Sunday, December 20, 2009

My Legal Mindset vs Love and Grace

Sunday, December 20, 2009
My Legal Mindset vs Love and Grace
  • Taking God to Court or Taking Him at His Word?
  • Loving God as a Father or Holding Him Accountable to His Own Law?
  • Acting Like God's Adopted Son, or Acting Like His Creditor?
To my own surprise, shock, and astonishment, I have once again become "spiritually converted". The last time I experienced this was about 28-years ago when the decisively Catholic upbringing my loving parents gave to me was re-directed by Protestant theology which opened my eyes to my own rebellion to God and my very real need for a Savior. Erroneously thinking that this was a stark contrast to the Catholic position, I have spent the last 28-years pursuing Christ in Protestant and Reformed circles.

However, by God's grace, I have now come to understand more fully what it means to be part of the family of God, and this is not expressed better anywhere than it is in the Catholic Church, which I now believe to be God's own expression of grace on earth, as it is in heaven.

Though new to me, I have initial thoughts that I express here. I understand these thoughts are simple and need much more study and contemplation, but they are real enough to me to tune my ears to Catholic history, doctrine, and theologins, over and above what I have been listening to over the past 28 years from my Protestant teachers, whom I owe a certain debt of gratitude for their knowledge.

That said, the following is what I have been seeing is at the heart of the difference between the protestant position and the Catholic position which I have recently taken very, very, seriously:

As a Reformer, although I could rationalize my salvation with 'legal-ease' and I could intellectually concede that I was justified in Christ, I was never sure that I was actually ... IN, CHRIST.

Whereas, as a Catholic, I now embrace my salvation as a precious gift, and I humbly concede the worthiness of Jesus Christ by my faithful obedience to Him, and as I DO, I am more and more assured that He is my brother, and that His Father and mine are the same.

Does this make me a legalist? Does this mean I am 'working' FOR salvation? No, quite the opposite. This means I have not taken my Father to court demanding my inheritence, but have instead, accepted His terms and have placed my trust in His love for me through His Son Jesus Christ. I no longer need the letter of the law to justify my inheritence, but now, I trust the love of my Father and have no desire to hold my holy and perfect Father accountable to me in any way whatsoever. I am free now in my relationship with Him...and so is He.

By the above rationale, it is not a stretch to say that it is the Protestant mind set that has reduced family, love, salvation, and covenant, to mere business transaction, law, guarantee, and contract. The scenario that expresses grace the most is obvious.

Monday, December 7, 2009

Check it out...I'm turning 'Catholic'

Yeah, I didn't believe it either. Turns out, my son-in-law, Eric, has been really looking into the claims and the theology of the Roman Catholic Church for the sake of his father who has been doing the same. I talk to Eric frequently and he has been sharing his findings with me. Needless to say, I have been pleasantly surprised!

Eric, being my 'subordinate', (haha), would do well to mind his place in these matters, but the sheer veracity of what he is communicating to me from the Catholic faith, I am finding, is not what I have any desire to claim superior wisdom over. He is convincing me easily with the facts, and I eagerly accept these facts as they are, one-by-one, extinguishing all the anxieties I have had with the Reformed faith.

Details on what I mean will be following for sure because I am currently very much excited about the Catholic faith and its consistency to Christian doctrine and ethics. In the mean time, check out Eric's latest blog posts to follow this fantastic discovery of true Christian faith...

Friday, July 17, 2009

Andrew's Prophecies

Original Post by Anna

2/2 Andrew's prophesies come true
Yes, w/in 5 days of each other. Sunday, just me and him on the drive to church, he says from back in his carseat: "I think Paula and Eric will come to church today." I've seen them once in the past year there, of course, last summer I went not at all, then they stopped coming when I started back up. "Now, " I say, "Last night was Eric's birthday party". Explaining that it was least of any morning we would see those two at church. He said twice more on the way that maybe they would come this moring too.

I was lazy, excuses, excuses, got off late the night before, etc. So basically Andrew and I were driving there to return and get more books from the library. So, sitting there in the foyer, (late as can be), we see doors swing open, see people filing out. By now I am usually at the library door, but I sit to yack w/a 95 year old lady. Wow! Out of those doors come Paula and Eric. What a feeling it was to see family at URC besides us.

Posted by Anna at 8:26 PM 0 comments

2nd of Andrew's Prophecies
So, our African desert tortoise has been missing for 12 weeks or so. The same one that God brought back to life after I left him in a large pan of water over one freezing night a few years back. Anyone remember me pouring lukewarm water over him for hours all day when I found him frozen? On top of the skakeboard ramp Paula made in my old backyard?

Summer before, I had fried two tortoises. Left them in a large plastic bucket of water, so cool and comfy after a long summer day I spent at work. Only I left them for 2 days, and forgot about them, the water and turtles were gone when I went to check on them in the horror of realizing what I did. The dead turtles were there, but the water was not.

The gate flies open from the wind, sometimes the gardeners forget to close it. I tell Andrew that the turtle must have left by the gate. Funny, when we first moved here, I was always bringing that thing back before he hit the gutter at the end of the driveway. Probably the last time I laughed, remembering. I said, "Even the turtle wants to get away."

LLoongg story short! Yesterday, on the way to school at 7:55 am Andrew says "I think the turtle dug a hole and went next door. He's said that before. We had been talking on the way to school how we missed him, and how he has been gone for so long. There is cement all around the fencing in the backyard. So I just agreed.

This morning, Mitch is answering the call from the neighbor, hitting on his window. He calls Mitch to his driveway and asks if that turtle is ours.


Posted by Anna at 8:39 PM 1 comments

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Psalm 1 & 2: Audio, Video, and Commentary

"Psalms 1 and 2 are together the introduction to the Psalter. Right away we get music that takes us from creation to redemption, from Adam to Christ, from our struggle under the common curse to the promises of the new heavens and the new earth someday."

This is posted to open up a dialogue, either amongst myselves, (is that a word?), haha, or, with any other interested individuals. There seems to be a controversy inherent within this sermon, and it has to do with the motivation for, and the possibility of, living a joyful and victorious Christian life. I'll leave it at that and just let you voice your own opinion here after listening to this otherwise great sermon!

Psalms 1&2-The Blessed Man in Whom We Take Refuge

by Rev. Adam Kaloostian June 16, 2009 Psalms 1 & 2
Running time: 00:31:50
Download MP3

Psalms 1&2-The Blessed Man in Whom We Take Refuge

by Rev. Adam Kaloostian June 16, 2009 Psalms 1 & 2
Running time: 00:08:23
Download MP3


Saturday, June 20, 2009

Christians MUST Leave Public Schools

Below is a rough outline of a portion of this sermon I posted yesterday. I believe this topic to be one of the most crucial to the spiritual health of our kids, families, Church, and our nation, and so I single it out here.

The widespread acceptance of sending Christian children into the State school system.

Marker 00:17:23
  • A system that is atheistic, antichrist, pro macroevolution, pro sodomite, pro feminist, pro idolatry, and anti-parent. This is widespread in the church and the public school system is completely accepted.

  • Deuteronomy 6:6-9 teaches, along with Ephesians 6:4, that Christian parents have a Biblical responsibility to make sure that their children have an explicit and thorough Christian education and training.

  • Every single course is to come from a Christian perspective. Jesus Christ is the Lord of mathematics, history, geography…ALL topics, and He must be integrated into every aspect of education.

  • Christian ethics must be integrated into all aspects of daily living. You are NOT going to get that in the public school system with its sensitivity training on sodomite marriage and the teaching that the American Indians are more noble and wonderful than Christians, or its teaching on how wonderful Muslims are.

  • The public schools are not permitted to teach the centrality of Christ.

