Why Social Justice?

Why do people insist on understanding wealth and poverty in terms of “justice”? It is an unintelligible concept:

 

http://blog.mises.org/19290/justice-versus-social-justice-2/

Don’t Get Drunk, or They’ll Call a Meeting!

(My latest op-ed for the King’s Chronicle, published Nov. 7, 2011)

 

On Tuesday, October 25^th, all residence students were cordially required to attend a mandatory lecture (masquerading as a “forum”) on alcohol. The evening’s entertainment consisted of two main parts: a reiteration of King’s’ alcohol policy for the illiterate, followed by an explanation of the new “Party Safe” program for parties hosted by off-campus students.

 

Call me sensitive, but I found the whole exercise more than a little offensive.

 

As far as could be discerned from notices about the forum, it was prompted by “several alcohol-related incidents on campus.” Presumably some students were being drunk and obnoxious in residence.

 

Now, drunks are certainly annoying. They tend to be loud and obnoxious, and I have no problem with Student Life dealing harshly with disruptive and, frankly, stupid behavior.

 

Yet this forum represents the exact opposite of that.

 

First of all, if certain students are being disruptive or destructive on campus, what logical reason is there for assuming that the problem could be solved by telling every residence student what they already know? While the intricacies of the alcohol policy may escape most students, every student knows liquor is not allowed on campus. Neither are disruption or destruction (whether they are the result of drunkenness or not). Beyond that, there is nothing that requires explanation.

 

Had the forum given students any new information, it would at least have been useful. Had the forum stated, for instance, “these behaviours have occurred – do not engage in them,” or “if you are caught drinking, disturbing or destroying on campus, you will be disciplined in this way,” these would have been things worth hearing.

But telling students information they not only already know, but already agreed to by signing the residence agreement, is a waste of everyone’s time.

 

The real issue is enforcement, not information. If some students are defying the rules, they should be punished (or disciplined, for the politically correct). If the problem persists, they should be punished much more severely the next time. If the problem continues still, the students involved should be evicted. Either the offenders will cease breaking the rules, or they will be removed. In both cases, the problem will be solved. Best of all, this approach won’t punish the vast majority of students in residence, who are obeying the rules, by needlessly wasting their time.

 

Second of all, let us consider the utterly baffling Party Safe program: this program will either be totally impotent or else completely overbearing.

 

So far, all students have been told about Party Safe is that is an information program for those who host off-campus parties. For now, we will overlook that, once again, the problem is not information or the lack thereof. We will overlook further the absurdity of forcing residence students to learn about a program which meaningfully applies only to non-residence students. (“We’ve called this forum to tell you that we’re planning on telling some other people some stuff”).

 

Consider instead the practical application of such a program, especially as it relates to informing Student Life about off-campus parties. What incentive is there for any party host to comply with this? Or for any residence student who attends a party off-campus? Unless someone labours under the delusion that on-campus rules can be used to control off-campus behaviour, the correct answer is, approximately none.

 

And rightly so. As much as some may try to deny it, Student Life has neither the ability, nor the responsibility, nor the authority to control off-campus behaviour. As soon as any students leaves King’s’ property, King’s has no more authority over them than Colonel Sanders.

 

Now, some might say, “but once a student returns to King’s’ property, don’t they again fall again under King’s’ authority?” The answer is, yes and no. Yes, King’s once again has authority over certain aspects of their behaviour. But, those aspects are limited to what they do on-campus. Meaning off-campus drunkenness, underage drinking, hazing, or every other ugly behaviour imaginable cannot be legitimately punished by King’s. BUT if anyone causes any disturbance or destruction on campus, whether it came as a result of off-campus drinking or not, those actions can and should be punished, swiftly and harshly.

 

The problem is that King’s is asserting too little authority where they have it, and too much where they don’t. Campus policy should allow students maximal freedom to act as stupidly as they please off-campus. Yet if students decide to act stupidly on campus, Student Life should dust off the rod of iron and deliver a swift blow to the rear.

 

This will accomplish two things. First, it will affirm that the authority which King’s has over students is contractual, not paternal: King’s can only restrict certain unhealthy behaviours, it cannot force students into living a healthy lifestyle. Second, it will encourage students to take responsibility for regulating their own actions, rather than be told what is good and what is bad by their university. Part of being an adult is doing what is right on your own initiative, not simply because Mommy or Daddy or a nannying university tell you to.

 

Party Safe amounts to nothing more than evading the real problem by trying to solve a false one. Surely we can do better.

(Don't) Eat the Rich

Dr. John Hiemstra (Professor of Political Studies at The King's University-College) once commented to my intro politics class to the effect that “one of the most effective ways for government to stimulate the economy is to give money to the poor.” That is, since government stimulus is intended (among other things) to increase consumer spending, the poor are ideal candidates to receive the “stimulus dollars”, since their need for basic necessities forces them to spend whatever money they receive – 100% of every stimulus dollar therefore is put right back into the economy through spending. 

This article, however, is not about solutions to poverty. If I may be so bold as to amend the original quotation, this article will argue that the most effective for government to stimulate the economy is to stop taking money from the rich. 

Now, as that statement is liable to misunderstanding, let me state plainly what I am not saying:

First, I am not saying that the poor should be ignored. It is only proper that ordinary people be concerned about how to help the poor. While I am also firmly of the opinion that government social programs and wealth redistribution are terribly ineffective and unjust ways to deal with poverty, that is a topic for another article altogether. For now, suffice to say that “stop taking money from the rich” is not the same as “do not give any money to the poor.” 

Second, I am not saying that the rich should not be taxed at all. It behooves every citizen to pay taxes, and an above-average income does not form an exception to that rule (although an income significantly lower than the average might). I am not arguing for special privilege for the rich.

However, what I am saying is that there is deeply ingrained bias against the rich in today’s society. What is often cheerfully referred to as the rich “paying their fair share” is usually the rich being forced to pay more than anyone else – for no other reason that their income exceeds that of the average adult. The basic portrait of a rich person in North America generally resembles the mythological dragon, sitting on piles and piles of stolen treasure, which it hoards greedily, despite having no use for it. 

This, however, is a dual fallacy. In the first place, the wealth of the vast majority of the rich people in the world (particularly the Western world) is not “stolen” in any sense of the term – it is earned, through provision of goods and services which other people are willing to pay for. This means that the rich have no moral obligation to pay a great amount of their wealth in taxes. There is no social debt owing, since they have earned in exactly the same way as every other person.  The second part of the fallacy is that the wealth the rich earn is hoarded. Far from being withheld from the rest of the world, it is used, speaking broadly, in two ways: it is reinvested into the original good or service which earned it, or else into new goods or services; it is also spent on goods and services which the rich person purchases for themselves. 

