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'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.

Pondering the Simple...in 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 me...so 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.

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.

• Eric's Blog.
• Those Audio Clips I mentioned.

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.

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".

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.


PUBLISHER’S PREFACE

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!)

The Hotel Artist

I'm sorry, but I just had to post this, my "favorite movie", somewhere on my blog. I tried to link to it from my bio page, but I can't figure out how to do that. What does this have to do with theonomy?

Well, this video was done by three of my own kids. Susan and Mitchel are the "actors" in the film, and "Mary" is the camera man. I actually laugh during every few seconds of this "movie". It makes me laugh and thank God at the same time for such delight in my own children. They display both talent and a sense of humor. What else could a theonomist want?

I Like to Hear Myself Talk!

You know, in light of some of the superficial and yet voluminous stuff I've been posting today, somebody's bound to think eventually, that I'm just some arrogant and conceited fool who likes to hear himself talk! And worse yet, that I don't know what the he** I'm talking about. Well please, let me clarify my motives for why it is that I write, and thus, restating my reasons for starting this blog in the first place.

Writing, discussing, debating, conversation, etcetera, all help me formulate my thoughts. Sometimes my thoughts get so conflicted if left unattended or un-expressed that I just get confused and so refuse to carry my thoughts any further and abandon anymore consideration of what I was originally thinking about! I never come to any conclusions about anything that way. So, thank God for computers, I have an online "filing cabinet" for my thoughts. Making my file cabinet public, as in this blog format, also holds me accountable just because, you know, somebody else just might be looking at what I'm thinking about. This way, my thoughts not only have to make sense to me, but I've got to at least try to make them understandable for somebody else.

So, primarily, I write to organize my thoughts. Secondarily, since I am predisposed to the theonomic position, and this blog is dedicated to organizing my thoughts on that position, I also write to eventually convince others that this is the "correct" position to take. After all, if it isn't, then my thoughts should obviously be directed elsewhere. Hence the "Theonomic Assault" theme that I've chosen for this blog. I am attempting to assault any other position that might be based on anything other than the word of God to see if and how those contrary positions will hold up. I am still trying to work this out in my thinking, and therefore, in my writing.

So, if you notice one day that all of a sudden I'm posting a lot of "stuff", don't feel guilty if you don't have the time or the interest to read it, I'm primarily, more than likely, just thinking out loud for my own benefit. So in the sense I've just explained, yes, I do like to hear myself talk, but only so that I can tell if what I'm thinking about makes any sense. Make sense?

Oh, and happy Valentine's Day.

Theonomic Attitude

Anything else is just, a "bad attitude".

I have been borrowing from this phrase, "Law-Attitude", ever since I noticed it in the title of one of Greg Bahnsen's books, (or essay), "The Theonomic Antithesis to Other Law-Attitudes" PDF. I have not read the book yet, but the title really intrigues me as it communicates to me what I think is really at the root of whether or not one is willing to call himself a theonomist. It goes beyond academics, hermeneutics, epistemology, or any other scholarly pursuit. Those things are all great tools for establishing responsible arguments to hold any certain position, including theonomy, but when all is said and done, we are either going to submit to the standard of God or we are not. It is more of a heart attitude. It is the way we grasp the reality of what we have control over and what we do not. Does our attitude permit us to constantly give the microphone over to God? Or is their a constant battle in our minds between what is practical and pragmatic, over and against what God has revealed in His word?

Another way to look at it is, what are we invested in? If we have invested a lot of time and energy with our thoughts trying to explain away our responsibility as New Testament believers to God's law, especially as it deals with politics and civil government, then our concern is no longer so much the protection of the truth, but in the protection of our investment. This is now an attitude bent on protecting oneself instead of the truth of God. In other words, a "selfish" attitude. Or, in light of this post, a "bad" attitude.

This is not to accuse anyone who is not a theonomist as having a bad or selfish attitude, as I realize there are many who are opposed to theonomy based on honest conclusions and pure, unselfish motives. But I'm talking about those who perhaps have not studied the issue at all, and have based their conclusions on nothing other than practicalities. "God's law is just not practical in our modern society." Stuff like that. These people are not honestly seeking the truth, they are seeking to protect their own way of life…their investment. However, this attitude can extend over into those who have started studying this topic and have become quite knowledgeable. They find it easier to resist their findings then to correctly submit themselves to God's authority and will bend over backwards writing thesis after thesis trying to explain why God's law is not applicable to anyone but the Christian. In my opinion, these learned scholars are developing a refined and educated "bad attitude".

But who am I to talk? I'm sure I have lots of bad attitudes myself, and I certainly can't compete in many of the mental gymnastics that I see going on in the ivory towers of Christendom…yet. But until I can get there, like a Greg Bahnsen or a Gary North, I am content to check my attitude at every step of the way with a view to let the authority of Jesus Christ be exactly what and exactly where He wants it to be, regardless of what is being expressed from the minds of men, be they Christian authorities or civil authorities.

Definitions of Theonomy

I guess the proper way to start a foundation of debate is to define the terms. Since the subject is theonomy, I'll start with its definition from various perspectives.

In The Sense of Human Ethics
Source
"The term "Theonomy" has been used to describe various views which see the God revealed in the Bible as the sole source of human ethics. Using the word in this sense, Cornelius Van Til argued that there "is no alternative but that of theonomy or autonomy" (Christian Theistic Ethics p. 134). Among Reformed Christians, John Calvin, the Continental Reformers, the Westminster Divines and other Puritans, and Christian Reconstructionists, have developed similar ethical perspectives."