  • Christian parents are not allowed by scripture to hand their children over to pagans and atheists. They are not allowed to have their children intermingle with heathen idolaters, liars, fornicators, sorcerers, Christ haters, and sex perverts.

  • AND YET, these State schools are fully acceptable in our denominations. Is this not utter foolishness? Is it not sinful and exceedingly dangerous spiritually? According to the Bible it definitely is.

  • So why is it accepted and defended? Because of human traditions, pragmatism, because of a failure to preach the whole council of God.

  • If the churches taught the truth on this issue and required parents not to send their children to state schools, the Churches would shrink and lose members, and that is simply unacceptable, so the parents are accommodated. Their sin is excused. Their wickedness is allowed.

  • Yes it is sinful to send your children to public schools. It is wicked. It is one of the worst sins you could do, to hand your children over to a bunch of heathen to raise them…to teach them for you.

Both of the last points are clearly tied to the issue of the rise of materialism and hedonism in American culture.

Marker 00:21:34
  • If the wife did not work, then families would have to adopt a simpler life style with less things, fewer amusements.

  • Moreover, if children are home schooled, that requires a stay-at-home mother, or, at least a solid Christian school which would require a large financial commitment.

  • Churches today, are simply REFUSING to make parents submit to the teaching of scripture and make the necessary sacrifices to lead a holy, consistent, Christian life.

  • Could you imagine the Puritans sending their children to Roman Catholic schools to be
    indoctrinated in Romanism?

  • Could you imagine the early Presbyterians sending their children to American Indian schools to be indoctrinated into the world view of a pagan savage?

  • Yet what makes it right to send your children into a state school where Christ is not allowed in the classroom? AND, they are indoctrinated in Statism…pro homosexuality, pro abortion, pro feminism, pro fornication, pro evolution, you name it.

  • The modern church is up to its neck in sin on these issues and it needs to repent. Let us mourn for the state of the Church. Let us mourn for the poor covenant children who must be exposed to this Satanic garbage.

  • Let us mourn for the Church who develop arguments against scripture to make it easier
    to sin.

I am not aware of any reforms coming from within the Church in the 20th century.

Marker 00:24:09
  • The rise of the home-school movement, largely is due to people like R. J. Rushdoony. It did not come from within the Church, that is to say, the Church bureaucracy.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Ron Paul's Bill To Audit Federal Reserve Now Has 207 Co-Sponsors

Bill To Audit Federal Reserve Now Has 207 Co-Sponsors

Steve Watson
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Bill To Audit Federal Reserve Now Has 207 Co Sponsors  100609RPAt time of writing, a bill that would see the Federal Reserve bank audited for the first time in 59 years has 207 cosponsers in the House and is gaining traction with every single day.

This means just 11 more are needed for a majority to be reached in the House.

If enacted, HR 1207 will amend title 31 of the United States Code and reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States.

In other words, for the first time since 1950, the the independent financial powerhouse that creates and regulates all money in the US will be forced by law to open its books.

HR 1207 was sponsored and introduced by Rep. Ron Paul. On February 26, 2009, it was referred to the House Committee on Financial Services, where it remains under consideration.

HR 1207 also has a companion bill, S 604: F R Sunshine Act of 2009, in the Senate.

This news also dovetails with reports detailing how the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the panel responsible for investigating the use of bailout money, has issued a subpoena to the Federal Reserve, asking them to hand over all documents relating to the takeover of Merrill Lynch by the Bank of America.

Claims by New York Attorney-General Andrew Cuomo that former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke strong-armed BofA into buying Merrill, could see the two exposed to prosecution.

There is no doubt that the privately owned Federal Reserve is in hot water, and it knows it.

As we reported last week, the Fed is hiring a veteran lobbyist to “manage its relations with Congress”. According to a Reuters report, the Fed plans to hire Linda Robertson, who previously worked for now-defunct energy company Enron, as well as the Clinton administration.

It is also no coincidence that the End the Fed movement has recently been targeted by smear campaigns. The MIAC report cited Ron Paul supporters as potential extremists and the United States Army Reserve Command issued “mitigation measures” in response to End the Fed demonstrations around the country last year.

Ron Paul recently explained to Forbes why the passage of HR 1207 is so important:

The Federal Reserve’s recent and unprecedented actions in the realm of monetary policy have provoked a backlash among the American people. Trillions of dollars worth of loans and guarantees have been provided to Wall Street firms, while Main Street Americans suffocate under harsh taxation, the prospect of higher debt levels and increasing inflation. These events have awakened many Americans to problems with the Fed’s loose monetary policy, the bubbles it has created in the past and the potential hyperinflation it might cause in the future.

One of the fallacies of modern economics is the idea that a central bank is required in order to keep inflation low and promote economic growth. In reality, it is the central bank’s monetary policy that causes inflation and depresses economic growth. Inflation is an increase in the supply of money, which in our day and age is directly caused or initiated by central banks. All other things being equal, inflation results in a rise in prices. A so-called “mild” rate of inflation of 3% per year leads to a 56% rise in prices over a 15-year period. Even a “low” rate of inflation of 2% per year leads to a 35% rise over that same period. How is that conducive to long-term growth?

A common misconception is that the Fed is completely independent of political pressures. While the Fed has far too much authority to make agreements with foreign governments and central banks, or create temporary liquidity facilities, the governors and–more important–the chairman, are appointed by the president.

If passed, HR1207 will ensure that the Fed make public the destination of the trillions in taxpayer “loans” that have been simply handed over to private banks without oversight.

Bernanke will be seated before Congress and forced to answer these questions instead of worming his way out of them, citing “extraordinary circumstances” and the like, as we have seen him do over and over for the past eight months.

The bill, if it becomes law, will expose how the Fed has consistently engaged the inflation of the currency for the gain of a few elite international bankers, further exposing how this kind of criminal action has directly led to financial crises and recessions for decades.

An audit would set the stage for the end of the Federal Reserve and a return of honest money and fiscal policies.

Indeed, Jim Grant, editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, today told CNBC that the Fed’s balance sheet is “so out of whack” that the central bank would be shut down if subjected to a audit.

“In essence, the bill requires an audit of the Fed’s activity which shall be made available to Congress,” wrote Glenn Greenwald recently. “What possible arguments exist against this bill? Who opposes an audit of the Fed’s activities and why?”


Tune in to The Alex Jones Show today (June 10th 2009) to hear Congressman Ron Paul give an update on the progress of HR 1207.

The Daily Paul blog site has compiled a list of Democrats and a list of Republicans who have not signed on to co sponsor HR 1207. If your representatives are in either of these lists, we urge you to contact them and pressure them to cosponser the bill.

A full list of the 207 cosponsers follows. The ever growing list can also be tracked online at the Library of Congress here.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

The Comprehensive Authority of Jesus Christ; Part 1

I will be posting a series of audio sermons, (lectures), on the subject of the comprehensive authority of God and His Son Jesus Christ. This is part 1 of I'm not sure how many posts...probably a lot. I will also be posting text of highlights from the audio as I have done below, and may interject my own commentary from time to time along the way. _____P.S., if you want to jump ahead of me on this topic, there are related sermons HERE, which I have not listened to yet (except for this one), but are my starting point on this series.

"There is no doctrine which is clearer in the Bible, even clearer than the doctrine of salvation; the sovereignty of God shouts forth. A profession and practice of 'totalism', must come from the people of God. In other words, we cannot just say, 'I believe God is sovereign'. That's not good enough. We must practice that God is sovereign. He is sovereign in every sphere of life."

"God's claim is very clear. God's claim upon all of mankind and all of the universe is comprehensive; it is total and absolute."