At first glance, this second use for the rich person’s wealth is what causes the societal envy (the true motivation of progressive tax systems). For the rich person spends their money on extravagances and luxury beyond the reach of the ordinary worker. Yet this kind of spending functions exactly the same as a poor person spending money on the bare necessities, only to a much higher degree. While the rich person’s sole motivation may be their own gratification, the money they spent employs other people less wealthy than themselves. Behind every luxury car are those who design, manufacture and repair automobiles ; behind every private jet are mechanics, engineers and pilots; behind every giant mansion are interior designers, architects, framers, painters, stonemasons, landscapers, service staff, etc. 

This reevaluation of how a rich person gains and uses wealth is particularly important as the world economy tries to climb from a recession. With the United States unemployment rate at 9.1%[i] as of August, much of the talk in Washington D.C revolves around how the government can create more jobs. The most common words to hear from an American politician, from President Barack Obama to the Republican nominees vying to replace him, are “the private sector is the engine of our economy.”

And that’s true, as far as it goes. Washington is at least giving lip service to a fundamental truth about the economy: the engine for job creation is private industry. All of that talk will be for naught, however, if policy makers do not embrace the truth that follows closely on its heels: the engine of private industry is the rich.

What does it take to create a job? As American businessman Peter Schiff says, it takes two things: profit and capital[ii]. Obviously, an employee has to bring profit to an employer by creating value exceeding the cost of their employment. Capital, on the other hand, comes from, as Schiff says, “under-consumption”. That is, it comes from wealth that is not spent but reinvested into profitable industry, as noted above - wealth that would otherwise be idle and useless. If a business owner does not have this excess wealth, he or she must borrow it from one who does. That is why if you use the word “rich” and aren’t talking about an actor or an athlete, you are probably talking about a businessman or an investor. It is the rich – those with excess wealth – who finance production and create jobs. 

At least, that is the way it should work. Currently, though, under a progressive system of taxation, that segment of wealth that would otherwise be put to work creating jobs is plundered by the government in the form of taxes. 

This generally goes unnoticed, or at least without dissent, by the average worker earning an average salary during times of prosperity. Once a recession hits and unemployment numbers rise, however, many average workers are forced out of work. Suddenly the job-creating funds the government taxed away from the rich are needed to do the very thing the rich would have used them for in the first place.

The government then fills this void by trying to invest the money itself. But as Henry Hazlitt wrote in Economics in One Lesson, “it is not a simple question, as so often supposed, of taking something out of the nation’s right-hand pocket to put into its left-hand pocket.” When judging what industry would be best served by stimulus dollars, government uses the opposite criteria than the rich use: the criteria of need rather than of profit. This means that the more profitable an industry currently is (i.e. the more capable it is of creating jobs) the less likely it is to receive government aid (and the more it will be taxed). The less profitable, the more aid it will receive (and the less it will be taxed). Thus, the practical definition of government stimulus is money taken from businesses which are creating jobs and being used to fund businesses which are not creating jobs. Productive activity is used to subsidize unproductive activity. The net result can only be the loss, rather than the creation of jobs.

Here are two suggestions for any government which wants to create, and not destroy jobs:

First, switch to a flat personal income tax rate. This is a fancy way of saying that you will be taxed the same percentage, whether you earn $40,000 per year, or $1 Million. Whether or not there should be a basic personal exemption for low-income earners is open to debate.

Second, abolish corporate income taxes. If the corporate tax rate exceeds 0%, it is too high. Corporate taxes are a way for government to “double-dip” – to tax profits when they are first earned by a business, then tax a portion of them again when they are distributed to investors, owners and employees as personal income. All this does is further deplete the job-creating wealth in order to fund job-destroying government stimulus.

Of course, such deep tax cuts would be impossible without deep spending cuts, which is the other half of the job-creation equation. That’s for another time. Until then, here’s to the rich, who keep our economy strong and put money in our pockets.

---

[i] http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm, accessed Oct 2, 2011

[ii] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6DRXk9Ufv4, accessed Oct 2, 2011.

Why I Will No Longer Attend Student Worship

Upon arriving at university, I was eager to involve myself in the student-led worship events. I quickly joined a worship team as a bass player, a capacity I served in for my entire first year. The following year, I took my involvement a step further, acting as a worship team leader. By the end of that year, I was feeling burnt out and decided not to participate in my third year.

And now, in my fourth year, I have come to the realization that I can never again involve myself student worship again, whether as a leader, or as a participant. I will not attend Worship 937 or chapel services, nor help plan them, nor be involved in any study groups, nor any ministry groups within the student body.

The reason for my complete abstinence is quite simple: it is my heart-felt conviction that what is being called “worship” at all these events is not the worship of the One True God; what is being practiced does not honour God – in fact, it openly and blatantly dishonours Him, and hinders the cause of Christ.

In my two years in worship ministry, I have seen teaching ranging from the orthodox to the questionable to the outright heretical; and all of it has been accepted without question. The students here, by and large, lack the fundamental skill with the Word of God to discern what is true and what is false. There is no standard of truth, save what comes under the banner of “Christianity”.

The result is that any speaker, from one who preaches an emergent, social gospel such as Colin McCartney (not "Scott", as I erroneously wrote the first time), to one who denies hell and preaches a Socinian moralistic gospel such as Rob Bell, is welcomed as speaking from God. Worse, these types of false gospels are not only tolerated, but actively encouraged by the student leaders. From among the same student body which lacks any real Biblical discernment come the student leaders, who will ultimately aid in deceiving their fellow students. The deceived become the deceivers – the blind lead the blind (Matt 15:14).

And this is the heart of the matter. The problem is not simply one of leadership, because it is the students themselves who are the main culprits in their own self-deception. This makes it impossible to “reform from within”, for the prevailing spirit of the student ministry is one of willful self-deception – and anyone who dares preach the true gospel of Christ is considered an aberration. The message that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3) is considered foolishness.

What kind of people would call the gospel of Christ foolishness? Only those that are not saved: “For to those who are perishing the message of the cross is foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is God’s power” (1 Cor. 1:18). For me to attend such events is to participate in a “ministry” which is slowly but surely, step-by-step, inch-by-inch, leading my fellow students ever closer to hell. It calls itself Christian, yet opposes the gospel of Christ and considers it foolishness.

This does not honour God, nor does it edify the believer. It dishonours God and helps damn those who claim to believe. I cannot in good conscience help to support these efforts, whether through leadership or through willing participation. If I am to obey Christ, I must oppose student ministry.

May the Lord have mercy on all His own.

What Makes a "Distracted" Driver?

From the Alberta Government Website:

Distracted Driving Law in Effect                                                  September 1, 2011

Highlights:

• Restricts drivers from:
  

  • using hand-held cell phones
  • texting or e-mailing
  • using electronic devices like laptop computers, video games, cameras, video entertainment displays and programming portable audio players (e.g., MP3 players)
  • entering information on GPS units
  • reading printed materials in the vehicle
  • writing, printing or sketching, and
  • personal grooming
• Complements the current driving without due care and attention legislation
• Applies to all vehicles as defined by the Traffic Safety Act, including bicycles
• Applies to all roads in both urban and rural areas of the province
• The fine for this new offence is $172

Attention Albertans: the government is trying to break into your car!


