Armageddon and the Gospel

Over the years I have grown weary of prophecy pundits, who are always declaring the end of the world. Get out your newspaper and just look and see how the Bible predicted the events you read. However, by their methods of reading the Bible, it becomes as mushy as anything Nostradamus said. It just gets old. But I guess in another sense, I have benefited by their teachings. They have driven me away to find a more consistent and sound way of looking at Biblical prophecy.

A few days ago, my Jehovah's Witness friend, Russell Webster, stopped by with a new issue of Awake. And being the good "End of the World" sect they are, we get  yet another end of the world scenario.

Now I must confess that much of the article on Armageddon is something most Christians could easily agree with unlike in past generations that speculated certain dates. However, like many Dispensational Christians, by definition, the end must happen fairly soon...like in this generation.

In the portion of the article that addresses, "When Will The War Of Armageddon Come?", it offers an interesting viewpoint. It states on page 8,

The stage is now set for the war of Armageddon. How so?

Already there exists a worldwide association of people who serve Jehovah and live by the Bible's elevated moral standards. With God's backing, millions from all nations, tribes, and tongues are gathering together to form a harmonious, loving brotherhood. That brotherhood exists among Jehovah's Witnesses. -John 13:35

Now if that sounds odd to you, it should. I have asked many times of Russell if he knows that he has eternal life and if he will for certain enter this new paradise on Earth in the future. He was not able to answer for the simple reason that he has based his salvation upon his deeds. He felt that if he stopped doing the Saturday visits through the neighborhoods, then he could not possibly be a true follower even though he has been doing "Jehovah's work" for close to 40 years.

Please notice the standards by which he knows the end is near. It is a bunch of people with moral standards who hang out together. Yet I know atheists/agnostics who have better moral standards than many people who call themselves Christians. Is moral standards the way to be recognized as Jehovah's Witnesses. Well, there is some truth to that, but I would venture to say that my friend Russell would say there is more to it than that. In fact, I know he would say that one must be about witnessing door to door or forfeit your salvation.

My point for noticing all of this is quite simple. There is no Gospel among JW's. There is no Gospel in being good or even hanging out with a group of people who go door to door or trying to gain salvation through some kind of meritorious system. Please read the conversation between Jesus and the Rich Young Ruler from Matthew 19:

Mat 19:16  And behold, a man came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?"
Mat 19:17  And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."
Mat 19:18  He said to him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19  Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Mat 19:20  The young man said to him, "All these I have kept. What do I still lack?"
Mat 19:21  Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
Mat 19:22  When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

Now Jesus' point is not that the Ruler needed to be just a bit better or give away everything and then he would be good enough. His point was that no matter how much he thought he kept the law, he was always breaking it! By giving everything to the poor, he would be fulfilling the law, but even then, one must admit he would have fallen short at some point of it no matter how hard he tried.

There is only One who has fulfilled the law. There is only One who is righteous. There is only One who has taken away sin perfectly upon the cross as a substitute for His people. There is only One righteousness that is alien and foreign to us that we must possess by faith alone. There is only One to whom we must flee from sin and wrath.

It is true that Jesus will come again. That is part of the Gospel. It is true that one day He will gather his people and deliver them from God's eternal wrath in the final sense. But the question remains.

Will you look outside of yourself and look to a perfect Savior, the eternal Son of God, Jesus the Christ, today?

Santorum and the Sword of the State

Albert Mohler,  President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has written a very positive blog post about Rick Santorum, which you may read here.

He concludes,

Finally, Rick Santorum attracts protests on college campuses because people believe him when he speaks. William McGurn of The Wall Street Journal pointed out recently that, even as Rick Santorum opposes same-sex marriage, so did Barack Obama when he ran for the White House in 2008 (and, at least in terms of official statements, even now). But Santorum gets jeered and Obama gets a pass. Why? McGurn understands: “There’s no mystery why. Mr. Santorum is attacked because everyone understands that he means what he says.”

This is an excellent point. Rick Santorum is a Roman Catholic that probably believes what he is saying. This seems to be refreshing to many Conservative Evangelical voters. In fact, there are many things that he says I could whole-heartedly agree with. It is true that homosexuality is a violation of natural law. It is true that the sexual revolution was not a good thing. It is true that Mainline Protestantism is dead. Of course this is nothing new. These cultural and theological battles are as old as the hills.

But I find this paragraph interesting.

