. 20:8), a covenant that included one another’s entire households (1 Sam. 20:15-17). We see the outworking of this covenant when Jonathan died and David showed kindness to Jonathan’s son, “for Jonathan’s sake” (2 Sam. 9:1). Sc

Question: What was the Transfiguration all about? The account, taken from Matthew’s Gospel, reads like this, And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him (Matt. 17:1-3). The transfiguration of Christ, which is recorded in all three of the synoptic Gospels, was a supernatural manifestation of our Lord’s divine glory, and I think is more to be wondered at and admired than to be dissected for analysis. Nevertheless, there are some important lessons we may glean from it. First, it shows us something of the power and glory of Christ. Paul tells us that before the incarnation Jesus existed “in the form of God” and was equal to God, but that he “made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men” (Phi

Sonja Schmidt at PJTV shows how it works.

Melinda and I have had the privilege of attending 3 or 4 of Christ Church's Sunday evening Psalm Sings. Christ Church is a member congregation of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, located in Moscow, Idaho and pastored by Doug Wilson. A couple of times each month the congregation gathers on Sunday evening to sing Psalms and hymns. People sit in different parts of the auditorium depending on whether they sing soprano, alto, tenor, or bass, and they learn how to sing their respective parts. Each Psalm Sing consists of singing familiar Psalms and hymns, as well as learning new ones that will be used in Sunday morning worship. The singing is glorious! One of our favorites is Psalm 98, "O Sing a New Song to the Lord." Watch and enjoy. Also, please note the corporate "AMEN!" at the end of the song .

What is meant by a “carnal” Christian? This language (“carnal” Christian) comes from the old King Jimmie Version of the Bible. We find it places like 1 Corinthians 3, where Paul says, And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal (1 Cor. 3:1-4) This word, “carnal”, comes from a Latin word that means “meat” or “flesh.” You might recognize it from the Spanish in chili con carne —chili with meat; or carne asada —roasted meat. The word carnal is used in the King Jimmie several times, mostly in Romans and First and Second Corinthians (i.e., Rom. 7:14; 8:7; 15:27; 1 Cor. 3:1-4; 9:11; 2 Cor. 10:4; Heb. 7:6; 9:10). Most modern translations use some variant of the word “flesh,” which is the meaning of the underlying Greek word. The concept of “the flesh” is a very important one in the Bible, and stands in contrast to “the Spirit.” “The flesh” refers to that which is natural, earthly, and human, as opposed to that which is supernatural, heavenly, and divine. The

Thomas Sowell explains why it is stupidity of the highest order to try terrorists in federal court.

We competed in the Wichita Warriors Preseason Tournament last weekend, and finished in a misleading 5th place. I say misleading because we were matched in our first game against Manhattan, which ended up taking first. We were clearly the two best teams in the tournament. We should have been the number 1 and 2 seeds, but we ended up playing each other in the first round because the tournament organizer tried to do both teams a favor by scheduling our games in two days rather than three so we wouldn't have to spring for two nights in a motel. All the other teams were from the Wichita area and played one game each on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Since we were coming from out of town he scheduled our two teams to play our first round game on Thursday, which required us to play each other. A fifth place a finish was the best a team could do after losing in the first round. After being down 12 at half time we roared back and cut the defict to only 1 at the at end of the third quarter.

A half-time show like this makes you forget about the game.

Here's a picture of the basketball team I have the privilege of coaching this year, the South Central Wildcats varsity girls. Front row: Breann Pope, Kristin Schmidt, Candice Rawlings. Back row: yours truly, Suzanna Enick, Shie Eck, Hannah Eck, Elizabeth Enick, Melinda Enick (my lovely assistant coach). We had our first game last Saturday against the Ponca City Saints. We had four players score in double figures and came out with a 45-23 victory.

Question:  What does Paul mean when he says to “continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12)? I am trying to understand his meaning of “work” and “fear and trembling.” Answer:  The difficulty you may be having in understanding the apostle’s meaning may be due to the fact that we often conceive of salvation too narrowly. “Salvation” is a comprehensive term. We tend to think of only one aspect of salvation as if it were the whole of it. We tend to use the term exclusively of the moment of our conversion. We tell people, “I was saved when I was 12 years old.” Or, “I was saved when I lived in Wichita.” When we say things like this, we are thinking of the  moment  of our conversion and equating it with “salvation.” There is nothing wrong with this as long as we remember that there is more to our salvation than this initial conversion experience. The Bible uses the word “salvation” to refer, not only to conversion, but also to all of the various as

Andrew Klavan has a new humorous video poking fun at athiests over at PJTV.