"There is not one place where God does not say, 'This belongs to me'."

"God is God by virtue of His supreme position as sovereign over all that is created."

"On the issue of God's total, comprehensive, absolute, entire sovereignty, there can be no compromise. God will not compromise His sovereignty with any created creature, thing, philosophy, doctrine or premise, simply because He is God, and He is the sovereign law-giver and creator, and of course, the only 'Potentate' as Paul states very clearly, over all of mankind."

1 Timothy 6:12-16 "Fight the good fight of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate, that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at the proper time--He who is the blessed and only Sovereign (Potentate), the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see: To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen."

On The Issue of Sin: "The Christian; 'Oh, I'm beaten down. I'm such a sinner.' ...Fine. Get over it! Repent every day, and ask God for His strength to go on another day, instead of saying, 'Oh woah is me, oh woah is me, oh woah is me, oh woah is me'. It's enough with the 'whoa is me', now let's get moving. David, in the closet of his prayer time, during the writing of his psalm, he confessed vehemently. He confessed privately, publically; and yet, he was not consumed with his sin. He was consumed with God's righteousness. He was consumed with God's Kingdom. He was consumed with building the Kingdom of Heaven IN SPITE OF HIS SIN, and in LIGHT of his sin, because he understood one thing and had a handle on one thing, that God's forgiveness purged his sin...and he went FORWARD."

"Comprehensive sacrifice leads to a comprehensive obedience, which leads to a comprehensive sovereignty under the authority and sovereignty of Christ, which leads to victory.

Secondly, if the State, humanism, or any other thing which exalts itself above the knowledge of Christ, gains even a toe-hold, even a temporary toe-hold of sovereignty, or supposed sovereignty, either in your heart, in your family, in the culture around you wherever it may be, then, it has established a platform whereby it can eventually execute oppressive rule over the people of God. Remember the principle: When the wicked rule, when the wicked are in authority, the people mourn. The Christian must fight fearlessly against this."

The Comprehensive Claim of the Almighty

Pastor Paul Michael Raymond: 08/04/2002
Running time: 00:59:58
Download MP3

Friday, May 29, 2009

No Lone Rangers

Why I Am Not More "Active" in Civil and Cultural Actions.

Not that I assume anyone would really care about why I do this or that, except for me, but as stated before this blog is among other things, a place for me to sort out my own thoughts along the lines of "law attitudes". My only real activity has been to speak my faith, (Law and Gospel), to speak my mind, and to vote. I don't currently consider these things as being the limit to what needs to be done to effectively conform our culture to the standards of God.

I guess part of my reasoning for cowaring from more aggressive activities comes from a sense of being alone in engaging in such battles. I use the term cowaring with some hesitation because this presumed cowardice is rooted in a fear and/or inappropriateness of "going to battle" without the authority and support of the Church. It would be similar to a soldier enlisted in the service of his country, engaging what he percieves is the "enemy", when his country is not at war and does not acknowledge who this soldier is attacking as any kind of enemy! This makes the lone soldier appear to be more of a rogue terrorist rather than a patriotic defender of his country, and, his effectiveness is thus limited, if not nonexistent.

Likewise, this is the hesitation I feel when contemplating action in the civil and cultural arena. If the Church as a whole feels no moral obligation or duty to God in rebuking the culture and its civil magistrates, then for me to engage alone or with a few others, seems a contradiction to what I feel is the necessary momentum and authority to engage in such activity.

Alone I may engage as a "citizen", but as I have expressed before, this is a weak and humanistic approach to what I feel is the responsibility of the Church as a whole. I would rather stand on a firm foundation as a "Saint" who is a citizen of the Kingdom of God bearing the standards of the King of Kings and the Lord of lords.

This is a far cry from taking a stance as a citizen of a morally corrupt and anti-Christ culture. I do not want to engage the immoral culture on the standing of a citizen of that immoral culture, but rather as a citizen of the morally and spiritually authoratative Kingdom of God. But how can I, when the Kingdom of God as manifested on this earth at this present time, is unwilling to acknowledge an earthly enemy, and, its duty in obedience to the King? I don't know. I wait with prayer and further provoking of my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Corporatism and the Nature of Man

I have been browsing the Victory Garden Militia's videos and am finding some very like-minded ideas. This vid is about Corporatism, a term I believe, is used to be a more pallatable way to express Fascism. Joe here is very upset about Corporatism and how it has robbed mankind of our very nature and freedom of conscience, so don't be alarmed that he might use some questionable colloquialisms to express his anger. Don't get mad at Joe. Get mad at the Corporate fascists and then vote with your pocket book. I am finding that the whole purpose of this "VGM" is to educate people on alternatives to dependence on the Corporate Fascists. That really is the key. The more self reliant we can become, the less power these Fascists will have over our lives and over our consciences.

Obama and Fascism

I have been contemplating fascism and Obama. Is Obama the "closer" for our new fascist state? This bright young lady has some facts for us, and she also demonstrates a refreshing resolve NOT TO PARTICIPATE in this fascism. I too would encourage everyone to abstain from "worshiping" this false god and idol our government has become by refusing to bow in obedience to them, ...for your sake as well as for everyone elses.

Give Up Your Freedoms

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Audit the Fed, Then End It! by Ron Paul

Monday, May 18, 2009 6:55 PM
Audit the Fed, Then End It!
- Essay by Ron Paul for May 18 2009

Listen to Ron Paul. Click the play button below.

Ron Paul...Audit the Fed, Then End It! 05/18/2009

HR 1207 calls for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve.
Running time: 00:04:06
Download MP3

I have been very pleased with the progress of my legislation, HR 1207, which calls for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve and removes many significant barriers towards transparency of our monetary system. This bill now has nearly 170 cosponsors, with support from both Republicans and Democrats. Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced a companion bill in the Senate S 604, which will hopefully begin to gain momentum as well. I am very encouraged to see so many of my colleagues in Congress stand with me for greater transparency in government.

Some have begun to push back against this bill, and I am very happy to address their concerns.

The main argument seems to be that Congressional oversight over the Fed is government interference in the free market. This argument shows a misunderstanding of what a free market really is. Fundamentally, you cannot defend the Federal Reserve and the free market at the same time. The Fed negates the very foundation of a free market by artificially manipulating the price and supply of money – the lifeblood of the economy. In a free market, interest rates, like the price of any other consumer good, are decentralized and set by the market. The only legitimate, Constitutional role of government in monetary policy is to protect the integrity of the monetary unit and defend against counterfeiters.

Instead, Congress has abdicated this responsibility to a cabal of elite, quasi-governmental banks who, instead of stabilizing the economy, have destabilized it. It took less than two decades for the Federal Reserve to bring on the Great Depression of the 1930’s. It has also inflated away the value of our currency by over 96 percent since its inception. It has invisibly stolen from the poor and given to the rich through this controlled inflation, and now openly stolen through recent bank bailouts. It has predictably exacerbated the very problems it was meant to solve.

Detractors have also argued that the Fed must remain immune from the political process, and that that more congressional oversight would distort their very important decisions. On the contrary, the Federal Reserve is already heavily entrenched in the political process, as the Fed chairman is a political appointee. High level officials routinely make the rounds between positions at the Fed, member banks, Treasury and back again, taking care of friends and each other along the way.

As far as the foolishness of placing complex monetary policy decisions in the hands of politicians – I couldn’t agree more. No politician or central banker, no matter how brilliant, is smart enough to know more than the market itself. The failure of central economic planning has been witnessed over and over. It is frankly beyond me why we ever agreed to try it again.