When moral conservatives reveal their reasoning, the elites hear the launch of a new Inquisition. It is simply incomprehensible to them that sane, rational, educated people might still believe in the Father of Lies. When Catholic Rick Santorum speaks theologically at Catholic Ave Maria University, the secular elites go into toxic shock. The same would be true of an Evangelical politician who would speak theologically of such issues at a truly evangelical college. Speak on love and you will not be in much trouble, but admit that you believe in the Devil and the press corps will go into apoplexy.

It is true that elites hear all kinds of nonsense when conservatives speak simply because they live in a modern world (modern world = no moral absolutes). So to hear someone say something is morally wrong would be threatening. But I would like to suggest another course than the one conservatives have been on for a looooong time.

Rick Santorum has no love for conservative libertarians.

“I would say the conservative movement believes that this country is a moral enterprise, we have God-given rights, and with God-given rights come God-given responsibilities, and we have a set of values, and if everyone does whatever they want to do, then we have George Soros, we don’t have America.”

Now I believe Rick Santorum really believes the "government has a role". But this is the problem with the culture war. Well meaning people have been sucked into attempting to save our country through governmental means. It would be one thing if Santorum were just wishing to limit government away from Modern Leftist ideas, but that simply isn't the case. Santorum will escalate the culture war with his policies.

We know in church history the fastest way to spread error is through a centralized ecclesiology. This has been true in American politics with the centralizing of the Federal government.

Let's use homosexuality as an example since that seems to be a big discussion at the moment. Ron Paul is right. If we take government out of the equation and de-centralize government in this entire debate over marriage then how could the homosexual movement force upon citizens their entire enterprise?

The simple means of accomplishing this is through the return of private property rights. By removing government coercion of cultural issues one way or the other, citizens could restrain one another through local means such as churches and other organizations. Business owners would not have civil rights legislation and bureaucrats coming down on them with the barrel of a gun.

Now this could go both ways. Homosexuals could prevail throughout a culture, but the reverse is true. Remember, fads come and go. The homosexual movement would eventually fall under its own weight and not have the ability to have a government perpetuate a culture war for them or against them.

When Rick Santorum says the Devil is attacking America, he is opening the door for the government to fight the devil with authority that it does not have. Only the church of Jesus Christ has the right to take that offensive and to do so not through military might, but through prayer. So although the government does have a role, its role is to restrain evil, not actively go after it. If you doubt this is Santorum's purpose, as Mohler seems to do, then just remember that Santorum has no problem with the government killing 16-year-olds at a dinner table simply because the President says they are worthy of death.

This kind of power belongs in the hands of God alone. Of course Santorum seems to not have a problem with taking that role.

Political Left-wing Propaganda

I must state at the beginning of this post that I am writing as a Christian, who actually believes the Bible to be God's Word while also standing well inside the Libertarian political camp.I also realize that much of this propaganda is satirical and meant to provoke those who are not Leftists.

I don't want to merely defend the Republicans in this post. Lord knows how the police state is growing just as much under them as it is under the Democrats, but a friend of mine posted on his Facebook page typical stereo-type stuff with shallow arguments. But what I find interesting is how people think and the assumptions they make without ever feeling they have to prove them. In fact, one commenter states that Religious wackos are waging war against the Democrats. Yet the material shows that non-religious people hold on to their Traditions just as religiously as any so-called Religious/Conservative Right-winger.

Here are the claims through pictures.

Now here are the arguments or shallow propaganda for the Left.

Notice the equivocation. Based upon the recent news stories I assume the context is that government owes women as a fundamental right, free access to birth control. Apparently, to say government shouldn't pay for or supply women birth control is to say we "are not going to let women use birth control." It is very subtle but very effective for the closed minded state worshipers.

Now I am not a Newt fan by any means. In fact, I think I'd rather have Obama...okay, that's not true. But I say that to express my total disdain for Newt. But I think Newt's point ought to be obvious. Even black men within the black community have expressed the same thing. But to put a picture of the golfing/party throwing/Nobel Peace Prize winning while waging war overseas President as the chief counter-argument is not convincing to those who would disagree with you.

Notice again the assumption. The Prolife movement has successfully argued and demonstrated over and over that there is not "the possibility of one" child in the womb. It is a child in the womb. This is so obvious that Prochoice philosophers have had to go to the greatest lengths and contortions to come up with ways of getting out of this. This is probably why my Prolife scholar friend can't find anyone to debate the subject anymore. The only side that is waging war is the one doing the murdering of babies and defying God's created order of the family. And they do this while claiming Jesus is on their side to boot.