Some questions to the PC government:

1. Are you aware that studies have shown that hands-free technology carries exactly the same risks as hand-held technology? It is the act of focusing on a cell-phone conversation that distracts from driving, not holding the cell phone itself. This legislation disallows hand-held phones (with some exceptions), but gives the rubber-stamp to hands-free technology. What are you trying to accomplish here?

2. Does "printed materials" include maps? Road signs? Billboard ads? Bumper stickers? License plates? Speedometers? Fuel gauges? Is a quick glance at one the same as "reading"? How long do I have to look at something before I'm reading it? Is there a limit on comprehension? If I look at something but the words don't make sense to me, have I truly "read" it?

3. What constitutes "personal grooming"? I sometimes brush the hair away from my eyes while driving - is this allowed? What if I take the further measure of brushing my hair with my fingers to keep it away from my face? How many strokes are allowed? Can I do it with my left hand, but not my right? What if my glasses are askew? Is adjusting them wrong? What level of lost depth perception is great enough to merit the perilous risk of pushing them back into place? 

4. How exactly is all of this going to be enforced? If I'm holding a small object which could be interpreted as a cell phone from a distance, am I going to be pulled over? How will police know if I'm reading? Or programming a GPS? Or pressing buttons on my MP3 player? Will I be ticketed for holding a comb?

The nanny-state strikes again...

Enough about "Playoff Demons"

A link to some very insightful (if a bit overly technical) comments on how the media's harping on "momentum" and "demons" in the Canucks-Blackhawks series got out of hand:
http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=3630

Canucks' Fans, You May Now Exhale...

What a difference 2 weeks can make.

For example, just over 2 weeks ago, I posted this:

"C" is for Canucks: Where to begin? 40th season in the League. Winners of the President's Trophy, for the best regular season record. Luongo recorded his best season as a pro, and along with Cory Schneider won the Williams Jennings trophy for fewest goals allowed. Daniel Sedin won the Art Ross trophy, a year after Henrik did the same - he'll also have a chance to win the Hart trophy a year after his brother. Led by the Sedins, the Canucks have also scored the most goals of any team - the first time the same team has led in goals-for and goals-against. They lead in faceoff percentage and powerplay percentage. They have the third-best penalty-kill. It's been a great year to be a Canucks fan.

"C"  is for Cup (as in Stanley): See above.

Note the swagger, the confidence, nay, the arrogance! I, an ineffable Canucks' fan, sounded as if I cheered for a team that could not be beaten.

And for one week, I was right. The Canucks went 3 games to none in the series against the Blackhawks. Revenge was already tasting sweet. The Canucks were aggressive, confident; they were physical; Luongo was sensational when he needed to be (which was, frankly, not that often). Our team looked as if it had no weaknesses. We could roll four lines; we could trust all our defensemen; we weren't worried about our goaltending.

Game 4 looked like it was going to be much of the same. Tied 1-1 after the first period. Both teams had chances and were playing well. Another one-goal game. And then Chicago broke the game open in the second period, scoring 4. It ended as a 7-2 loss for Vancouver, and Luongo ended the game on the bench.

Still, I had not lost confidence. I had predicted Vancouver would lose one game. The Hawks had their backs to the wall, I thought; it was their last hurrah in front of their home crowd. Game 5 would be different.

As it turned out, Game 5 was even worse. At least the Canucks had shown up for the first period in the last game; this time they were the Canucks in name only. What they played was nothing like Vancouver Canucks' hockey. It was a gong show from start to finish. Chicago was again making them look foolish.

Game 4 I was able to shrug off, but Game 5 made be downright angry, and more than a little concerned. As I posted on Facebook after I turned off the Game 5 in disgust after 2 periods:

What the bloody hell happened to my Canucks?!?! Chicago isn't that good - any team will win 7-2 if you GIVE them the middle of the ice. Now they're up 5-0...why the hell aren't the Canucks mad about Game 4? They picked the Hawks apart in the first 3 games, now they've forgotten how to score and forgotten how to defend. What has Vigneault been doing the last two days? They've bloody well given up. Un. Be. Lievable

As one writer in the blogosphere wrote, the Blackhawks were now leading the series, two games to three.

In Game 6, there were encouraging signs. Vancouver was forechecking well again; they were standing up in the neutral zone and not letting Chicago walk through the middle; they were hitting. It was a closely-contested game, like the first 3 had been. Cory Schneider had been a last-minute replacement for Luongo - and he looked good in the net. Once he came out of the net to play the puck, different story. Two giveaways by Schneider, two goals. Then Chicago was awarded a penalty shot, on which they scored. Schneider was holding his leg in pain after the goal and had to be helped off the ice. Back to Luongo.

But Luongo looked fine. Perfect through the end of regulation. Then overtime came. The Canucks were all over the Hawks in overtime. But Chicago managed to hold them off, then score a goal, off of a bad rebound by Luongo. After being in complete control of the series for a week and 3 games, Vancouver was in a tied series. They had lost all momentum for 2 games. They got some back for Game 6 but fell short. Now what?

Game 7 pretty much reflected how the whole series had gone. Vancouver scored early, and then the goalies shut everything down the rest of the way. Just when it looked like Chicago was done, Jonathan Toews tied it up on what should have been an unimportant play, with the Canucks on the powerplay and only 2 minutes left in the game. Vancouver had a chance to put Chicago away quickly and quietly, and had failed yet again.

Now it was Game 7 overtime. It should have taken 4 straight wins to decide this series - now whoever scored the next goal would walk away the winner. Alexandre Burrows took a bad holding penalty in the Hawks' zone less than a minute in. I was dying as I watched, knowing how lethal Chicago's powerplay had been in the last 3 games.

But that penalty kill was a defining moment. My Canucks were aggressive, tight-checking and physical - all the things that spelled success. They needed only one more thing, and that was a brilliant save by Roberto Luongo on Patrick Sharp, on the only shot the Blackhawks managed on the powerplay.

A few minutes later, Blackhawk defenceman Nick Leddy attempted a routine high-backhand clearing attempt. No one was expecting Burrows to leap 2 feet in the air and catch the puck: Jim Hughson was busy talking about something unrelated; The CBC cameramen were moving the camera towards the Canucks' zone, anticipating a rush for Chicago. They all caught up with what was going on in time to see Burrows drop the puck onto the ice, walk in behind all the Chicago defenders, and shoot a knuckleball slapshot into the top corner of the Chicago net. After being forced to wait until the last possible moment, Vancouver Canucks fans finally could cheer about a series win for Vancouver.

Elation. Ecstasy. Celebration.....And a deep sigh of relief. Right now, it seems, Vancouver is back on track. Luongo is his normal stingy self. The depth players for Vancouver, like Burrows, are making the difference. The Canucks dictated the play and the pace of the game.

