The Religion That Started in a Hat

Dispensationalism’s Eschatological Dilemma by Jack Kettler

In recent times, there have been a number of accusations leveled against respected Christian leaders who hold to postmillennial (a traditional Protestant eschatology) and covenant (historic Protestant) theology of being anti-Semitic.[1] How these Christian leaders, some of whom are Jewish in heritage, and their postmillennial and covenantal beliefs are anti-Semitic is never stated. Accusations have been fabricated and left unchallenged leading to fallacious thinking on the part of some that these accusations are self-evident. Vague comments are made trying to show that postmillennialism, since it allegedly does not have a special place in its system for Israel, coupled with covenant theology’s view of the church, will eventually lead to anti-Semitism is completely unfounded. Such accusations made against these historic theologies and Christian leaders are malicious and patently false.

It should be noted that some of the greatest Protestant theologians have been covenantal and postmillennial in their eschatology. For example, John Calvin, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, Dabney, Thornwell, Shedd, Patrick Fairbairn, and B.B. Warfield held these convictions. Although an impressive list of theologians can be cited who held a certain position does not necessarily make it right, it should make one give pause, however, before making slanderous accusations against a position held by men of such stature. It is beyond dispute that postmillennial and covenant theologians have always believed in the future salvation of National Israel.

What exactly is anti-Semitism? Consulting the Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary we find the established definition: “a person who is hostile to Jews.”[2] In the unabridged dictionary this is the only definition listed. If we are going to make up new and novel definitions, and then level accusations, we can prejudice people’s minds against anything. For example, this has happened with the word racism.

It is easy to libel your opponent a racist, and then not deal in any substantive way with their arguments or position held. We should all be appalled at these types of tactics. Journalistic ethics at one time required before going public with an accusation against someone or group, the individual or representatives of the group in question would first be allowed to answer or explain themselves. Then, and only then, should charges be made in a public forum.

If we cannot agree on established definitions, rational dialogue is not possible. Many Christians are all too familiar with pejorative words used to prejudice or poison a debate concerning ethics in the public arena. Pro-life activists have suffered this type of abuse for years in the public arena. Should those who name the name of Christ resort to such despicable tactics? As will be shown, the tables can easily be turned on those who use fallacious definitions in an attempt to discredit their opponents.

What is God’s definition of anti-Semitism? According to bizarre or inaccurate definitions even God can be labeled as anti-Semitic. Consider the case of Jerusalem’s destruction by the Babylonians recorded in the book of Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 34:2, God says He will give Jerusalem into the hands of the king of Babylon so that he can destroy it. Was God anti-Semitic when he brought the king of Babylon against Jerusalem?

In 1st John 2:9 we read: “He that saith he is in the light, and hatest his brother, is in darkness even until now.” The immediate context is dealing with Christian brotherly love. The broader implication of the passage is in harmony with Christ’s command, “…Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” Matthew 22:39. Hatred is at the root of anti-Semitism. This conclusion is fully consistent with the definition from Webster’s. Hatred towards a Jewish person is therefore anti-Semitic. Disagreement with nineteenth century dispensational theology is not anti-Semitic. Those within the dispensational system making false accusations of this nature are erroneously assuming dispensationalism to be orthodox. Dispensationalism has been studied and rejected in church synods and general assemblies on numerous occasions as well as in many serious theological treatises.

The following survey of dispensational eschatology will demonstrate that the dispensationalist position can be made to appear anti-Semitic or even worse. One purpose of this survey of dispensational eschatology is for illustrating a particular point. The point is that the tables can easily be turned upon adherents of dispensational eschatology who have attacked Christian believers of other persuasions. This article is not intended to be a refutation of dispensationalism in general or to seriously suggest that dispensationalists or their theology would be in accord with certain statements I make hypothesizing about the potential tendencies of anti-Semitism within dispensationalism itself. Hopefully, dispensationalists in the future will be more circumspect on how they treat their Christian brethren whom they have falsely accused.