Question: Why did God put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden if he didn’t want Adam and Eve to eat of it? In other words, why make something that is not allowed in the first place? We are told that God does not tempt man to sin, so we know that’s not why. It appears that God placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden to serve as a test of simple obedience. This does not contradict what we read in the epistle of James: “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one” (Jas. 1:13). Testing is something quite different from tempting. God tested Adam and Eve, but he did not tempt them. He put the sincerity of their faith and obedience to the test, but he did not allure them to do evil—which is the essence of temptation. They were tempted by Satan, as well as by their own desires. James tells us, “Each one is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire

Mark Steyn, always an insightful read, had this to say almost as an aside in his NRO column this week. Twenty years ago this Fall, the Iron Curtain was coming down in Europe. Across the Warsaw Pact, the jailers of the Communist prison states lost their nerve, and the cell walls crumbled. Matt Welch, the editor of Reason, wonders why the anniversary is going all but unobserved: Why aren’t we making more of the biggest mass liberation in history?Well, because to celebrate it would involve recognizing it as a victory over Communism. And, after the Left’s long march through the institutions of the West, most are not willing to do that. There’s the bad totalitarianism (Nazism) and the good totalitarianism (Communism), whose apologists and, indeed, fetishists can still be found everywhere, even unto the White House.

The road to hell is wide and many go there, according to the Bible, and the road to heaven is narrow and few go there. Why wouldn’t a merciful God reverse that? I assume the question is a reference to what Jesus said in the 13th chapter of Luke’s Gospel when someone asked him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” It’s important to note that Jesus actually uses the present participle, which is more accurately translated by the NASB like this: “Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?” Not, “who will be saved,” but “who are being saved.” The focus is on the speaker’s contemporary situation. In other words, the person who asked him this had his own generation in mind. No doubt he noticed that relatively speaking Jesus had very few followers. The great majority of the Jewish people at the time did not regard Jesus to be the Messiah. And the one who questioned Jesus was concerned about this. Can it really be that there are just a few who are being saved? And Jesus’ answer addre

Check out Bill Whittle's Warmongers or Peacemakers: Who will be Responsible for Scorching the Earth . It's well worth the ten minute investment.

Race baiters, beware! Alfonzo Rachel is on to you! The video is especially good from about 2:00 to the end.

I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised, but I was. Skimming the headlines over at Newsmax.com, my eyes alighted on this: Report Urges Bailout to Preserve Journalism . "Yikes!" methinks to myself. "Could it really be?" And so I clicked the headline to read the story: NEW YORK -- Journalism is at risk and American society must act to preserve it, according to a report co-authored by The Washington Post's former executive editor. In a paper commissioned by the Columbia University Journalism School, the ex-Post editor, Len Downie, and Michael Schudson, a Columbia professor, argue the government, universities and nonprofit foundations should step in as newspapers suffer financially. The authors recommend that the Internal Revenue Service or Congress ensure the tax code allows local news outlets to operate as nonprofits. Downie and Schudson also urge philanthropic organizations to support local reporting. They suggest the Federal Communications Commission estab

Question: In 1 Samuel 16 God tells Samuel to go see Jesse in Bethlehem to anoint the new king (David). Samuel responds by saying that if Saul finds out why he is going, Saul will kill him (v. 2). God then tells Samuel to go to sacrifice and to give that as his reason for going (v. 2). Isn’t this deceptive? Yes, it is. Samuel held back the main reason for his going to Bethlehem, and thus deceived Saul. Furthermore, he did this at God’s command . Many Christians are a bit squeamish about this. But this is not the only instance of God approving the use of deception. One need only think of the two Hebrew midwives lying to Pharaoh and being blessed by God on account of it (Ex. 1:15-21), or Rahab hiding the two Hebrew spies and lying to the men of Jericho (Josh. 2:1-7)—not to mention the fact that the spies themselves, by virtue of being spies, were practicing deception—or Ehud’s deception of Eglon (Jud. 3:15-23), or Jael’s deception of Sisera (Jud. 4:17-22), or Elisha’s deception of t

Dr. Jerome Corsi was interviewed on Hannity last night about his new book, America for Sale , and he confirmed my suspicions. Recently I've been thinking that Obama is too smart to be acting so stupidly. If someone wished to undermine the strength of the dollar and weaken the U.S. economy he couldn't do any better than what Obama and other leading Democrats are doing. At first I thought it was just economic incompetence. But recently I've come to the conclusion that it's intentional. While you're checking out the two part interview . I'll be buying the book .