In a post-Game 7 interview, Canucks' captain Henrik Sedin summed up the series:

I would rather win in 4 [games], but I'll take it....It's different winning in Game 7 in overtime. The season is on the line. That makes it sweet.... For 5 games we played awesome; we made it tough on ourselves because we played 2 really s***ty games. That's our fault as players. We took our foot off the gas a little bit, and that's when they hurt us. It was really a strong effort for us to get the momentum back, I thought, in the last game. And then tonight, they had no business tying up the game. 

Truer words were never spoken.

Two weeks ago, Canucks' fans thought their team was unstoppable. One week ago, they realized that they were stoppable. Yesterday, they feared they might be beaten in the worst possible way: by a team that had done it before two years in a row, and after that team had been down 3-0 in the series. Today, the Canucks are, more or less, the team that started the series, capable of dissecting their opponent and shutting them down.

Perhaps being pushed to the brink is a blessing in disguise; it's a reminder of how important it is to never let up, even for a second. And it's a true test of the Canucks' character in the face of huge adversity. Resiliency is the stuff of which champions are made.

But all that aside, I would like to make one humble request to the Vancouver Canucks:

DON'T YOU EVER, EVER, EVER PUT ME THROUGH THAT AGAIN!!!!!

Hockey Night in Canada's 3-Star Goof-ups

I don't understand how the folks at Hockey Night in Canada pick the 3 Stars of the Game.

After Game 1 of the Canucks-Blackhawks series, in which Vancouver shut out the Hawks 2-0, they named the 3 Stars as:

1. Roberto Luongo
2. Jannik Hansen
3. .....Patrick Sharp?!?!

Luongo posted a shutout and Hansen scored a beautiful breakaway goal, so there's no problems there. But what's with Patrick Sharp? Is this the same Patrick Sharp who plays for the team that failed to score a goal in the game? Is this the same Patrick Sharp who was on the ice for both goals for Vancouver? 

If your team gets shut-out, you'd think that would make a fairly strong case for your team not to get any mention in the 3 stars. Even if a player on the losing team played well (which Patrick Sharp clearly did not), it doesn't mean he was one of the stars of the game. In this case, if anyone on Chicago merited the 3rd star, it would almost have to be Corey Crawford, who didn't allow a goal in the final 50 minutes of the game and gave his team a chance to win. Why is CBC honoring a forward from the losing team who was ineffective offensively and no better defensively? 

Then, after tonight's Game 3, a 3-2 win for the Canucks, there were again some goofy selections: 

1. Roberto Luongo
2. Ryan Kesler
3. Patrick Kane

OK, now this is weird. Luongo is once again a solid pick for Number 1. But there were 4 players who had multi-point nights, and Kesler and Kane were not among them. Daniel Sedin and Christian Ehrhoff both scored once and added an assist for Vancouver, while Henrik Sedin assisted on 2 of the goals. For Chicago, Jonathan Toews set up both Chicago goals and was easily the Hawks' best player. 

On the other hand, Ryan Kesler, despite having a game-leading 6 shots, had no points. He did play some significant penalty-killing minutes and block numerous shots, but he also screen Luongo on the first goal. In the end, he was good, but not really a star. 

And come on, Patrick Kane? Once again, he was held to one lone assist, was a -1, and was frustrated all night long by Luongo and the defense for Vancouver. Again, not star material. 

Interestingly, once the 3-Stars picks for this game had made it to the HNIC website they had been changed to:

1. Henrik Sedin
2. Jonathan Toews
3. Daniel Sedin

At least who ever writes the game summaries for cbc.ca knows a "star" when he sees one...

Extra! Extra!

I was browsing online and came across two major stories (to me, at least):

Online Poker Sites Under F.B.I. Indictment: The four largest online poker rooms in the world (among whom are two on which I hold accounts) were charged with bank fraud and money laundering, in what amounts to the latest in the long struggle to end online poker in the U.S. If you visit the U.S. websites for Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars, you'll get a message that the domain names have been seized. Both of those companies have moved their sites to European domains.

What does this mean for online poker players in the U.S? Only time will tell, but it doesn't look good: players who had money in accounts with any of the four sites indicted by the F.B.I cannot access any of their funds, which is bad news if you happened to have several million dollars, as some players do.

What does this mean for online poker players in Canada, including me? Actually, nothing. The U.S. is the only country whose government has actively tried to shut down online poker, and the FBI's indictment affects U.S. players only. So, other than the annoyance of having to go to a new domain location now, their is essentially no difference.

SUN TV News is coming this Monday: A new private news channel is coming to Canada on April 18th, 2011, and it features two of my favourite media personalities Ezra Levant and Charles Adler, both of who will be hosting their own shows.

How do I know Sun TV News will be good?

• Because of the aforementioned involvement of Levant and Adler
• Because they market themselves as the home of "hard news and straight talk", and call themselves "Controversially Canadian". When was the last time CBC or CTV dared to call itself controversial?
• Because opponents of the new network refer to it as "Fox News North" and "Tory TV" (For the record, Sun TV News has no affiliation with either Fox or the Conservative Party)
• Because Margaret Atwood herself has very publicly signed an online petition to stop Sun TV, calling it "American-style hate-media" and "hate-filled propaganda" (the CEO of Sun TV pointed out that the hatred for right-wing views is precisely why Canada needs a right-wing network which doesn't fall into bland political correctness) 

I read here that Shaw Cable will offer the channel in Western Canada and Ontario. Cannot wait to see my BFF's Ezra and Charles duking it out with the Liberals.

Why I Love the Letter "C"....

"C" is a wonderful letter, don't you think? It can be used to begin so many beautiful words and phrases. Here are a few of my personal favourites:

"C" is for Canucks: Where to begin? 40th season in the League. Winners of the President's Trophy, for the best regular season record. Luongo recorded his best season as a pro, and along with Cory Schneider won the Williams Jennings trophy for fewest goals allowed. Daniel Sedin won the Art Ross trophy, a year after Henrik did the same - he'll also have a chance to win the Hart trophy a year after his brother. Led by the Sedins, the Canucks have also scored the most goals of any team - the first time the same team has led in goals-for and goals-against. They lead in faceoff percentage and powerplay percentage. They have the third-best penalty-kill. It's been a great year to be a Canucks fan.

"C"  is for Cup (as in Stanley): See above.

"C" is for Conservative: Let's face it, the Opposition parties called a needless election in a desperate attempt for Ignatieff to grab power. But Stephen Harper is likely going to march right back into the Prime Minister's Office. But this time, he stands a chance of doing so with a majority Parliament. That's certainly the way his campaign is being run - choose between a Conservative majority or a coalition (the letter "c" can't always save some words) involving the enigmatic Ignatieff, the evil New Democrats, and the irrelevant Bloc Quebecois. I'd love to see a Conservative majority - a stable government (no election for another 4 years!), with a Party that will eliminate our deficit while decreasing our taxes. Should be an interesting election. I'm hoping that Linda Duncan (the NDP incumbent to the Edmonton-Strathcona riding in which King's is situated) gets kicked out of office - that would be a welcome sight.