Now I also realize that there is a picture about rape. That is another debate in itself and only about 3% of babies killed would come under that rubric. Therefore this is another straw-man argument.

Now this one is perhaps my favorite. It is true that Jesus may have been considered a Liberal in the classical sense. But Jesus was no more a Liberal in the Modern sense that He would be a Conservative. Let me offer an example.

In the fourth point, it says he hung out with criminals, whores and other unsundry characters. True enough. However, Jesus always explained to them they must repent of their sin. He didn't go to the so-called righteous because the righteous don't think they need to repent. Hence Jesus' teaching to them, "It is the sick that need a doctor, not the well." [my paraphrase]

In other words, Jesus would just as much be kicked out of a Liberal church as a Conservative one for being too judgmental.

The other one that reads anachronistically into Jesus' words is that Jesus "advocated giving away your personal belongings, and paying your taxes." Now what is funny is that Modern Liberals don't give away their personal belongings. Studies have shown that Conservatives and Republicans in general are far more likely to donate money to charity than Liberals and Democrats. But the anachronistic part is that Jesus never advocated the State to have the power to steal your money to give to another person in the form of welfare. Instead Jesus loved "cheerful givers" who give from the heart in order to fulfill the Law of God.

In fact, when it comes to Social Justice, Jesus was ignoring the role of government altogether. Everything he did was outside of government while submitting to their earthly authority when necessary.

One last picture.

There is much that could be said here but as one who is on the Libertarian side I say woo hoo! Set me free baby!

In conclusion, the idea that women need to be free from the role God has given to women is to accept the false premises of the Left, but ironically, those false premises are the same as those that the Left considers Conservatives who wish to make women second class citizens.

Women are not second class citizens simply because the Creator has made them differently from men and to have a different role from men. As a Christian, I see God's purpose for women as something to be cherished, not denigrated as the Left does. But also as a Christian and one in the Libertarian camp, I see another way to challenge the role women play.  Allow me to offer an example.

What if instead of being a "mere house-wife" [as if that is a bad thing, which it is not] a women is a helpmate to her husband in other non-conventional ways. An illustration may help here. What if a woman were to be a helpmate to her husband, who is a doctor, by becoming a nurse. My wife's cousin, who is a doctor, was greatly assisted by his nurse wife in the birth of my second child. Perhaps she should be encouraged to press on in her education and become a doctor herself and being an even greater assistant to her husband! What a team that would be.

In other words, we all make assumptions that could be wrong or inconsistent with what we say. We all need to be challenged in that area. It is the Left, however, that needs to stop accepting the false premise that women are second class citizens simply because there is a created order that God has given to women.

Why Catechize Children?

Before I mention anything, I must confess that I am probably the worst parent when it comes to teaching my children the Christian faith. I have no special powers nor am I a well self-disciplined person. I like playing video games and watching TV as much as the next guy. Yet I think catechizing children by using one of the children's catechisms is far more important than most Sunday school material you will find in most churches.

On nights that I actually put my children to bed, I try to ask a couple of the questions from Keach's Childrens Catechism. Again, it is not something I do every night or even do with any consistency. It is just something I do as I do it.

The other night I witnessed the reason I have sought to do this. I asked my 5-year-old, "How many Gods are there?" To which he responded with the obvious answer, "one true and living God." I then asked how many persons are there in this one God. To which he then correctly answered "three". I then asked, "Who are they?" And again, via rote memorization he said, "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."

Then I decided to ask a fourth but more difficult question. "Is Jesus both God and man?" He honestly was caught off-guard. "What? Of course Jesus is not God. He's Jesus." Now when he said, "He's Jesus." he was simply making the observation that Jesus was a man.

I then asked, "Is Jesus the Son?" To which he responded, "Yes." I then went back through the first 3 questions, stressing the Son. I asked if the Father is God, and he said "yes". I asked if the Son was God and he said, "Yes". At that point he said out loud, "I didn't know Jesus was God!"

The light bulb went off in the mind of a 5-year-old. Now I suppose this may be unusual or maybe it is something that happens often. I don't know at this point. However, I have heard of this happening to people of all ages. We teach children to memorize knowledge because that is part of the learning process. Sooner or later the mind will understand as God's will determines.

Covenant Theology by Greg Nichols

Well, I am finally half way through Greg Nichols book, Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective On God's Covenants. As the Preface states,

This book stems from systematic theology lectures. Christology covers the eternal plan, the solemn promise, and accomplishment of salvation. God expresses his solemn promise of salvation in his covenants.