Some dispensationalists make accusations and try to force conclusions upon postmillennialism and covenant theology that do not follow from or are necessitated by anything within these theological systems.[3] Some dispensationalists say that these two expressions of reformed theology logically lead to anti-Semitism because of the postmillennial covenantal theology’s classical view of the church. Not only are these accusations completely irresponsible, it should also be noted that not one example of these theologies having produced anti-Semitism are ever presented. Why? That is because it is impossible to do so. These types of accusations are examples of non sequitur fallacies. This writer will now present some legitimate questions concerning dispensational eschatology as well as an instructive (for education only) example of how non sequitur arguments can be leveled against dispensational eschatology itself.

Most dispensationalists believe that we are presently living on the edge of the most momentous events since the time of Christ. The prophetic time clock concerning Israel is allegedly ticking again. According to dispensationalism this clock stopped ticking when the Jewish nation rejected Christ. It was at this time that God went to a backup plan, starting the church during an intervening period of almost two thousand years. Supposedly this clock started ticking again in 1948 when Israel became a nation.

Dispensationalists are generally excited concerning what appears to be prophetic events unfolding right before their eyes. They see fulfilled prophecy on the pages of the everyday newspaper. It is a dream of many dispensationalists to visit the modern state of Israel. This writer, a former dispensationalist, visited Israel in 1982. It was a little unsettling; thinking one was going to the “Holy Land” only to find a secular socialist state, with topless bathing at numerous beaches. The tourists were a little bit shocked.

One of the first events to unfold according to this prophetic scheme will be the appearance of the anti-Christ. According to dispensationalism, this man will personify evil. Even Hitler’s wickedness is supposed to pale in comparison to this future demonic figure. This leader, who is supposed to be Jewish, will trick the Israeli people into thinking he is good for three and one half years, and will then turn on them with unmerciful ruthlessness.

There will be a period of seven years known as the “great tribulation.” This alleged “seven years” and all the dispensational theories about the coming of Christ, the rapture, the anti-Christ surrounding it are all based on an erroneous interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27. The dispensational “great tribulation” is supposed to be worldwide, yet is described with localized terminology as having to do with Jerusalem, Israel, her trading partners, the temple, its destruction, etc. Repeated false dispensational predictions surrounding these events have brought reproach upon the gospel.

Before it’s all over, millions of Jews will be slaughtered in a blood bath. The Jewish holocaust at the hands of Hitler was a small foreshadowing of how terrible this anti-Christ’s destruction will be. The terrible seven-year reign of the anti-Christ will end at the battle of Armageddon with millions more dying. Many dispensationalists believe that the Gentile Christians will be secretly raptured off the earth prior to these terrible events. The Gentiles escape while the Jews face a new Hitler. Interesting! Surely it follows that dispensationalism must be intrinsically anti-Semitic if it says that the world’s most evil future ruler will be a Jew who will slaughter millions of the Jewish people while the Gentiles escape. The Bible does not teach that this ruler will be a Jew or even exist in the future. These are inferences and deductions, the products of a flawed dispensational hermeneutical system.

The adherents of dispensationalism rightly condemn Hitler’s murder of millions of Jewish people this century. Hopefully, if alive during that time, they would have tried to save as many of the Jewish people as possible. The facts are, many dispensationalists were alive and did nothing. I have never heard one dispensationalist warn the citizens of modern Israel to flee before this wicked individual rises to power. Why? If it was a good idea to flee Hitler’s Nazi Germany, why not the future anti-Christ in Israel? Why are dispensationalists not helping people escape from Israel? Instead, dispensationalists are excited about the Jewish people’s return to Israel and at the same time knowing that these same Jews will be killed. This is a serious ethical dilemma that dispensationalism must deal with. Dismissing this dilemma rather than dealing with it would make one more like an ostrich. Surely it follows that dispensationalists are not concerned with the welfare of those Jews who will be persecuted and slaughtered by the anti-Christ.

When attempting to respond to this ethical dilemma the dispensationalist claims that the rise to power of this wicked Jewish ruler is inevitable or fixed. At this point, the theology of Arminianism, which characterizes much contemporary dispensationalism begins to speak with Augustinian or Calvinistic terminology. Somehow, the claim of divine predetermination is supposed to lighten the force or make this dilemma disappear. In effect, dispensationalists by claiming divine predetermination at this juncture are trying to hang this dilemma on God. The dispensationalists do not grasp the force of this dilemma. It is a dilemma that they have to deal with, not God. This appeal to providence is reminiscent of Arminians thinking that their peculiar doctrine of “free will” somehow answers atheistic questions concerning evil in the world. It should be noted that this dilemma does not exist for traditional eschatology. This dilemma is one of many examples of theological confusion and contradiction inherent within the dispensational system. The false dichotomy between law and grace within dispensationalism is another example of serious theological error that this system of Bible interpretation has produced.