 "C" is for Chamber Choir: The Chamber Choir at King's is touring Germany for two weeks, beginning May 1st! Among the sightseeing highlights will be an old concentration camp, and the castle where Martin Luther translated the Bible into German. (Forgive me, I don't know the names of these places yet). This will be my first time in Europe. Should be a blast. Super excited.

"C" is for coffee, Coca-Cola, Canada, Criminal Minds, "Classes are almost finished!", "Can I order a Large Pizza?"...


I love the letter "C!"

The REAL story behind Ignatieff's "generosity":

Kelly McParland: Michael Ignatieff wants to give me $1,000 I don’t need

Kelly McParland  Mar 30, 2011 – 11:47 AM ET | Last Updated: Mar 30, 2011 3:51 PM ET

Phil Carpenter/ THE GAZETTE

Don't bet on it

As the parent of an offspring in university, I could have used an extra $1,000 a year towards the tuition.
I have a number of friends and relatives in a similar position. University is expensive, so why pay full freight if you don’t have to?

Except, like me, most of these people are lucky enough that they can afford it. Maybe tuition hurts, but they can scrape it together and not go hungry. Some have two or three kids racking up post-secondary bills at the same time.

They’d all be happy to get the free $1,000 per year, per student, promised by the Liberals’ biggest election promise to date, the “Canadian Learning Passport,” which promises $1,ooo a year for four years for any kid who wants to go to college or university. Students from low-income families would get an extra $500 a year.
Nice. But look: According to Statistics Canada, 75% of  tax-paying Canadians make less than $50,000 a year.  Only 5% make over $100,000. That means much of the $1 billion annual cost of Mr. Ignatieff’s promise will come from Canadians who can least afford university tuition, and go to those who can.
How does that make sense?

Statistics Canada says students from high-income families are far more likely to enrol in university than those from low-income groups. The Liberals say the “passport” will remedy that disparity by making tuition more affordable. But will it?

Studies show income level is one element in whether or not students go on the university. But another key factor is parental expectations. Kids in high-income families tend to be pressed harder by their parents, who have higher expectations.  An extra $1,000 won’t change that much.

Nor will it do much to offset the cost of school. In addition to tuition, there are books and plenty of incidental costs to university, which can quickly add up to $10,000 or more, even if a student is able to live at home. An extra $1,000 might help, but $9,000 is still a pretty big cheque to write for someone earning less than $50,000. And once the provinces know every student is getting a free $1,000 from Ottawa, how long do you think it will take for them to figure out a way to increase tuition costs accordingly?

So the odds are that Mr. Ignatieff’s well-meant plan will result in many middle- to high-income Canadian families being subsidized by the 18 million workers to whom university is a much more distant dream.
It may sound like a nice idea, but it would prove to be a cruel joke on a lot of people who can’t afford to send their own children to university, but would have to contribute to subsidies for those who don’t need the money. And since university graduates tend to have higher incomes than others, low-income Canadians would find themselves financing a system that perpetuates the income gap they’re trying to overcome. The rich would get help staying richer, and the bills would go to the lowest incomes.

National Post

A Letter to the Editor...

Below is the letter to the editor of the Student Newspaper, which was published just this afternoon: 

Dear Editor,

I began reading a poster advertising the I.S. Conference quite literally a matter of seconds after it was posted outside the admissions office. As soon as I read it, my curiosity was piqued, for two reasons: first, because the conference would be addressing a subject which could not fail to provoke lively, productive and interesting debate, namely Alberta’s Oil Sands.  The second reason was a single unassuming phrase on the poster, whose brevity betrayed its significance.

The poster’s description of the conference included the phrase “is [Alberta oil] ‘ethical oil’, as some have claimed...?” Perhaps this means little to my fellow students, so I will explain. Ethical Oil is the title of a book written by conservative pundit Ezra Levant, and published just last year. In it, Levant makes the case that oil from Alberta oil sands, while far from being perfect, is displacing, barrel by barrel, oil from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela and Iran (to name only a few) – countries run by thieves, murderous dictators and fascists; countries who care little for democracy, peace or human rights, much less the environment. Thus, to slow oil sands production would actually be doing a great disservice to the world, by allowing those countries’ governments to continue financing their inhumane regimes by meeting the billions-of-dollars-worth of extra demand for oil created by Alberta’s slowed production pace.

Love it or leave it, this simple argument is changing how the debate over the oil sands is being conducted. To give readers an idea of how influential this book has been in the few short months since its publication: both the Prime Minister and the Federal Environment Minister referenced the main arguments of the book in recent media addresses defending the oil sands. Proponents of oil sands production are laying hold of a new catchphrase – “ethical oil” – coined by Mr. Levant.

Now, given the remarkable influence of Mr. Levant’s book, and given the direct reference to the book on the poster I was reading, I was rather puzzled not to see Mr. Levant’s name appear on the list of speakers at the conference. When I asked Roy Berkenbosch to clarify this dilemma, he confirmed that Mr. Levant had not been extended an invitation. The explanation I received for this was that there simply was not enough space in the two-day conference to accommodate all speakers.

Fair enough. But is this merely a scheduling issue? This same schedule included 4 time slots allotted to professors at King’s (2 for the same professor) whom we have the opportunity to hear from every day while attending school. I don’t mean to disrespect our wonderful professors, all of whom gave us poignant insight. But, then again, we receive their insight daily – would it have been unreasonable to sacrifice time listening to our professors, which could very easily have been made up at some other juncture, to listen to someone else?

What is even more telling to me is that anti-oilsands author and journalist Andrew Nikiforuk was not only invited to speak to us, but was given two 45-minute time slots. Now, Mr. Nikiforuk is an important and influential voice in his own right, and his book Tar Sands certainly merits him an opportunity to speak at the conference. Yet it begs the question – what logical reason could there be for extending a double invitation to a nationally-bestselling author and journalist who writes a book opposing the oil sands, while neglecting to extend an invitation of any kind to a nationally-bestselling author and journalist who writes a book supporting the oil sands, which has now become the crux of the federal government’s argument for the oil sands? What a simple way to promote balanced discussion (as we were repeatedly told the purpose of the conference was) – two men with virtually identical credentials taking two opposing views!

To make matters worse, Mr. Nikiforuk, and later the NDP’s Federal Environment Critic, Linda Duncan, both directly challenged Ezra Levant’s arguments in their own addresses to us. (Actually, while Linda Duncan challenged his arguments, Mr. Nikiforuk saw fit only to throw out an unsupported accusation of Mr. Levant, and I quote, “making stuff up.” But I digress). It is an utterly remarkable paradox: Ezra Levant writes a book which is important enough to be quoted by the highest levels of our government; it is important enough that two oil sands detractors deemed it necessary to directly address its arguments in their speeches; Yet, for all that, the same book is not important enough for the author of that book to make the short list of invitees to the conference! What perverse logic rendered that conclusion? Or, a more pointed question: at what point does administration and logistics end, and censorship begin?