To understand how unwise it is to have the Federal Reserve, one must first understand the magnitude of the privileges they have. They have been given the power to create money, by the trillions, and to give it to their friends, under any terms they wish, with little or no meaningful oversight or accountability. Thus the loudest arguments against greater transparency are likely to come from those friends, and understandably so.

However, it is the responsibility of every member of Congress to represent the interests of the people that sent them to Washington and find out what has been happening with our money. As the branch of government with the power of the purse, we really have no other reasonable choice when the economy is in the shape it is in.

Monday, May 18, 2009

Chuck Baldwin Interview: 05/18/2009

AUDIO: Alex Jones: Chuck Baldwin; on, "It's Getting Very Serious Now"

Alex Jones interviews Chuck Baldwin on 05/18/2009, on "It's Getting Very Serious Now".
Running time: 00:37:15
Download MP3

This interview deals with this article written by Chuck Baldwin last week.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

AUDIO: Greg Bahnsen...Ethics and Culture Part 1

Greg Bahnsen...Ethics and Culture Part 1

Part 1 of 2 on Justice: Crime and Punishment.
Running time: 00:47:48
Download MP3

I was very glad to hear Greg Bahnsen on this recording speak to the issue of prisons the way he does. I have always thought that prisons are an unbiblical means of justice, and in fact are a means of one of the severest forms of torture. Greg Bahnsen feels the same way.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

It's Getting Very Serious Now...THE AUDIO

AUDIO: It's Getting Very Serious Now, Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Alex Jones on dangerous bills going through Congress.
Running time: 00:11:30
Download MP3

EVERYBODY PAY ATTENTION: It's Getting Very Serious Now

I know a lot of you understand that we as Americans are on the verge of losing ALL of our freedoms given to us by our Lord, but some of you may still not be aware of this. I have posted the article below to let you know just how close we are to this reality. This is not to put fear into our hearts but to 'sober' us up so that we may enter this era with the proper resolve to fight against and pray against an ungodly tyrany and injustice that is at our door and is ready to devour everyone who is dear to us.

It Is Getting Very Serious Now
By Chuck Baldwin
May 12, 2009

First, it was a Missouri Analysis and Information Center (MIAC) report; then
it was a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report; now it is a New York
congressman's bill. Each of these items, taken on their own, is problematic
enough; taken together they portend "a clear and present danger" to the
liberties of the American people. It is getting very serious now.

As readers may recall, the MIAC report profiled certain people as being
potential violence-prone "militia members": including people who supported
Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself. In addition, anyone
who opposed one or more of the following were also included in the list: the
New World Order, the U.N., gun control, the violation of Posse Comitatus,
the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the Ammunition Accountability Act, a
possible Constitutional Convention, the North American Union, the Universal
Service Program, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), abortion on demand,
or illegal immigration.

The MIAC report prompted a firestorm of protest, and was eventually
rescinded, with the man responsible for its distribution being dismissed
from his position. The DHS report profiled many of the same people included
in the MIAC report, and added returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans as
potentially dangerous "extremists."

As I have said before, it is very likely that when all of the opinions and
views of the above lists are counted, 75% or more of the American people
would be included. Yet, these government reports would have law enforcement
personnel to believe we are all dangerous extremists that need to be watched
and guarded against. If this was not bad enough, a New York congressman has
introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to deny Second Amendment
rights to everyone listed above.

According to World Net Daily, May 9, 2009, "A new gun law being considered
in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling
everyday Americans a potential 'threats,' could potentially deny firearms to
pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists,
and a host of others--any already on the expansive DHS watch list for
potential 'extremism.'

"Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and
Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney
general to deny transfer of a firearm to any 'known or suspected dangerous
terrorist.' The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is
'appropriately suspected' of preparing for a terrorist act and that the
attorney general 'has a reasonable belief' that the gun might be used in
connection with terrorism.

"Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill's language, arguing that
it enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment
rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being

WND quotes Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt as saying,
"By [DHS] standards, I'm one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano's
terrorists. This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the
people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the
DHS, they're all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill
the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009."

Pratt was also quoted as saying, "Unbeknownst to us, some bureaucrat in the
bowels of democracy can put your name on a list, and your Second Amendment
rights are toast." He went on to say, "This such an anti-American bill, this
is something King George III would have done."

Now that DHS has established both a list and a lexicon for "extremists," it
looks to Congress to confer upon it police-state-style powers through which
these individuals may be disarmed and eventually done away with. Rep. Peter
King is accommodating this goal with H.R. 2159.

Let me ask a reasonable question: how long does anyone think it would be,
after being profiled by DHS and denied the lawful purchase of firearms, that
those same people would be subjected to gun confiscation? And how long do
you think it would be before DHS began profiling more and more groups of
people, thus subjecting them to gun confiscation?

This was exactly the strategy employed by Adolf Hitler. The Jews were the
first people denied their civil rights--especially the right to own and
possess firearms. Of course, after disarming Jews, the rest of the German
citizenry was likewise disarmed. And we all know where that led.

I'm not sure how many of the American people realize that it was the
attempted confiscation of the colonialists' cache of arms in Concord,
Massachusetts, that started America's War for Independence. Yes, my friends,
it was attempted gun confiscation that triggered (pun intended) the "shot
heard 'round the world." And now it would appear that, once again, a central
government is on the verge of trying to deny the American people their right
to keep and bear arms.

I am told that as of 2004, 50% of the adults in the United States own one or
more firearms, totaling some 270 million privately owned firearms
nationwide. I would venture to say that the vast majority of these gun
owners would find themselves matching the DHS profile of a potential
"extremist." I wonder how many gun owners realize the way they are now being
targeted by their government, and just how serious--and how close--the
threat of gun confiscation has become?

If one doubts the intention of the elitists in government today to deny the
American people their right to keep and bear arms, consider what former
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is purported to have said just a couple
of weeks ago.

Kissinger attended a high-level meeting with Russian President
Medvedev that also included former Secretaries of State James Baker and
George Shultz; former Secretary of Defense William Perry; and former Senator
Sam Nunn. Included in the discussions was Kissinger's assertion that the
American people were now ready to accept a "New Global Order." He is also
reported to have told Medvedev, "By September we'll have confiscated all
privately owned guns so it really doesn't matter what we do, we'll still be
in charge." (Even though the national news media has not reported this
statement, the Internet is abuzz with Kissinger having said it. Whether
Kissinger actually made that statement or not, he, and rest of his ilk, have
repeatedly called for a New World Order, in which there will be no
constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.)

This leads to a very serious question: how many of America's gun owners
would allow their government to deny them gun ownership? Further, how many
would passively sit back and allow their guns to be confiscated?

As humbly and meekly as I know how to say it: as for me and my house, gun
confiscation is the one act of tyranny that crosses the line; debate,
discourse, discussion, and peaceful dissent cease and desist at that point.
I say again, it is getting very serious now.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

AUDIO: Forced Eviction; Recorded Live This Morning

AUDIO: Grandma Loses Her Own Home By Force. Recorded Live This Morning, Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Recorded Live This Morning: Lady stormed by police and evicted, even though she owns her home.
Running time: 21:58
Download MP3

Go to Audio Player

Download MP3

Monday, May 11, 2009

Should a Christian Join the Military?

I thought the following short article was important because kids (young adults) are facing fewer and fewer opportunities today outside of military/law enforcement positions. It is an honest question and should be considered primarily before deciding by any other criteria, in my opinion...

May 08, 2009
Should a Christian Join the Military?
Posted by Laurence Vance at May 8, 2009 08:24 PM

I have been saying no for years, and, although it has cost me dearly, it is a price I have been willing to pay. It is good to see that Chuck Baldwin is now speaking out against Christians joining the military.