The first half of the book surveys Reformed Theologians/Theology such as the Westminster and London Confessions, John Gill, Charles Hodge, Robert Lewis Dabney, the Dutch Calvinists and contemporary modifications. This is extremely helpful for Nichols shows the many insights and contributions each have given to this area, but Nichols is also honest in demonstrating some of their weaknesses as well.

For instance, early in the book, Nichols asks a question that he asks all of his students in his classes and offers a chart of the possible ways to see this in a chart on page 12. He explains a potential problem between the Westminster Confession and the Larger Catechism question 31 when we try to distinguish between the essence/substance verses the implementation of God's Covenant of Grace. He quotes the London Baptist Confession 7:2.

...a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

To which he then leads his students in a series of questions as to the nature and application of the covenant of grace.

What is the promise? And someone says, life and salvation by Jesus Christ....Now who are the partakers? To whom is this promise made? And now another student says, sinners. Correct. And so I ask, what is the condition? What does God require sinners do to be saved? And the class answers, believe, have faith. It says, "requiring of them faith in Him."

Now follow his train of thought here in his next questions.

Then I ask, are these sinners converted or unconverted?

Of course the class inevitably answers unconverted because of the command that they must believe.

To which he responds:

So then, the partakers are lost sinners indiscriminately, all unconverted persons who hear the Gospel. Thus if this defines the essence of the covenant of grace, then it would be a conditional covenant between God and unconverted sinners.

Now here is where things get a little tricky when he deals with the effectual call.

What is the promise?

To which the students respond.

promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

Now who are the partakers? Obviously this would be God's elect. So what does God require of the elect? What does He require them to do?

Nothing.

To which Nichols responds to his students,

Then it's unconditional...So then someone has to admit, the elect are viewed as unconverted, and it says that God promises the unregenerate elect that he will give them his Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe....

Now if you see the problem then you have a sharp mind, but if you don't then let me cite Nichols again from page 12.

So now I say to the class, does this define the essence of a covenant between God and His people? Now, not reluctantly, but emphatically, and usually a little shocked, they affirm that it does not.

Nichols uses this approach in order to help the reader understand those whom he surveys. It becomes obvious when Nichols interacts with Hodge and Gill and the others that they also saw this problem in their attempts to provide a sound covenant theology. As he concludes in his chapter, Summary of the Classic Reformed Doctrine,

The general and effectual call should not be regarded as distinct expressions of divine covenant. Rather, God, in His inscrutable wisdom, has determined to fulfill His covenant of grace, His pledge to apply redemption to His elect, through the general ad effectual call of the gospel, not in isolation, but in combination. Thus, it is not the hearers of the gospel who partake in this divine covenant, but the receivers and doers of the gospel, who obey the gospel in repentance and faith.

Therefore we must keep the means and essence of the covenant distinct when seeing how we define the covenant of grace.

God Saw Obama Care, and It Was Very Good

UPDATE:

This gets even better. Apparently, God wants everyone to have access to contraception. Read here.

-------------

So God made President Obama pass Obama Care. As this story from Buzzfeed reports,

"And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself.'"

So there you have it. Love Thy Neighbor is now equivocated to forcing your neighbor by the barrel of a gun to pay for your health care. This same man, who has won the Nobel Peace Prize, has also loved his neighbors with bombs. Neighbors that we are not even at war!

Now to be fair, we are all moved by our religious beliefs, and those beliefs animate us in the public sphere. Fair enough. However, keep in mind, it is the Left that constantly makes fun of this kind of reasoning. Think of abortion. I am moved by a simple belief that abortion is murder. It also happens to be fundamental in my religious beliefs that the unborn are fully human persons. Yet isn't it the Political Left that argues I should keep my religious beliefs out of the public sphere?

The hypocrisy shines ever so brightly with this man.

Riding At the Cat House

On a more personal note, my daughter and I decided to do some riding at a place we've never been before, known as the Cat House. It is a little place north of Dighton, KS and just north-east of Shields, KS [3 miles east and 3 north], which is basically the middle of nowhere near the Smokey Hills.

I have never ridden there mainly because I didn't know much about it, and it costs $20 per day per person. That is a big turn off factor, but the membership fee is even more amazing. I won't bother to tell you. Now to be fair, the membership fee is probably fair if you camp a lot. However, since I just want to ride a couple of days a year, I just can't see spending that much money.