The British Broadcasting Corporation is not particularly friendly to a conservative point of view, but apparently it is at least open to facts (unlike some American media outlets). Despite a massive campaign involving the United Nations and most of the world’s industrialized nations and establishment media, the globe is not warming but in fact may actually be cooling, according to new research detailed by the BBC." ( more )

Pastor, I have a question. In Psalm 5:5 it says God hates all who do iniquity. How can that be if God is love? There are actually quite a few passages that of Scripture that speak of God hating the wicked, and these passages often cause his people to feel a bit squeamish because they don’t seem to fit our understanding of a loving God. This is largely because our idea of love tends to be derived more from 19th century Romanticism than from the Bible. Therefore, the language of Scripture often proves troublesome for modern Christians. However, if our understanding of God doesn’t allow us to use the language of Scripture, then our understanding of God must change. Scripture always speaks truly and we are required to bring our thinking into line with it. The passage you refer to says, You are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you. The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evil doers (Ps. 5:4-5). And David goes on to say, You

So, let me get this straight. We need a public (read: government) option in healthcare to keep private insurance companies honest, to make sure they don't deny anyone coverage. But it's Medicare, the government -run health insurer for seniors that currently leads the way in the denial of coverage? Is it just me who's having trouble following the argument?

Chapter 6 of Ron Paul's End the Fed is entitled "Conversations with Greenspan", and chapter 7 is, "Conversations with Bernanke ". In these chapters he recounts a few conversations he's had with these two chairman (one past, the other current) of Federal Reserve. Both chapters are quite interesting. I was surprised to learn that Greenspan had written a 1966 article "Gold and Economic Freedom" in Ayn Rand's objectivist newspaper. In it, he gave a brilliant defense of the gold standard. In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. [This is a reference to FDR's confiscation of gold and the outlawing of ownership of gold in 1933]. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits as silver or copper or any other good and thereaft

I've just recently learned about a website that I plan on adding to my list of sites to visit regularly. It's Steven Crowder's pjtv.com. Check out this video on celebrity advocacy of government run healthcare.

Chapter three of Ron Paul's book, End the Fed , is entitled "My Intellectual Influences." In it he describes how he came to embrace the free market and sound money ideas he advocates in the book. He starts with the work ethic that was instilled into him by his father as he worked as a small boy in the family's dairy business during the Great Depression. The scarcity of money caused him to value the virtues of hard work and saving, and led him to explore how money "works." (It's my experience that children who grow up having to earn their own money, rather than receiving an unearned allowance, come to understand economics better.) Later he came across the proponents of the Austrian school of economics. Of course, he mentions Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Murray N. Rothbard, and Hans F. Sennholz, as formative influences. He had the most personal interaction with Rothbard. In was an event that occurred on August 15, 1971 that led him to enter the political

In a previous post I mentioned the fact that the Koran allows a man to have four wives and to own sex slaves, women either captured in war or purchased with money. Muhammad, however, occupying the exalted status of Allah's prophet, was permitted to have as many wives and sex slaves as he wanted. O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunt's on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncles on the mother's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage--a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers--We are aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and tho

David Patten over at Newsmax.com has broken down what the president's proposals are going to cost and how he's planning to pay for them. See his article here .

Robert Spencer's book really ought to be read by everyone who thinks Islam is a religion of peace and suitable for civilized society. One of the most atrocious teachings of the Koran is its view of women. It is well known that the Koran allows a faithful Muslim up to four wives. What is not as well known is that he may also resort to "those that his right hand possesses" (i.e., slave girls captured in war or bought with money). The fourth Surah (chapter) deals with women at some length. In it we read this: Marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess (4:3) Apparently, the faithful may even resort to these slave girls if the girls are married. And all married women are forbidden unto you save [except] those captives whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you (4:24) And in Sura 23:1-6, we read this: Successful indeed