In his May 7th article "Can Christians Serve in the New World Order Army?", Baldwin says that "an argument could be made that every war the United States has fought since World War II has been unconstitutionally waged: for the purpose of fulfilling the globalistic aspirations of world leaders and not for the defense of the United States."

Baldwin warns Christians about the military and law enforcement: "Our military personnel are more and more resembling international policemen, while our local and state peacekeepers resemble military forces. Neither bodes well for U.S. sovereignty and independence, or for liberty at home."

There are many other reasons, of course, for Christians not joining the military (see my LRC archive), but I "salute" Baldwin for writing what he did.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Theonomy and Homosexuality

I like this vid, so heck, maybe I really AM a redneck.

Find more videos like this on Patriotic Resistance

Yes, God's law has something to say about marriage. And, God's law does not encourage homosexuality. Gay marriage? Says who? Not God. Not God's people. So who wants to play God and pretend that homosexual marriage is legit? Watch this video and chose a side. You have to. You can't be on the fence about this and claim you are "Christian". What the 'kicker' is, is that you, (as a Christian), have no leg to stand on except for theonomy. You can't JUDGE the following without a predisposition to God's law...I dare you to try.
Watch Video

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Fighting Tyranny: "What Can I Do?"

"I'm Too Old" and "I'm Too Young"

Alex Jones; Infowars.com__04/14/2009
Running time: 00:03:04
Download MP3

I know the following doesn't look like a concrete list of 'things to do', but it's more of an attitude check. Everybody can open their mouths, and that's where it starts. Much like the Kingdom of God which grows by 'word of mouth' and living by those words, tyranny is pushed back by word of mouth and living by those words. Anyone with a convicted heart can do it no matter what your position in life is and no matter what your resources are.

  • "I know historically what tyranny is and I know it's a lot worse than freedom."

  • "A lot of the public all talk and plan and have endless meetings and
    announce all these big wild ideas and then never put it into action."

  • "Are my films perfect; is my work perfect? Am I the slickest guy on the
    radio? No. but it's real and that's what matters."

  • "I would just challenge people out there to stop spending your whole life saying 'what can I do what can I do'".

  • "At Lexington and Concord a large percentage, in fact close to a third of the people were above 70 that fought the British. There were 75, 85, 89-year-old people out there blasting British."

  • "My whole issue is, that they tell you you're old and so it's your time to just enjoy yourself. What, watch TV and get Alzheimer's?"

  • "Who told you your life doesn't matter now or you don't have value, or nobody should hear from you?"

  • "Young people are like, 'shut up old man', and old folks are like, 'shut up you dumb kids'. ...we're all together."

  • "They've taken all the natural order of things and screwed'em all up."

  • "You'got all these old men who think their life's over; they don't have anything to give now; like they don't matter."

  • "Look, I don't care if you're 10-years old or if you're 95-years old. You got a job to do fighting corruption. And you have value."

Monday, April 20, 2009

Alex Jones Is A Theonomist?

Alex Jones Respects God's Law, Not Man's

Alex Jones; Infowars.com__04/10/2009
Running time: 00:01:47
Download MP3

You might be able to argue that Alex Jones here is more of a natural law theorist, except for the fact that he equates natural law with God's law, so I think he is closer to a theonomist. I would also say that because of the fact that Alex Jones encourages obedience to God's "big orders" rather than the "orders" of men; very Biblical in principle and a very straight forward theonomic attitude. I thought this was an interesting observation; being an AJ fan and all.

The Hope of Practical Theonomic Ethics

Ethics 18; Some Practical Hope

Paul Michael Raymond__04/12/2008
Running time: 45:09
Download MP3

I thought this lecture would be the perfect sequel to a previous lecture I posted, "Natural Law is NOT Our Standard"

The last lecture was more esoteric and philosophical, and focused on the negative aspects of alternative law attitudes, but this one studies more the practical implications of loving and following God's law in opposition to any other law standard or attitude, and could be considered the "positive" side. To me this is an extremely joyous contemplation and I am praying for the reality of its application in my life on an increasing basis.

I suppose this is basically an encouragement toward Godly convictions and to act on them, with an analysis of the following blessings of God. I like it.

By the way, I think this is also a great followup on my last 2 posts on sanctification. It kind of clarifies what it was I was trying to say in those posts, but of course, Pastor Paul here does a much better job.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Calvin and "Natural Law"

I decided to post some comments I recently made to a question posed to me referring to a previous post called, "Natural Law is NOT Our Standard".

The question goes like this: "Do you totally disagree with John Calvin's statements in these excerpts found here?:

My Answer: No, not at long as I am interpreting Calvin correctly. I believe the majority in the Church in modern times have taken these thoughts of Calvin to an extreme that was not meant. I could be wrong, but I see Calvin here making clear points that so-called natural law IS God's law as written on the hearts of men universally, just as Romans chapters 1-3 indicates, and then imposes the same standard to civil govermment in Romans 13:3-4. Calvin's whole point I believe, is one of equity. He is careful to point out that the standard of all equity, no matter "who" makes a social/civil law, is based on God's standard of equity. Therefore, if these social/civil laws do not conform to the standard of God, they are no longer equitable, nor valid, but are instead, a code of ethics designed for thieves and murderers bent on undermining the very nature of God and man both.

Calvin did not expound on my later point here, but his whole premise would imply such, just as Romans 13:3-4 implies the same. I believe Calvin does make my later points in other writings of his such as in his sermons on Deuteronomy, but his thoughts on "natural law" here, and his thoughts on all men being subject to God there, do not contradict themselves, they are simply 2 sides of the same coin. (See also, Gary North's "Was Calvin a Theonomist?")

I am no expert on Calvin by any means and have only read some of his work in partiality, I am just trying to answer your question to the best of my current ability. I think my biggest problem with "natural law" is how it is embraced by the Church as an "excuse" to judge matters of this life and the heathen world apart from the standard of God...(even though both Calvin and Romans teach the exact opposite on this topic). I've seen this attitude consistently in the Church and in my own experience and to me there is no justification for it other than a sinful desire within the Church to act out of human wisdom and understanding, prefering pragmatism over true equity. This is the core belief and standard of the religion of humanism and should have no quarter within the Church. The only way to combat such heresy, sometimes apostasy, is with the standard of God, not with human wisdom and reason.

Saturday, April 11, 2009

More Thoughts on Sanctification

Well here are yet more of my thoughts on sanctification before I actually do a detailed study on it. Perhaps that's not wise, but the following thoughts are crossing my mind nevertheless. I will write them down.

I've been scanning articles and postings on the net about sanctification trying to get a 'feel' for what is publicly being said on the subject. The overall focus I found did not surprise me, but it made me both sad and angry at the same time. It seems that the Church is thoroughly self absorbed, even when contemplating something as 'selfless' as sanctification. I would guess it is especially when we are contemplating sanctification.

The biggest theme I found about sanctification, on line, was "assurance of salvation". No talk of service. No talk of battle. No talk of giving Jesus Christ His due as Commander in Chief as His saints conquer kingdoms of men and demons to the glory of the King.

Online preachers and books are trying to "sell" sanctification by inspiring readers with fear. Don't get me wrong, there definitely is a place for assurance of salvation, but that seems to be ALL the saints are thinking about when it comes to sanctification. Are we so untrusting of the blood of Christ that all we can think of about sanctification is that we really, really, need an assurance of our own salvation? It seems to me that the more we self-obsess on this the more we lose sight of what it is we are to be sanctified for.

Assurance is simply a natural byproduct of our sanctification, and not its main purpose at all..

I'll have to say that our motivation and desire for sanctification should be based on a desire to serve God with more power and conviction then we currently have. Our desire for sanctification should be based on an outward motivation. One that centers on God and others, rather than on ourselves.