The idea of an Interdisciplinary Studies Conference is a noble one. But among the student body there is often a significant degree of scepticism and ambivalence towards the conferences. One reason often cited by the students is that the conferences seem “narrow” or “one-sided”. Given Mr. Levant’s absence, one can hardly blame them for these sentiments. It is hard to conduct a “balanced discussion” when a voice so significant to a current understanding of the oil sands debate is muzzled, while those who disagree with that voice are given a microphone and a platform.

In short, I consider Mr. Levant’s non-invitation to the conference, at best, a gross oversight. At worst, it is censorship. Either way, it is a failure.

Sincerely,

Jeff Godley        

The I.S. Saga, Part 1: Addendum

Interestingly, I noticed that the ad poster bearing the phrase "ethical oil" was taken down. I looked on several bulletin boards throughout the school, but all the I.S. Conference posters simply bore a list of speakers, without the descriptive blurb.

Coincidence?

The I.S. Saga, Part 1

Today was Day 1 of our semi-annual, two-day Interdisciplinary Studies (I.S) Conference. This term's topic was as controversial as they come - the debate over Alberta's Oil Sands.

There are two inter-related stories that I want to tell over the next few posts. The first one began a week or so ago, when I noticed the following phrase on an ad poster for the conference:

Is (oil sands oil) "ethical oil", as some have claimed....?

This was, I assumed, a direct reference to a book by conservative pundit Ezra Levant, entitled Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands - a book which I had recently begun to read (and was thoroughly enjoying). The book's thesis is essentially this: in our oil-consuming world, the choice we face is not between oil from the oil sands and some perfect, emission-free fantasy oil of the future; it's between oil from Canada (a peace-loving, free and democratic society, which cares about the environment) or oil from nastier places like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran or Nigeria. Thus, we have to look at which economy we would rather put our money into, not simply whether the oil sands are a perfect operation from a green perspective.

The book was published only last year, but the phrase "ethical oil" has already been used by the Prime Minister and the Federal Environment Minister in their defenses of the oil sands. That's the kind of influence the book is having.

So, given the importance and influence of Mr. Levant's arguments, I couldn't help wonder why his name was not on the list of speakers. Did he decline an invitation, or was he never invited in the first place?

I went straight to the source: Roy Berkenbosch, the director of the I.S. conferences. He assured me that while   he would not be presenting, "his perspective [would] both be heard and challenged." While I was certain that was true, I wondered why Mr. Levant's views were important enough to mention on an ad poster, but not enough to even invite him to the conference? It seemed contradictory, and since the other side of the debate, environmental activists, seemed very well represented indeed, most notably by Andrew Nikiforuk, who is one of Levant's most vocal and unabashed critics.

It seems that, according to Mr. Berkenbosch's reply to my e-mails, there simply was not enough room in the 2-day conference to invite this or that speaker. Fair enough. But it does seem odd that while there is a nationally-bestselling author who was anti-oilsands presenting at the conference (not once, but twice), the idea to invite a nationally-bestselling author who was pro-oilsands, and whose book is being referenced by the federal government, did not occur to Mr. Berkenbosch.

Given the I.S. Conference's track record of highly skewed political debates (I've written about that here), I can't help but wonder whether this is truly logistics, or whether we have crossed over into censorship. Food for thought.

Poker Tournaments

First post in 2 months! That's what happens when university life gets a firm grip on you.

Anyway, so much has happened in the last while, I'll never be able to do justice to all of it. But hopefully I can highlight a few....highlights.

Yesterday, I had some fun playing in Full Tilt Pokers Mini Full Tilt Online Poker Series XVIII's Main Event. It was a $75 buy-in, with $1 Million in guaranteed prize money. By far, the biggest tournament I have ever played. There were over 16,000 entrants! It took 5 hours of play just to get to the money spots. I was able to make it that far, but unfortunately my tournament didn't last much longer than that. To quote my Facebook update of the end of my tournament:

Sigh.... well that's that. I raised with AQ, the Big Blind thought for a long time, then shoved all-in. I thought there was a decent chance he was just stealing my raise, so I called. He had the one hand I did not want to see: AK. I was left with less than one big blind, had to put it all-in next hand. No dice. Finished 1761 out of 16,910, won $118. Thanks for the good wishes, everyone. Maybe next time!

$118. Not bad considering I bought in for free by winning a satellite tourney!

I was actually presently surprised how many people (including some from my church) were watching my updates and cheering me on. A very good feeling.

Things got bad, though, when I promptly lost $30 of that money playing other games - mostly cash games. I've been trying to beat cash games for a while, and I can never seem to do it consistently.

I finally realized - why don't I just stick to tournaments. They're more fun (for me), more competitive, there's potential for a huge payday, and I can only lose a set amount. They do take a long time (depending on the size  of the field), but they are a great way to spend an otherwise dull weekend in a university dorm.

So, I'm officially swearing off cash games for now. I'm a net loser in cash games, but I'm a huge winner lifetime in tournaments. I wonder if I do poorly at cash games because I don't enjoy them, or the other way around. Probably both.

Anyway, hopefully I'll get a chance to play another large tournament like the MiniFTOPS Main Event soon!

An Update and and Apology

So if you've been following my debate with Catholic Nick over Sola Fide, you'll notice that I have failed to post for a number of weeks now. For that, I apologize. My life got super busy, what with midterm exams, catering a friend's wedding, etc.

Nick and I have agreed to end the debate amicably, due to a lack of time on both sides.

For those who were following the debate, my sincere apologies that we couldn't complete it as planned. Hopefully I'll have the opportunity to begin (and finish) a debate in a time when life is more accommodating.

A Cover of "What Would You Say?"

A Debate Over Sola Fide: Opening Essay by Nick

I would like to begin by thanking Jeff for engaging in this debate with me; he will be affirming the resolution, I will be denying it.

1) The doctrine of Sola Fide is built from the premise that, starting with Adam, God had established a way for man to get to heaven, and this condition was perfect obedience to God’s law (which, conversely, demanded punishments for violating it). This is popularly termed in Protestant theology the “Covenant of Works” (cf London Baptist Confession 19.1-2), and is to be thought of as akin to scoring a 100% on a test to be worthy of an “A” in class. Adam failed this obligation, bringing corruption and sin upon the whole world. With fallen man not only failing to perfectly keep God’s law (and thus not worthy to enter Heaven), he also deserves punishment for breaking it. But what man could not do for himself, God graciously did for him, in Christ: Who through the Incarnation both took the punishment man deserved (aka “passive obedience”) and kept God’s law perfectly in man's place (aka “active obedience”) - and graciously “credited” this (dual) obedience to the account of those sinners who receive this (so called) “righteousness of Christ” by faith. This is popularly termed the “Covenant of Grace”. The moment the sinner receives “Christ’s Righteousness” by faith, they are said to be “Justified” - which is a once and for all time legal declaration by God acting as Judge declaring that this individual not only has been cleared of any wrongdoing (i.e. punishments are satisfied) but that this individual is also “righteous” (which is a legal status bestowed upon those who perfectly keep God’s laws) legally entitling them to enter Heaven (cf LBC 11.1).