Hans Sennholz has called the creation of the Fed "the most tragic blunder ever committed by Congress. The day it was passed, old America died and a new era began. A new institution was born that was to cause, or greatly contribute to, the unprecedented economic instability in the decades to come." It was a form of financial socialism that benefited the rich and the powerful. As for the excuse, it was then what it is now. The claim is that the Fed would protect the monetary and financial system against inflation and violent swings in market activity... In practice the reality has been much different. One only needs to reflect on the dramatic decline in the value of the dollar that has taken place since the Fed was established in 1913. The goods and services you could buy for $1.00 in 1913 now cost nearly $21.00. Another way to look at this is from the perspective of the purchasing power of the dollar itself. It has fallen to less than $0.05 of its 1913 value. We might say tha

Even the Fed itself claims that part of its jobe is to keep inflation in check. This is something like the tobacco industry claiming that it is trying to stop smoking or the automobile industry claiming that it is tyring to control road congesttion. The Fed is in the business of generating inflation. It might attempt to stop the effects of inflation, namely rising prices. But under the old definition of inflation--an artificial increase in the supply of money and credit--the eitnre reason for the Fed's existence is to generate more, not less of it. What the largest banks desire is precisely what we might expect any large corporation to desire: privatized profits and socialized losses. (p. 14)

In chapter two Ron Paul does a decent job explaining "The Origin and Nature of the Fed." From its founding in 1913, secrecy and inside deals have been part of the way the Fed works. Part of the public relations game played by the chairman of the Fed is designed to suggest that the Fed is an essential part of our system, one we cannot do without. In fact, the Fed came about during a priod of our nation's history called the Progressive Era, when the income tax and many new government institutions were created. It was a time in which business in general became infatuated with the idea of forming cartels as a way protecting profits and socializing losses. The largest banks were no exception. They were very unhappy that there was not national lender of last restort that they could depend on to bail them out in times of crisis. With no bailout mechanism in place, they had to sink or swim on their own merits. (p. 13)

European engineering thwarts Arab's plans .

Thought you might enjoy this .

If God made the world who made God? The simple answer is, “No one made God.” He is self-existent and eternal. Although the answer is simple, understanding it is a bit more difficult. But let’s think through it for a moment. When it comes to the origin of God, we have four theoretical possibilities. Either: (1) He popped into being without a cause (2) God made himself (3) He was made by someone else (4) He was not made at all; he is eternal (1) The first possibility is that God just popped into being without a cause. But this is not really a possibility at all. We cannot conceive of an effect without a cause. If he had a beginning, there must have been a cause. (2) But it’s clear that God could not have made himself, because for him to have made himself he would had to have existed prior to himself, which is absurd. It would be a logical contradiction. (3) It is equally clear that he was not made by someone else, because if God derived his existence from someone else, then this someone

A little preventative medince ahead of the release of Michael Moore's new film, "Capitalism: A Love Story," is provided by Walter Williams .

Some sobering economic analysis by Richard Rahn over at NewsMax.

Gary DeMar makes some good points on President Obama's strange notions about taxes and dictionaries.

The Fed’s activities since the market meltdown of 2008 have been dangerous in the extreme. The Fed is using all its power to drive the monetary base to unprecedented heights, creating trillions in new money out of thin air. From April 2008 to April 2009, the adjusted monetary base shot up from $856 billion to an unbelievable $1.749 trillion. Was there any new wealth created? New Production? No, this was the Ben Bernanke printing press at work. If you and I did anything similar, we would be called counterfeiters and be sent away for a lifetime in prison. (p. 8) Back on November 21, 2002, Ben Bernanke explained precisely what his views are, so perhaps there should have been no surprise. “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. governmen

Q. Jesus said that he and God are one. Then in another verse he says that no one knows the day and the hour of the Second Coming. How can he not know if God knows, and he and God are one? That’s an excellent question! The verses referred to are John 10:30, where Jesus says, “I and the Father are one”, and Matthew 24:36, where he says, “Concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” Some people have thought that when Jesus said, “I and the Father are one”, that he meant he and the Father are one and the same person—that sometimes he is called God (or the Father), and sometimes he is called the Son (or Jesus), but that in reality the Father and Son are one and the same person. However, if this were true, we would have a real difficulty, because then the Scriptures would contradict themselves, by saying that the same person both knows and does not know the date of the Second Coming. The difficulty is cleared up, however, when w