Well, today, I spent the $20 and went with my daughter (he didn't charge for her today). Now I must say I was pleasantly surprised. It truly is a little hidden oasis for dirt bike riders. Now there were several campers there. So if you like camping in a desert looking place with no trees, I guess this would be your place as well. Plenty of fishing too!

Here is a picture of Rachel.

Now the negative, which may be a positive, was that there were not really any motorcycle trails per se. I basically rode anywhere I wanted. The draw back was that I had to be very cautious where I went. At one point I climbed a very steep hill only to stop as my tire hit the peak. You see, there was no top. It was literally a peak with a sheer cliff on the other side. So I had to do the skiing thing to get back down. Therefore, I needed to spend much of the day scouting what I could really ride.

However, this was also an advantage. I could literally climb all kinds of slopes, (yes, I said slopes in Western KS!) some of which had been cimbed many times,while others maybe not so much?

Now I don't want to make myself sound like a pro-rider. I am not by any means. But if you want a good work out and you live in western Kansas, and you don't mind losing $20 to ride one day, you may just enjoy yourself.

The Bible Is Not About You

Have You Prayed About Your Faith's Truth?

Yesterday I was visited once again by our local LDS, Mormon missionaries. Of course the two elders that stopped by were another two that I had not met before since they constantly rotate them. The conversation was very good, and to their credit, the young men tolerated me.

The conversation was typical. They started by asking me what I believed. Then they proposed their view about Joseph Smith being a modern prophet and that the priesthood has been re-established. Then came the famous question, "Have you prayed about the Book of Mormon?"

It fascinates me to no end that people place religious truth into an entirely different category of knowledge. As I commented last July in a post about that very issue (read here), we place religious truth in a merely experiential arena of knowledge. So when I ask the LDS missionaries about praying whether or not Roman Catholicism being the true church or the Methodists or the Watch Tower or a Hindu church or an Islamic church, and I get a warm fuzzy feeling telling me that one of those churches are the one true church, they simply revert back to praying for the heart burn feeling of confirmation, even though that heart burn feeling might be from having too many enchiladas for lunch.

Any time I appealed to the Bible, they used the old "That is your interpretation verses another interpretation" argument. Now of course, that is an argument that presupposes that the New Testament is unclear. This of course means God can't speak clearly. Now it begs the question. How do we know we are interpreting the Book of Mormon correctly, or Joseph Smith for that matter? Is God really unable to speak as clearly as Joseph Smith?

I decided to bring up the passages of Scripture that challenge this false presupposition. Here are a few of them. Deuteronomy 13:

¹ If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, ² and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” ³ you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. ⁴ It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.

Where in Moses' teaching does Moses place knowledge in the mere esoteric category? Does Moses teach that we should pray about the Book of Mormon? The passage is quite clear. We are to test what prophets teach against the Revelation God has already given through Moses.

Of course, you will say, "How do I know Moses is a true prophet?" The answer is quite simple. The Revelation Moses gave was not in some secret room. Instead, God invaded history with all kinds of signs, not the least of which was the Crossing of the Red Sea. Perhaps if Joseph Smith parted the Missouri or Mississippi River, the LDS missionaries might have something to stand on.

In the New Testament, the Gospel according to Luke starts wit this:

¹ Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled^[a] among us, ² just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. ³ With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, ⁴ so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Where does Luke say something that would teach we should pray about his Gospel? Nowhere! Instead, Luke appeals to historical events that he personally has investigate and confirmed by eye-witnesses in order that Theophilus could have certainty outside of himself, a certainty that would not be based in some esoteric religious experience but a certainty that would be based squarely in the world in which we normally live.

Paul's charge to Timothy contains a most sufficient passage. 2 Timothy 3:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, ¹⁵ and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. ¹⁶ All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, ¹⁷ so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

This passage is quite clear. Scripture is sufficient. We do not need another supposed God-breathed source. But could there be another source? One last passage from the writer to the Hebrew Christians chapter 1:

¹ In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, ² but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

In these last days we have the full Revelation of God in the Person and Work of the Son of God. There is simply no need to go any further. There is no need for other prophets of other revelatory sources. We have all we need in Jesus Christ and His Apostles as preserved in the Apostolic writings in the New Testament and the Hebrew Scriptures.

In conclusion I think more passages could be presented, but I think it should suffice in these brief arguments that searching for truth through esoteric means is one Christians need to learn to be consistent within their worldview and evangelical missionary endeavors. If we believe Mormons are wrong simply on the level of "praying about the Book of Mormon", then we should not attempt to evangelize using similar means.