In The Sense of Christian Reconstructionism
Same Source
"Since the mid-1970's theonomy has been most often used in Protestant circles to specifically label the ethical perspective of Christian Reconstructionism, a perspective that claims to be a faithful revival of the historic Protestant view of the Old Testament law as espoused by many European Reformers and Puritans, see also Biblical law in Christianity. Some in the modern Reformed churches are critical of this understanding, while other Calvinists affirm Theonomy."

As Defined by Greg Bahnsen
Same Source
"The place or function of God's law in the moral philosophy of the Christian."

By This Standard; The Authority of God's Law Today PDF
By Greg Bahnsen

As Defined Defensively by Greg Bahnsen
The Theonomic Antithesis to Other Law-Attitudes PDF
"Theonomic ethics, to put it simply, represents a commitment to the necessity, sufficiency, and unity of Scripture. For an adequate and genuinely Christian ethic, we must have God's word, only God's word, and all of God's word. Nearly every critic of theonomic ethics will be found denying, in some way, one or more of these premises."

No Other Standard; Theonomy and Its Critics PDF
By Greg Bahnsen

About the Theonomic Assault Project

The Theonomic Assault Project is my humble attempt to expose the fallacy of any other law 'attitude' or system when compared to God's word, the Bible.

Though this wonderful project has already been accomplished and is being accomplished by many saints who are much better qualified than I, this page is simply an echo of their work and a tool to help my own feeble mind better understand the glory and the superiority of God's wisdom to that of the wisdom of men and of human convention, be it secular or ecclesiastical.

There are good Christian scholars and faithful saints who oppose the premise on this page, and I make no claims to any scholarly prowess or wisdom with which to contradict their work or to refute what I perceive is their error; this again, is a page of collaboration against their false paradigm.

God bless all of you who read, or participate in comment, and remember who is Lord. It is not you and it is not me. It is our Lord Jesus Christ. We are simply His humble servants who only seek His truth; and hopefully, not, our own agendas.

Thanks,
Sermonwriter

WORLD PEACE Part 3

The New World Order Wants Your Soul

"Don't Worry, This Post is Documented"

The only way you'll be able to comment intelligibly on this particular post is to read the following 2 articles, which I have previously posted on WORLD PEACE Part 1.

The first one is "The People's Church".
The second one is "The Hegelian Dialectic & the New World Order".

It is obvious to me, and it has been for at least 3 years now, that this shadowy government that many of us, (like everybody), like to refer to as, the New World Order, has had a keen interest in infiltrating, not only governments, but also, the Church. It has been done.

At first, I thought the Reformed seminaries and churches would be immune to this, but currently, I am seeing a different scenario.

If you chose to participate and read the above 2 articles, please pay close attention to the way the Southern Baptist Churches in those articles have been incrementally manipulated to the manipulator's desired goal. Also, you must please try to understand the Hegalian Dialectic as defined and described in both of the above articles, or at a source of you choice, but you must understand it to fully appreciate what I'm trying to say on this post.

Then, if you still chose to participate, and you believe you understand who all the 'players' are, then please notice that Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, has been a CFR member for at least 3 years now. His name is on the CFR membership list right here.

Then, if you still chose to participate after that, then please notice here, that Michael Horton has been having conversations for years now with Rick Warren.

I did find that difficult to document online, but if you go to WashingtonPost.com, right here, and then scroll down that page to the "Discussion" section, and then scroll down the Discussion section to the handle name that is colored red called, "Woodland, Calif", and you will find in Michael Horton's answer to Woodland, the statement, "we've had some fruitful conversations over the years", an obvious reference to his relationship with Rick Warren. And please don't confuse this documentation with any of the satire sites online that try to get a rise out of people like me and other Rick Warren bashers. This is the Washington Post.

So, whhhoop-dee-do, right? What's the big deal with that?

Well first let me say, that this is not an attempt to assassinate the character of Michael Horton.

I am simply pointing out that Rick Warren is networking, and in a huge way.

Rick Warren is a documented member of the CFR, an obvious heretic, possibly an apostate with a "statist" agenda, (I believe he is), and he is trying to make inroads to the Westminster Seminary via the likes of Michael Horton. Rick Warren is also obviously hand-picked by handlers to be their "big gun" in throwing the net over all possible Christian influence, world wide. Just look at the status they have been giving him. He has gained more status politically and religiously over the past 10 years, than has any protestant preacher to date. Do you think he did that single-handedly? Do you think being a CFR member has been insignificant in the contribution to his "success"?

CONCLUSION: My point here is to try to get you to see the following:

1. There is a world-wide, state-sponsored, and state-approved "church".
   
2. This "church", is necessary for the assurance of "peace". See the World Peace Summit.
   
3. Since it is necessary to comply with this "church" to maintain world peace, to not comply with the beliefs and standards of this "church" will result in you being labeled as someone who is not for peace, but against it. You pick the term that might best define such a person or organization in our current national and global political climate.
   
4. This "peace movement", will not stop until we all sign on the dotted line…take the card, take the chip, give up more freedom, join, give our blood, our fingerprint, photo, number, DNA. Until we volunteer, donate, obey, comply, have nothing to hide, agree to stop our 'hate' from the pulpit, and on and on and on.

Do you still want to "submit"?

I thought we wanted separation of Church and state? Well, I'm sorry friend, but the state won't have it any other way. Apparently, neither will most of the Church. They are on our door step, like it or not. Notice any teachings of devils at Westminster lately?

So for those of you who despair of my infatuation with the NWO, I just want you to know that this is one of the biggest reasons why. We have to contend in this battle whether we like it or not. Otherwise, we will watch the Church, our families, and our own freedom of conscience, be swallowed up into an ungodly alliance with the devil.

Don't forget about the Alternative News Feeds over in the right column. We really can't believe a word we hear from the mainstream news media.

2 Cor 10:4-6
We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God.