2) For Jeff to win this debate, he must demonstrate the above concepts are clearly supported by Scripture.

3) While there is some truth to the Protestant understanding of justification, there are significant unbiblical concepts which Sola Fide rests upon. These erroneous concepts will now be addressed.

(3a) “Covenant of Works”. Many of the details behind this doctrine are presupposed and not derived from Scripture. Most significant to this debate is that the “law,” “covenant,” and “works of the Law” Paul was preaching against - in contradistinction to “faith” - was none other than the (works of the) Mosaic Law, not some eternal law of God given to Adam. The Mosaic Law never promised eternal life, even if kept perfectly (e.g. Galatians 2:21; 3:15-18; 4:21-31), and was inferior to the (new and perfect) “Law of Christ” (e.g. Mk 10:2-12). Clearly, the main problem Paul was dealing with was not Pelagianism, but rather a Racial and Covenental problem (i.e. Jews 'versus' Gentiles): Acts 13:39; 15:1,5; Rom 3:29; Gal 6:12-13; Phil 3:2-6. This is why Paul focused his attention in Romans and Galatians on identifying the proper relationship to Abraham (e.g. Rom 4:11-12; Gal 3:29), while exposing the improper relationship (Rom 2:28-29; 9:6-7; cf. Matt 3:7-9; John 8:39, etc).

(3b) Christ’s “active obedience”. The Bible nowhere teaches this concept. This is not to say Christ sinned, He did not - it is only to say this was not done as a specific component for our justification but rather as a condition in order to make Him a worthy sacrifice.

The chief proof-text is Romans 5:19. The Protestant reasoning here is that Adam’s disobedience is contrasted to Christ’s obedience, and thus it must be saying Christ kept the law in our place. But this is simply begging the question, since Christ's “passive obedience” certainly fits here, with no reason to assume more than that. In fact, the only other time “obedience” is said in reference to Christ is in Philippians 2:8 and Hebrews 5:8, which are both explicitly speaking of passive obedience only.

When the lack of any reasonable Biblical evidence for “active obedience” is compared to the abundant references to “passive obedience,” as the saying goes, “the silence is deafening”: in virtually every verse where Christ’s work is mentioned, the only component ever mentioned is Christ’s Suffering/Death (and Resurrection), never his “active obedience”. Consider: Rom 3:21-26; 4:23-25; 5:6-11; 6:1-11; 8:3, 31-34; 10:6-10; 1 Cor 1:22-23; 2:2; 5:7; 15:3-4; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 2:19-21; 3:13-14; 6:14; Eph 2:13-16; 5:2, 25;Phil 2:5-11; 3:8-11; Col 1:19-23; 2:11-15; 3:1-3; 1 Thes 4:13-14; 5:9-10; 1 Tim 2:5-6;Titus 2:13-14; Heb 1:3, 2:9-10, 14-17; 5:1, 7-9; 6:4-6, 7:20-27; 9:11-28; 10:8-22; 12:1-2, 24; 13:12, 20-21; 1 Peter 1:17-19; 2:18-25; 3:18-22; 1 Jn 2:1-2; 3:16; 4:10; etc.

It cannot be an accident that there are repeated reference to Christ’s Death (and Resurrection), without a single mention of “active obedience.”

Lastly, the concept of Christ's “active obedience” contradicts the plain Scriptural teaching that God grants a believer “eternal life” not when they first believe, but at the judgment at end of their life (Lk 18:18-30; Rom 2:6-8, 6:22, Gal 6:7-9, etc) - and deems them worthy (or not) on the basis of the Christian's own good works, not on the basis of Christ's good works done in their place (e.g Mat 25:31-46; 2 Cor 5:10). The doctrine of Sola Fide has (mistakenly) conflated conversion with final salvation (e.g. Mat 24:12-13; Rom 8:24; 10:9-10; 13:11b; 1 Cor 10:1-6; 15:2; 1 Tim 2:15; 2 Tim 4:7-8). (NB: the Final Judgment texts, with God acting as Judge, are the only passages in which salvation is stated in a principally forensic framework.)

(3c) Christ’s “passive obedience”. While numerous passages speak of Christ suffering and dying for our sins, the Protestant understanding of passive obedience is an unbiblical concoction called “Penal Substitution” - teaching that Christ received the very punishment the sinner deserved, which is nothing short of suffering the Father’s full Wrath (which the damned in hell must end up suffering for themself). John Calvin (as do most other Protestant theologians) taught that:

"Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God's anger, and satisfy his righteous judgment, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. ... Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God." (Institutes [2]:16:10) 

Needless to say, the Bible never teaches Jesus endured anything more than a physical death, a murder in fact, and certainly not the Father's Wrath. Further, the OT never teaches Penal Substitution, thus it's incongruent that it would foreshadow such for Christ. The use of the Old Testament term “atonement” (Strong's #H3722) never involves transferring punishment but rather turning away wrath by doing good deeds (e.g. Gen 32:20; Ex 30:16; Ex32:30//Psalm106:19-23//Deut 9:13-29; Num 16:46-48; Num 25:1-13//Pslam106:30-31; Num 31:50; Prov 16:6, 14). And the Levitical Sacrifices didn't operate in terms of Penal Substitution either. For example: (i) the Sin Offering was only for minor/unintentional sins, never for grave sin (Num 35:30-33), and could be made without killing (Lev 5:11-13); (ii) the Peace Offering was not about atoning for sin, but involved virtually the same instructions of laying on hands on the animal's head and killing it (e.g. Lev 3:1-2).

Lastly, Penal Substitution entails that all of the believers sins he has committed and will ever commit are forgiven at once, which is not only never taught in Scripture, it is contradicted by the fact Scripture only speaks of past sins forgiven (e.g. 2 Pt 1:9; 1 Jn 1:9) and the regular need for repentance (e.g. Mat 6:12), else the believer will lose his salvation and even be damned (e.g. Mk 9:43-47; Mat 18:23-35). David is a prime example of this, as Lutherans (rightly) teach in the Book of Concord (Smalcald Articles 3:3:43), quoting Martin Luther: “when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them.” In other words, David lost his salvation (justification) and had to repent to recover it, as Romans 4 describes his repentance in Psalm 32.

(3d) “Christ’s Righteousness”. Despite the fact the two components which 'comprise' Christ’s Righteousness (i.e. His passive and active obedience) are not actually biblical, since there is frequent mention of “Christ’s Righteousness” (also called the “righteousness of Christ”) by Protestant sources, some points are in order: 

• Nowhere does the term “Christ’s Righteousness” nor any equivalent concept appear in Scripture.

• Luther originally got the idea by mistakenly thinking it was the “Righteousness of God,” but Paul is speaking of the Righteousness of Godthe Father, not Jesus particularly. (The Father never had to earn this righteousness by perfect law keeping; it’s a quality of God’s Nature, not a legal status.)