However, if we agree with their esoteric viewpoint, then we have no basis for evangelizing people to come to our faith. Of course this may explain why so many Christians accept the false premise of Mormonism being just another Christian faith. But Mono-Theism, by definition, can never be compatible with Poly-theism, no matter how esoteric one gets.

Theology Matters

[I wrote this post originally for the Tea Party Hobos blog simply because it is more political, especially in defense of a political candidate, but since I think some of the issues raised by Michelle Goldberg have discussed on this blog in principle, I thought it worth posting here as well.]

Bill Anderson wrote a brief post on Lew Rockwell's blog this morning. Now I have noticed several statements that, though, I bet they do know the reasons for certain quasi-religious claims, the contributors of the blog seem to hide their knowledge in an attempt not to get into overly religious discussions on a political site.


First Bill quotes a Leftist, Daily Beast's, Michelle Goldberg:

It might seem that Paul’s libertarianism is the very opposite of theocracy, but that’s true only if you want to impose theocracy at the federal level. In general, Christian Reconstructionists favor a radically decentralized society, with communities ruled by male religious patriarchs. Freed from the power of the Supreme Court and the federal government, they believe that local governments could adopt official religions and enforce biblical law.

To which Bill responds by saying,

So-called biblical law would require stoning of gays and other measures that would mirror the Taliban, she writes. (Not surprisingly, Goldberg misrepresents both Covenant Theology and the diversity of opinion of people who fall under that theological umbrella.) So there you have it: Ron Paul's libertarianism is going to create a new American Taliban. Look for more of this kind of nonsense as clueless mainstream reporters try to write about someone who does not believe the State should be an object of worship.

Bill is absolutely right. Covenant Theology is very able to answer the objection by the Left's thinking concerning religious people wanting to establish some kind of Theocracy, but some seem to overlook that Covenant Theology is only now coming back into popularity in mainstream Evangelicalism.



Dispensationalism has been the popularized eschatology and theological framework for quite some time. It is Dispensationalism that has led many to favor the nation of Israel as if they were God's modern day people and theocracy. Of course, since Dispensationalism's utter predictive failure of Christ's Second Coming through date setting schemes, Dispensationalism is waning. But I think it might explain some of the statements on LRC.


As a Christian, I recognize "theology matters". It greatly impacts life and culture. Good theology does so in a good way. Poor theology does so in a poor way. So when women like Michelle Goldberg misunderstand (purposeful or not) politically active Christians, I am not convinced it is entirely her fault. Yet after trying to explain sound theology to people such as Michelle Goldberg, it is my experience she has no intention of trying to understand. She fears that without Central Planning from the Federal Government, the homosexual agenda will not go forth. And of course, as one who has embraced Libertarianism to an extent as a Christian, I have made that exact same argument. She is quite right for seeing Libertarianism's stress on private property rights as something to fear.



In other words, the easiest way to stop the culture war and/or win it from a conservative perspective is to restore private property rights. Then people are free to be who they are, and that includes being able to discriminate with your property. That is something, I think, Michelle fears far more than anything else.


Now she does mischaracterize Covenant Theology when she wrote,

In fact, they’re often much further to the right. While dispensationalists believe that Christ will return imminently and establish a biblical reign on earth, covenant theologians tend to believe its man’s job to create Christ’s kingdom before he comes back. The most radical faction of covenant theology is called Christian Reconstructionism, a movement founded by R. J. Rushdoony that seeks to turn the book of Leviticus into law, imposing the death penalty for gay people, blasphemers, unchaste women, and myriad other sinners.

Covenant Theology does no such thing. What I think she is referring to is a position called Theonomy. Theonomists are usually under the umbrella of Covenant Theology, but is in fact, an eschatological position based squarely in Post-Millenialism, and she may very well be right in linking this with an American version of Christian Nationalism. However, even its modern proponents such as Greg Bahnsen saw that Old Testament laws as cited by Michelle were problematic and that far more work needed to be done in this area.

In conclusion, the arguments provided by Michelle are in my opinion emotional and fear-mongering. She admits that she is taking the fact that her argument is based upon the "fundamentalist faction that has until now been considered a fringe even on the Christian right" and that this position is a small minority among those who are Ron Paul supporters.

Ron Paul is a libertarian. Libertarianism and Theonomy are just not compatible.