To continue pressing this dilemma, where are the dispensationalist humanitarian organizations helping Israelis relocate to safe places around the world? The Israelis need to be warned that this future ruler will deceive them, thus bringing on an almost unspeakable blood bath. Dispensationalists cannot claim that their numerous books on Bible predictions accomplish this. Nowhere in this literature are there any serious attempts to warn the Jewish people to flee from this imminent holocaust. This literature is written purely for Christian consumption.

Dispensational eschatology cannot escape the dilemma, on the one hand, of having great excitement about the Jews going to Israel and, on the other hand, knowing those millions will soon die during the seven-year tribulation. Should we warn those in danger? Where is the dispensational clarion call warning those to flee before the Jewish Hitler-like ruler emerges? The silence is deafening. Surely it follows that dispensationalists are not really concerned about this future slaughter of the Jewish people. After pouring untold millions of tourist dollars into the modern state of Israel, it would seem that dispensational leaders would at least pressure Israeli leaders into opening up their country to Christian missionary activity. At least this way the Jews have a chance of accepting Christ before being slaughtered.

The dispensationalist is caught in a contradiction between the moral imperative to warn those in danger, and his excitement at the re-gathering of those about to be slaughtered. It is no good to say that God will use this slaughter to save all Israel as Romans 11:26 teaches. What about the millions who will die during this rule by the anti-Christ? Are they saved? On what grounds can they be? Having faith in Christ is how people are saved. Dying at the hands of a tyrant does not qualify as a substitute for saving faith.

Supposedly during this terrible tribulation, Israel will be surrounded and hard pressed, because there will be no avenue of escape. This impending calamity will be a contributing factor in Israel’s conversion to Christ. Why? After the children of Israel were delivered from Pharaoh’s army, they ended up in the wilderness for forty years as a result of unbelief. When faced with life threatening situations, people will in desperation call upon God. This phenomenon is appropriately called foxhole faith. Miraculous events do not convey any kind of guarantee that regeneration will take place. See the story of the rich man and Lazarus for more confirmation of this, Luke 16:19-29.

According to dispensationalism, only at the end of the seven-year tribulation, when Christ destroys the anti-Christ and returns, will the Jewish people accept him as their Messiah. How can it be said that all Israel is saved according to this view? The anti-Christ and his forces have just killed millions who were not saved. Surely it follows that the dispensationalists are not honestly portraying their real beliefs when talking about all Israel being saved. They never tell their Jewish friends about the millions of Jews that they know will be slaughtered.

Briefly, to set the record straight, postmillennialism teaches that before regeneration the Gentiles were lost and without hope. Ephesians 2:12 says, “…at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.” Going on we read, “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Eph. 2:19). We, the Gentiles, are no more strangers. Strangers to what, someone may ask? To the commonwealth of Israel, of which we the Gentiles are now a part. Another name for the commonwealth of Israel in the new covenant is the church. In Galatians 6:15,16 the apostle specifically calls the church “the Israel of God.” Romans 11:17 teaches that “some of the branches [the Jews] have been broken off.” Romans 11:25-27 says that in the future age of the church, Israel, or the Jews will be grafted back into the olive tree or the commonwealth.

Postmillennialism holds out a great hope for Israel. Postmillennialism believes that Israel will be converted during the church age. Many modern postmillennialists believe that the dispensationalist’s “great tribulation” is in reality a past historical event. Many postmillennialists also believe that the book of Revelation represents historically fulfilled prophecy. This means that the Jewish people will not experience the dispensational slaughter in the future. All Israel will be saved according to Romans 11:25-27, minus the millions dying as proposed by the dispensational system. The grafting of Israel back into the olive tree will bring about the greatest blessings the earth has ever seen since the resurrection of Christ.