What pleases God is our engaging His enemies in battle. Whether that battle is in our home, or whether it is in our community, or even if it is in our own Churches. When I say "battle", I mean confrontations of all kinds, not just against human enemies of the Gospel, but any situation at all that has been caused by the fall. Any sort of corruption, be it hunger, disease, homelessness, and the like. We can only do that righteously and in a way that is pleasing to God if we are sanctified. The more we desire to influence other spheres of life for Christ and His Kingdom, other than our own self-centered sphere, the more we should desire our own sanctification. This is the opposite of being self-centered. To me, this is a much more powerful motivation and attraction to sanctification. To "get out of me", and, "into the work of Christ", for His glory, and for the sake of others. We need to trust more the blood of Christ for our salvation and leave that to Him, as we are then free to look all around us at all the destruction and at all the Goliaths that God calls sanctified saints to rush out to conquer.

Until my thoughts continue on this, I'll stop right there.

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Thoughts on Sanctification

Again, this is not a Bible study or theological thesis, but some short thoughts I've been having on sanctification. Perhaps as time permits I will turn the following thoughts into a more in-depth study with Scripture reference.

I've gotten the impression over the years as a Christian that sanctification was simply our efforts to try to be "cleaner" before a Holy God. But lately I'm thinking it is so much more; of course. My main thought of late is that sanctification is to strenghthen our spirits so that we may have the fortitude and courage to come up against evil. And not just a resisting of "temptation" in our personal lives, but again, it is so much more than that.

Sanctification, it seems to me, is God's way of strengthening His saints for battle. We are to be growing in sanctification so that we become a growing threat to evil forces in every sphere of life. We are to be strong in sanctification so that we are able, offensive, and courageous soldiers who attack the gates of God's enemies on every front...not so that we can just passively sit behind our walls ready to give our lives after the enemy breaks down the door.

So that's it. More when it comes to mind.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

On Being Self Reliant: Part 1

We Have Systematically Become Dependent Slaves.
To Rely _ re·ly -To be dependent for support, help, or supply.
Self Reliant _ self-re·liant adj. -Being able to rely on one's own capabilities, judgment, or resources; independence. -free from external control and constraint. 
I am not posting this to claim that I am now some sort of an autonomous humanist.

Psalm 18:34 -"He trains my hands for battle, So that my arms can bend a bow of bronze."
Luke 22:36, Jesus paraphrased: -"Take money, take a bag, and ...whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one."
1 Corinthians 16:13-14 -Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love.
1 Timothy 5:8 -"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
1 Corinthians 6:3 -Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?"

Don't freeeak out you theologians! This is not a Bible study. I'm just pointing out that self reliance is not foreign to Scripture.

But, as is historically the course of the Church, whether Old Testament Church or New, upon growing apathy to God's standard, slavery always follows. Well we've been there, we're there, and we're going to stay there until the Church repents and wakes up to the Biblical principles of self reliance as sampled in the above verses. What follows following God's law, is self reliance and freedom. It's just that simple.

The problem is, the Church won't repent. Not yet. How can we, when we can't even admit to ourselves or to each other just how utterly and sinfully dependent we are to unregenerate men and their systems? Some may, well, except for the sin part. Because if they do see their own dependence and the Church's dependence to Satan's wicked systems, they still don't see their dependent allegiance, as sin and rebellion. They simply excuse this as the providence of God and think they are honoring God as they honor sinful men and systems claiming to be "submitting to authority". In so doing, they only demonstrate who their God really is. The only way to overcome this is to repent of idolatry and honor God by honoring his Law of self-governance. I'll be explaining this in my sub-sequent posts on this subject.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Presuppositionalism: A Short Definition

Presuppositional Apologetics
  • Convictions about which all other experiences organize, interpret, and apply.
  • Assumes all of our experiences, science, and morality, to be based on our world view.
Full Clip of the Above Audio

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Imprecatory Prayer Time

Imprecatory prayers are those that contain petition to the Lord for curses or prayers for the punishment of the Lord's enemies. To imprecate means to invoke evil upon, or curse. Psalms 7, 35, 55, 58, 59, 69, 79, 109, 137 and 139 all contain prayers for God's judgment on the psalmist's enemies. Example imprecatory statements from the Psalms. So it's about time we had a national imprecatory prayer proclamation.

Too bad nobody is going to hear about this... ie; most church's won't give this the time of day. (The proclamation is below) However, if Christians can't even hold state government accountable to God in this way, by prayer, then we will never get beyond our complaining until it is illegal to complain...and, it almost is. (Full-size video)

The video pretty much has nothing to do with the imprecatory prayer proclamation, except for the fact that the guy in the video is the one who recently wrote and published this proclamation. I found that out as I was trying to figure out who this guy is. Had I not done that, well then, I too never would have heard about this imprecatory prayer proclamation. For shame. We, as a Church, will get what we deserve from the hand of God.

The Proclamation

As Barak Obama takes office we are reprising an initiative we launched in 1994 with President Clinton. It is called an Imprecatory Prayer Proclamation. It was used extensively by the early church Fathers notably St. Augustine and later John Knox in the 16th Century.

Whereas: The providential history of mankind is covenantal in nature, comprised of Divine blessings for obedience to the Law-Word of God, and negative sanctions for transgression of the same, and under consideration of the historic precedent of public covenantal proclamations regarding the unlawful actions of civil magistrates established by John Knox in 16th century Scotland, the combined members and associates of SGI have during the month of January 2009, conducted concerted and public prayer for the President of the United States, Barak Obama, along covenantal lines, having the Davidic imprecatory Psalms as our form and pattern.

This proclamation serves as a synopsis of our activity.

Resolved: To the end that the President of the United States, Barak Obama, fulfills his duties as the covenantal head of this nation along Biblical lines; we as Christ’s ambassadors pray and proclaim blessing. That is, if the President executes his duties in a fashion that would not be tyranny to good works and would uphold the abiding validity of God’s moral law as delineated in the Ten Commandments along with the justice-mercy ethic derived from the New Testament, we do declare that blessing, honor, and good success would be upon him, his associates and policies.

Resolved: In that the President of the United States Barak Obama has thus far sought the codification of behavior condemned in the infallible Law-Word of God, specifically homosexual “marriage” and tax-funded state-sanctioned murder in the form of abortion, we as Christ’s ambassadors proclaim negative sanctions. That is: if the President continues to hold in disdain the Law-Word of God by ratifying evil and by such ratification holds our lives as citizens of the republic in bondage to the same idolatry, we as Christ’s ambassadors do pray that Barak Obama would now repent and cease from his cruel persecution of innocent pre-born babies and his tyrannical oppression of God’s people who would not be part of his pro-homosexual agenda. If the President ceases not from his malicious cruelty, we then earnestly pray that his days in office would be few and another man take his office, and that the name of Barak Obama would remain a reproach to all succeeding generations of Americans.

Friday, February 27, 2009

Natural Law is NOT Our Standard

The Standard of Natural Law. . . a MYTH -From "Ethics 14"
Running time: 53:00
Paul Michael Raymond; 09/07/2008
Download MP3

I have more recently posted a "positive" sequel to this lecture right here.

Happy Birthday Kathy!I Love You!

I've been listening to those lectures I posted on the right sidebar on this page from Paul Michael Raymond. That playlist automatically loads his most current sermons newest to oldest and I just got through listening to "Ethics 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14" on that playlist, which are on the bottom of that list.

I have been trying to get a better grasp on this debate in the Church where some find Natural Law a satisfactory standard with which to formulate our political, social, cultural, and even personal ethics. This natural law idea, or theory, seems to be held by the majority of modern Reformed thinkers from what I can tell, because I hear it coming from many prominent scholars at Westminster, as well as many pastors of whom I otherwise would have tremendous respect.