• When the Bible speaks of righteousness in reference to Christ or the “Righteousness of God,” it is speaking primarily of God’s faithfulness to fulfilling His Promises, despite the fact sinners seem to have foiled His Plans (Jeremiah 33:14-18; Rom 3:3-5).

(3e) Imputation. The Greek term for “impute” (also translated into English as “credited,” “reckoned,” “counted,” etc, all with the same general meaning) is logizomai (Strong’s #G3049), and most Bible dictionaries readily admit the primary meaning is to take aliteral account of something. Though the term is used about 40 times in the New Testament, it's never used in the sense Protestants suggest. The sense in which the Protestant is using logizomai is along the lines of “transfer,” such that the phrase “faith iscredited [logizomai] as righteousness” (Romans 4:3) is taken to mean “faith transfers[Christ's] Righteousness to the believer's account.” But again, the Bible never uses logizomai in this manner.

Consider how the New Testament itself points away from the Protestant definition of the term. Here are some examples: 

• Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude [logizomai] that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 

• Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted [logizomai] as a gift but as his due.

• Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon [logizomai] ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

• Rom 8:18 For I reckon [logizomai] that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

In each of the above situations, the term logizomai is being used to reckon what is actually true about the object itself. In other words, in these examples Paul reckons that:

(i) a man is saved by faith not by works of the law, which is a fact about the nature of works of the law, since they don’t save.
(ii) a working man’s wages are reckoned not as a gift but rather (reckoned) as debt, which is likewise a fact about the nature of paid-wages. (This context is where “reckoned” [logizomai] also occurs in Rom 4:3,5!)
(iii) the Christian is to be reckoned as dead to sin since they’ve died in a very real way to sin (as Romans 6 as a whole teaches), which again is a fact about the nature of a saved person.
(iv) the present sufferings are not comparable to Heavenly glory, which goes without saying, a fact about the nature of the current situation.

Further, there are clear examples of logizomai where someone reckons incorrectly and is thus sinning or in error since they failed to reckon something as it truly was. Consider: 

• Mark 15:28 - Christ was (falsely) reckoned as a criminal by the Jews

• Romans 2:3 - the hypocrite (falsely) reckons he will not be judged for committing the same sins he judges others for committing   

• Romans 8:36 - persecutors (falsely) reckoning Christians as “sheep for the slaughter”

• Romans 14:14 - a spiritually weak Christian (wrongly) reckons certain food to be “unclean”    

• 2 Corinthians 10:2 - troublemakers (falsely) reckoning Paul as an unbeliever

Thus, to reckon something other than what it really is (except by similitude), especially opposite of what it is, ranges from a mistake to a grave sin - something which God could never do.

(3f) Justification. Protestants insist the Greek word for “justify” (dikaioo) means to legally“declare righteous” (based strictly on Christ's Imputed Righteousness), while Catholics hold the term can be used a variety of ways, including “to make righteous”. Catholics contend the argument doesn’t hang on this distinction as must as Protestants have (historically) claimed, since “declare righteous” can be a sort of ‘capstone’ to a transformation that just took place within the believer. Indeed, the Council of Trent dogmatically defined Justification as an umbrella term carrying under it: forgiveness of sins (Rom 4:6; Acts 13:38f), sanctification (1 Cor 6:11), spiritual renewal (Titus 3:4-7), and adoption (Gal 3:2,7,14; 4:5; Rom 4:11-13). These components are so closely related that one cannot happen without the rest. And dikaioo is clearly expressing more than simply “declare righteous” in other texts as well, such as: (i) Luke 18:13-14 “he who humbles himself will be exalted,” which is a combination of forgiveness and inner renewal; (ii) Romans 5:9 parallels “justified by his blood” to “reconciled by his death”; (iii) Romans 6:7 defines “justify” as “freed from sin”; (iv) Romans 8:29-30 explains “called, justified, glorified” as “conformed to the image of Christ”; (v) 1 Timothy 3:16 says Jesus was “justified by the Spirit,” speaking of His Resurrection (cf Rom 1:4).

And the term dikaioo need not appear when equivalent terms such as “saved” are used. For example: (i) Acts 15:9,11 parallels “cleansed their heart by faith” to “saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus.” (ii) Ephesians 2:5,8 says “when we were dead in our trespasses, [God] made us alive together with Christ” and defines this as “by grace you have been saved” (iii) Philippians 3:3, 9-11 says the “the righteousness from God that depends on faith” is to be understood as “that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death” These passages frame “saved” (i.e. “justified”) in terms of an inner transformation of the soul – yet this not what Sola Fide teaches.

(3g) Faith. Sola Fide teaches that faith is a passive element in justification, acting as an “empty hand,” receiving Christ’s Righteousness. Protestants claim that for faith to have any inherent value would contradict Romans 4:4-5, reasoning that faith as an act pleasing to God would be equivalent to doing any work and getting paid for it. But this is simply misguided and not how Scripture defines faith. When it comes to the Bible defining faith Hebrews 11:1,2 & 6 says this: “faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. ... And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him mustbelieve that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” And to buttress this point, “faith” means “faithful obedience” in virtually every Old Testament saint referenced in Hebrews 11. Clearly, faith is an act of man (given as a gift by God), in which man is able to render belief and obedience unto God, and that faith does “please God” and receives God's commendation. This also fits the Biblical notion that faith can grow, which makes no sense if faith is a passive ‘instrument’ (since it would have to be uniform for everyone). Further, there are references Christians being of “little faith,” requests to “increase our faith,” and holy men being of “great faith” (e.g. Mt 8:10). This can only mean faith itself is a good thing, and the more you have of it, the more pleasing to God you are.

Abraham is Paul's star witness to his thesis “the righteous will live by faith[fulness]” (Rom 1:18, quoting Habakuk 2:4; also quoted and explained in detail in Hebrews 10:36ff). In Romans 4, Paul says Abraham was justified in Genesis 15, and describes his impressive act of faith as follows: “In hope he believed against hope... He did not weaken in faith...No distrust made him waver... but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God,fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was "counted to him as righteousness." ” (4:18-22). So, contrary to Sola Fide, faith itself was credited as a righteous act - just as Phinehas' good work was credited as a righteous act (as recorded in Psalm 106:30-31, using the same Hebrew/Greek phrase “credited as righteousness” as Genesis 15:6). And this was not the first time Abraham was justified, since he faithfully followed God years before this Genesis 15 event, as Hebrews 11:8 and Galatians 3:8 show when hearkening back to Genesis 12:1-4. (Nor was Genesis 15 the last time he was justified, as James 2:14,21-24 and Genesis 22:1,9-12 teach, when God tested Abraham and Blessed his faithfulness.) And this fits other similar examples, such as when by faithful obedience Abel was “commended as righteous” (Heb 11:4) and Noah's faithfulness made him “an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith” (Heb 11:4; as with Abraham, Romans 4:13).

4) Having refuted, from Scripture, the tenets holding up the doctrine of Sola Fide, we would not expect any Scriptural references to “salvation by faith” to be teaching the specific doctrine of Sola Fide as the Reformers understood it.