It should be clear that adherents of the dispensational system are seriously mistaken when making accusations against their Christian brethren. Moreover, dispensationalists compartmentalize their moral and eschatological beliefs. This is clearly evidenced by the dispensationalist’s excitement concerning the Jews going to Israel and the millions soon to be slaughtered in the Jewish anti-Christ’s blood bath. The moral imperative, leading to action aimed to help those who are about to be slaughtered, is nonexistent and suppressed in dispensational eschatology. Compartmentalization in this system is a mechanism to escape contradictions.

“Dispensational truth” has supposedly provided a hermeneutical key to unlock prophetic interpretive mysteries in a literal way. It is interesting that “dispensational truth” had its beginning in the early nineteenth century along with a number of other heresies. Since the turn of the century dispensationalism has far exceeded the Jehovah’s Witnesses in false prophetic predictions. There is no denying that these predictions cause great emotional excitement among dispensationalists. This writer, formerly a dispensationalist was oftentimes thrilled hearing about the predictions of the pre-tribulation rapture that was to take place in 1981. In reality, the excitement or thrill experienced when gaining a dispensational understanding of prophecy is more reminiscent of Gnosticism’s concealed or secret knowledge (only possessed by those initiated into the deeper mysteries or dispensation truth) than a correct knowledge of the Bible. Those who live in glass houses should not cast stones, lest their own house shatters.

Jack Kettler is a Ruling Elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Permission to publish this essay was graciously provided by Mr. Kettler. Copyright © 1999 Jack Kettler.

Notes:

1. Norm Resnick, “The Dr. Norm Resnick Show,” (Johnstown, CO: The American Freedom Network, November 2, 1998). November 2, 1998 is one of many times in which Dr. Resnick engaged in malicious misrepresentations of well-known Christians, covenant, and postmillennial theology. To be specific, Dr. Resnick falsely labeled Rev. R. J. Rushdoony and Howard Phillips as anti-Semitic, among other things, on his radio show the day before the election. Candidates for the American Constitution Party (Colorado Affiliate of the U.S. Taxpayers Party) were accused of being deceived by Howard Phillips and therefore guilty by association (a fallacy) of anti-Semitism themselves.

Those accused have not been consulted nor given the opportunity to defend themselves. Dr. Resnick has not provided one shred of credible evidence that any of those accused are anti-Semitic. In fact it is not too strong to say that Dr. Resnick is a loose cannon who at times has done incredible damage to the freedom movement because of his lack of sound judgement. In addition, Dr. Resnick has made accusations against the John Birch Society after they stopped providing guests for his radio show when they became aware of his agreement and coziness with certain militia leaders.

Dr. Resnick is a Jewish man who prides himself as being a believer in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. His malicious accusations against Rushdoony and Phillips are rooted partially in the godless libertarian publication Reason Magazine that he has demonstrated dependence upon. Reason Magazine supposedly champions individual rights. At times this translates into homosexual, abortion, and pornography rights. It is doubtful if Dr. Resnick sees that his stated theological beliefs are in direct conflict with the freedom-destroying degenerate philosophy of modern libertarianism.

Libertarian philosophy is a cancer that feeds off of the Christian worldview. In other words, libertarian philosophy like all non-Christian philosophy lives off the borrowed capital of the Christian worldview. Thankfully, at many times Reason Magazine is not consistent with its philosophical presuppositions. This is why at times they do argue for positions that Christians can have formal agreement with. However, at its core, Reason Magazine is an organ that propagates a godless philosophy. Just as its name implies, Reason Magazine exalts man’s apostate reason over the laws of God.

It is a serious contradiction on Dr. Resnick’s part when he claims to believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but then attacks those who propagate His laws by siding with a system that stands in complete antithesis to biblical ethics. The founding fathers of this country that Dr. Resnick claims to respect did not admire godless philosophy, which is characterized by ethical lawlessness towards God and human autonomy. Human autonomy among other things is epistemological rebellion towards God. This type of philosophy can never fashion a worldview necessary to produce a document such as the U.S. Constitution.