I have always felt very queasy about using this term "Natural Law" to formulate Christian thought about anything, but I couldn't put my finger on it. So, I am very pleased to be listening to these current lectures from Paul Michael Raymond, because he is saying what I believe to be closer to the truth behind, or the myth of, the Natural Law ethical standard. I am now more convinced than ever that Christians who use this standard and teach this as a proper Christian standard, are breeding destruction and confusion ...big time. They are simply wrong, and they are literally destroying the fabric of society, families, and the Church, by their promotion of this, what I can now call, heresy.

I pulled "Ethics 14" from the audio list on the right and posted it here because so far, it is the best one on that list regarding Natural Law theory and shows how UN-Christian it is to be using this as a standard for anything. I haven't listened to them all yet, but it's the best one so far.

By the way, the natural law theorists from Westmister are, in frustration, refered to as the "natural law in spite of Van Til's philosophy camp". Most Reformed theologians adhere to the philosophy of Cornelius Van Til, but when it comes to answering the complex ethical questions of our day, these theologians will abandon Van Til, and the word of God, in favor of a more comfortable and less offensive position, better known as Natural Law. And I thought relativism was only a symptom of unregenerate thought perpetuated in secular universities and secular culture. Wow, was I wrong.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Pondering the Bullet Form

  1. All human governments make laws that strictly benefit the government regardless of any consequences to its citizens.

  2. A Christian theocratic government uses God's law that benefit both the government and all it's citizens, believer and unbeliever alike.

  3. A human government will grow in depravity and its opposition to the Church and the Gospel, guaranteeing more suffering for their citizens and less and less exposure of those citizens to the Gospel.

  4. A Christian theocratic government will benefit the Church with freedom to spread the Gospel, and will benefit the unbeliever with the freedom of conscience needed to contemplate that Gospel.

  5. A neutral government, is like a neutral individual; he will only remain neutral just long enough to be persuaded by somebody to either do the right thing or the wrong thing, but, he IS going to do SOMETHING, eventually.

  6. A society based on a neutral government is like anarchy; it would only last a few hours, days, or years. The strongest and the loudest will eventually subdue the rest and henceforth make all the laws and call all the shots.

  7. As Christians, we have no such choice as being neutral. We are either Christians or we are not. We have chosen the side that is opposed to the world. We must chose that side in every area of our lives; even if it's in our choice of earthly government. We should desire and work for a government that is also opposed to the world and in favor of God.

  8. A Christian's "work" in the culture of this world, cannot remain neutral, nor can the work of the Church. We will either work for a Christian government, or for an anti-christ government; for a Christian culture, or for an anti-christ culture. Do you want to work for the anti-christ?

Pondering the Simple

Well, I've still got a lot to learn on this topic of theonomy, but thanks to an old friend who recently sent me an E-mail, I want to point out a short observation.

My friend asked if I was now 100% sure about theonomy. I responded by saying that I continue to lean toward the theonomic position because of all the "simplest" reasons. The simple flow and logical conclusions of Covenant theology, the foundation of Reformed thought, always points to a theonomic perspective in my own thinking no matter how many dazzling arguments either side presents to far.

For example, if you ask any Reformed Christian, be they a theonomist or a non-theonomist, "whose law do you strive to pattern your life by?", and both will answer, "God's law". So, in this respect, both the non-theonomist and the theonomist, are, …theonomists. Both agree that the standard for their lives is the will of God as is established by His law.

However, when asked the same question to both these camps about the non-Christian, the non-theonomist insists that non-Christians are not to be held accountable to the law of God. And the theonomist, in simplest terms says, "but God holds the non-Christian accountable to His law, so why wouldn't you?"

And that's where all the mental gymnastics begin.

To me it seems that the above scenario only begs another question: Who on this earth, since the beginning of time and throughout all of scripture, has had the most contempt for God's law, and who is it, on the other hand, that has had an extreme love for God's law?

The answer is obvious, and, ...simple, right?

And this begs my final question here: Who would naturally have the strongest and most obvious motive, and, be the most likely by any stretch of the imagination, to say that the unbeliever is not accountable to the law of God? The unbeliever, or the believer?

Again, the answer is obvious and simple.

It would appear to me, that it is the unbeliever who would be the non-theonomic Christian's biggest ally and most ardent supporter.

Should I bend over backwards formulating convincing arguments that both relieve the Church of any responsibility to hold unbelievers accountable to God's standards, and thus, cement the resolve and rebellion of the unbeliever, and in turn, effectively rendering God's law inconsequential to the entire course of human history?

...oh wait, I guess that was my final simple question.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Building Up the Standard of God

Here is a VIDEO playlist for this presentation, but for some reason, part one is unavailable.

Russel Means Website

The above Youtube audio series is an example of what I'm talking about in my post just below this one, and also in that interview I posted here. These are people (in the above video series), who are not even Christians, and yet they seem to know the value of building alternatives to what they don't like in our culture. They have a "better" standard that they want to live by. They don't want to live by someone else's standard. This is a "law" issue.

The standard we build and the bigger and more competent it gets within the context of our own culture, becomes not only a threat to the status quo, but it becomes a bargaining tool. We can say and claim, as an example: "We in this community of 30 million people, (let's say), will handle these matters ourselves thank you". "We have our duly elected leaders and other competent and trusted individuals in place and they are more than able to do their jobs." Etc... Stuff like that. Attitude like that.

This is the same as "governing ourselves". We must be equiped and competent to do that, as individuals, families, and as communities. That's why the man interviewed above invites anybody, not just Indians, to join their communities, but ONLY, if you're responsible. Responsible for what? Responsible for, and in, governing yourself. As Christians, our standard for governing ourselves is the word of God.

My Son-In-Law the Lawyer

Hey, how would you like this guy defending you in court? Sorry, but this is the only photo I have of 'Eric', one of my son-in-laws. I just got through listening to this audio, which I posted right here, and I was astounded by the similarities to what this panel of concerned Christians were suggesting as solutions to the ills of our society and the effort that Eric is currently undertaking. Eric has been studying very hard, "law", and not the rival-to God's-law as is seen in our modern court system, but instead, a law that could easily be defined as one that is not "against" God, but one that is a promotion of God's laws and standards. You can see Eric's blog right here, where his studies are obviously paying off and he is establishing himself as an "authority" to a Godly alternative to our wicked courts.

I just wanted to applaud Eric publically, and also to suggest, because of this audio I just listened to and posted, I believe there is a growing desire and building of Godly alternatives to the rapidly ungodly and suffocating creature that we have to call 'government' today. The best place to start with such a Godly and ambitious goal, is with law. As this audio explains, if the Christian has no concern and an alternative to living by Godly laws, someone else will decide for him which laws will be the rule of the land. Setting up an alternative is key to offering an "alternative", and is the best thing we could do for those we love and care about, as well as our enemies. Let's follow Eric's lead here and start building alternatives to those who have a goal of wiping out every last vistage of Godly laws in our land.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Don't Be Stupid

Okay. Let's not be stupid. Well, what do I mean by "stupid"? Well, someone who says that "Jesus Christ is Lord", and then turns around and says He really isn't Lord in our culture, sounds like a retard. Really.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

MORE History of the Debate

You know, the more I look at the history of this debate, the more I see that there really IS no debate.

What I mean is, there is no intellectual honesty directed at the theonomic position. All I see is an attitude of reblellion. That's the way I see it. I want some honest debate, and frankly, I'm not seeing it. What I see is well-meaning Christians with a bad attitude.

They will not argue on the basis of any kind of logic, but only express their own rebellion to the authority of Jesus Christ. This of course is very disturbing and makes this topic of utmost importance to the Church. This issue is of prime importance as far as I can tell, and the publishers and prognasticators of any theology short of theonomy, it would seem to me, are in dire need of a public repentence and refutation of all previously published opinions.

I will restate my previous opinion here: "the anti-theonomist will bend over backwards to explain away any claim of the authority of Jesus Christ over their non-believing neighbors, and thus, the authority of Jesus Christ in our own culture which is practically expressed by Christian and non-Christian alike".

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Some Modern History of the Debate

Below I have posted what is on the inside cover of "No Other Standard: Theonomy And Its Critics", a book written by Greg Bahnsen. It is an excellent history of the modern debate over theonomy, and especially its history within the Westminster Seminary. To me, this history explains it all. There is a strong resistance to theonomy evident that goes beyond any intellectual honesty that we all hopefully strive for and therefore extends into a sort of an attitude that is void of any intellectual honesty, but is content in its pursuit of an isolated 'dominion' of the authority of Christ. This obviously limits the authority of Christ to the Christian and to the Church to which the Christian is a member. I am currently of the opinion that opponents of theonomy are opponents only because they are expressing their own rebellion to God as He attempts to express Himself and to apply Himself as Lord over all...including all and any human culture. Our culture not exempt, the "anti-theonomist" will bend over backwards to explain away any claim of the authority of Jesus Christ over their non-believing neighbors, and thus, the authority of Jesus Christ in our own culture which is practically expressed by Christian and non-Christian alike.

"They Can Run, But They Can't Hide!"

In 1959, Rousas John Rushdoony's first book appeared, By What Standard?, a study of the philosophy of Cornelius Van Til. Van Til made it clear that the truth of the Bible must be man's presupposition, the standard of his reasoning, and the final court of appeal in history. He rejected the natural law philosophy in any form. Rushdoony believed Van Til, so he wrote Institutes of Biblical Law (1973), (excerpts), to demonstrate that the only standard that God provides is biblical law.

That same year, 1973, Van Til's student Greg L. Bahnsen completed his Th.M degree at Westminster seminary, submitting a thesis on "The Theonomic Responsibility of the Civil Magistrate." After a delay of four years, an expanded version of his thesis appeared, Theonomy in Christian Ethics. This book was an apologetic for biblical law. So was his subsequent introductory book, By This Standard (1985).

Theonomy in Christian Ethics received only sporadic opposition in print but continual and growing opposition within the faculty at Westminster Seminary. In fact, Bahnsen's book can be said to have split the faculty into three camps:

  1. The "natural law in spite of Van Til's philosophy" camp.
  2. The "not natural law, but we're not sure what to substitute" camp.
  3. The "Proverbs 12:23" camp. ("A prudent man conceals knowledge, But the heart of fools proclaims folly.")
The first group retains the upper hand. The faculty (past and present) published an attempted refutation of Bahnsen in 1990: Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, which led within a few months to responses by the theonomists: Westminster's Confession, by Gary North; Theonomy: An Informed Response, edited by Gary North; and No Other Standard.

No Other Standard is Bahnsen's response not only to the Westminster faculty's book, but also to the two other brief critical books against him, and to the various published articles and typewritten, photocopied responses that have circulated over the years. One by one, Bahnsen takes his critics' arguments apart, showing that they have either misrepresented his position or misrepresented the Bible. Line by line, point by point, he shows that they have not understood his arguments and have also not understood the vulnerability of their own logical and theological positions.

What we have seen, year after year, is that his published critics subsequently refuse to debate him in public.
  • Example: Meredith Kline's sweetheart deal with the editor of the Westminster Theological Journal (W. Robert Godfrey) that Bahnsen would not be allowed to respond in the WTJ to Kline's hostile 1978 essay.
  • Example: The refusal in 1989 of H. Wayne House (co-author of Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse?) to allow Bahnsen to cross-examine him during a scheduled public debate, after House had issued a public challenge for Bahnsen to debate. Bahnsen insisted, so House canceled the debate.
  • Example: Norman Geisler's refusal in 1991 to debate Bahnsen at Liberty University, and then Geisler's appearance at an anti-theonomy symposium two days after Bahnsen had left the campus. They all know what the result of such a debate will be; thus, they launch hit-and-run attacks when they think their readers and listeners will never read Bahnsen's response.
Joe Louis once said of an ill-fated scheduled opponent in the ring. "He can run, but he can't hide." Likewise, Bahnsen's critics. No Other Standard corners them all, and one by one, floors them.

Inside Flap

Catalog Description

This is Greg Bahnsen's response to criticisms of the theonomic position that have been published or circulated over the last ten years. Bahnsen deals not only with Westminster Theological Seminary's Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, but also with two other brief critical books against him, and with various published articles and typewritten, photocopied responses. One by one, Bahnsen takes his critics' arguments apart, showing that they have either misrepresented his position or misrepresented the Bible. Line by line, point by point, he shows that they have not understood his arguments and have also not understood the vulnerability of their own logical and theological positions.

Gary North

In the spring term of 1973, Greg Bahnsen handed in his Th.M. thesis to his committee at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia “The Theonomic Responsibility of the Civil Magistrate.” The committee accepted it and awarded him his degree that term. There was no controversy about it at the time. No protests were filed, no letters sent to faculty members by outraged presbyters, no protests of reviewers appeared. Westmin- ster even awarded him a small stipend to go on to graduate school. After a delay of four years, due to circumstances beyond Bahnsen’s control, the thesis, with certain additions, was published as a book by Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company: Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

Two years aflter this, Bahnsen was awarded his Ph.D. in philosophy by the University of Southern California. Five years earlier, in 1974, his ordination to the teaching eldership (ministry) in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church had been blocked at the last minute – literally a few minutes before the actual ordination – by the protest of an OPC ruling elder. It took a year of procedural activity before his ordination was confined.

What had caused such intense hostility? It was the ethical position presented by Bahnsen publicly and defended exegetically in Theonomy in Chtitian Ethics, although the book had yet to appear in print when the elder’s attack was launched. A thesis that had raised no public protest on campus subsequently raised blood pressures all over the Reformed world, and even beyond that circumscribed world. One does not normally expect a master’s thesis to create a sensation, but in the context of the late 1970’s, this one did. Why?

The reader needs to understand that this controversy was not produced by the style of the presentation. It read like what it was: a master’s thesis. It was written as an academic exercise that had been airned at a committee of professional theologians. While the book is readable by non-theologians, its style is precise, non-confrontational, and even a bit dry, given the magnitude of its content. It was the substance of the thesis, not its style, that created the controversy.

What was Bahnsen’s thesis? That the civil and moral laws of the Old Testament are still binding on society in the New Testament era, unless annulled or otherwise transformed by a New Testament teaching, either directly or by implication. In short, there is judicial and moral continuity between the two testaments.

...skip to Conclusion

The issue that Bahnsen has raised is biblical law. Therefore, the issue by extension is the legitimacy of the ideal of Christendom the comprehensive kingdom of God in history! The issue is the legitimacy of the Lord’s prayer in history for history: “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven.” It is time for the critics of Bahnsen’s theological position to explain in detail just what it is that they are offering in its place as a biblical ideal. It is time for them to fight something very specific with something equally specific and equally biblical. So far, they have selfconsciously avoided doing this. But they now have more to do than this. They need to respond to this book. They need to show why Bahnsen’s replies to all of them, one by one, are inaccurate. Then they need to tell us what is correct biblically. If they refuse, they are admitting by their silence that they have no biblical answers to his position, and have had none since 1977. (That's about 32 years now...c'mon!)