Rev. Rushdoony and others’ theology was caricatured in the November 1998 article titled “Invitation to a Stoning: Getting cozy with theocrats” in Reason Magazine. The author, Walter Olson, did not provide proper context of the Christians he cited. Olson pulls quotes as if it were out of thin air attempting to shock his readers. Why didn’t Olson provide the necessary context in which the quotes appeared? Why did not Dr. Resnick give those Olson quoted (absent sine qua non explanatory context) the benefit of the doubt before engaging in malicious slander against Rev. Rushdoony and Howard Phillips? Given Dr. Resnick’s training he should have been aware that Olson was not providing any context for the quotations of the Christians he cited.

Without explanatory context anyone can have horns placed upon their head. This happened to Patrick J. Buchanan who had an article taken out of context making it appear that he was sympathetic to Adolph Hitler. Why does Dr. Resnick make false accusations against Christian theologians and leaders without first seeking to interview those in question personally? Furthermore, Olson in his article assumes the truth of his own position while at the same time dismissing the biblical ethics of the reconstructionists rather than attempting a serious refutation, or setting forth an alternative ethical system.

Those who agree with anti-Christian libertarian philosophy are hostile to the judicial laws of the Old Testament. Which faith or law structure will Dr. Resnick adhere to? Will it be lawless human autonomy, the philosophy of libertarianism or the law of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? If you want to identify the God of a person or philosophical system you must look for the origin of law of that individual or system. The source of law provides a means of identifying a person or philosophical system’s ultimate commitments. The law structure provides the basis for determining right from wrong within the respective system and as such is the ultimate commitment. What is the source of this law structure, God or man? In biblical ethics God is the creator of and the source of law that is set forth in the entirety of Scripture.

At its core, libertarian philosophy is man centered and engages in idolatrous self-interpretation and the deification of man (Genesis 3:3-6). Consistent libertarian philosophy exalts man as the standard for right and wrong. This is the essence of humanism, which attempts to deify man as the ultimate standard. On the other hand, and relevant to our debate, American Constitutional law is based upon British Common Law, which is based upon the laws of God contained in the Bible. Unfortunately, Dr. Resnick has sided with a philosophical system that is incapable of setting forth a coherent ethical system along with the necessary epistemological presuppositions that can establish its truthfulness.

Going on in this reproof, Dr. Resnick exhibits a sophomoric understanding of dispensational theology, which forms the crux of some of his malicious attacks made against respected Christian leaders and their theology. Dr. Resnick is unable to distinguish between “Christian Identity” which he rightly condemns and covenant theology. In light of his appalling accusations, it follows that Dr. Resnick believes that the terms are synonymous. This is simply inexcusable and contemptible on Dr. Resnick’s part. It is a matter of fact that Rev. Rushdoony denounces “Christian Identity” and has no relationships with adherents of this heresy. (See the Chalcedon Foundation’s web page for a strong disclaimer regarding this perverted movement.)

Moreover, it is highly unlikely that Dr. Resnick can accurately state the positions of postmillennialism and covenant theology, or dispensational theology for that matter. Inability to properly state your opponents’ position reveals your own intellectual bankruptcy in the dispute. Dr. Resnick rightly chastises Christians for not being involved in the political process. Yet, it is this very dispensationalism that has led Christians out of the political arena. The historical theology of covenant theology and postmillennialism, which Dr. Resnick attacks, is the theology that provides the basis for Christian social action. Dr. Resnick attacks in essence the theology of John Calvin and John Knox, both committed to covenantal postmillennial theology, which has the power to overthrow godless totalitarian governments.

Protestant theology accomplishes this by using God’s law as a tool to establish dominion. The present government uses law as a force of dominion. Law and government are inescapably connected. The present cultural war is between two competing law systems. In the hands of men law will govern the nation. Which law will govern, man’s law or God’s? Dr. Resnick would do well to read chapters one and two in John Eidsmoe’s Christianity And The Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers. According to Dr. Eidsmoe, the theology of Calvinistic, covenantal postmillennialism was the theology that provided the foundation for the U.S. Constitution.

Postmillennial and covenant theologies are part of the reformed faith. Both Rev. Rushdoony and Howard Phillips are committed to the reformed faith. Adherents of reformed theology or more properly Calvinism have been known as the fighting Protestants. In fact, Calvinism is known as the mortal enemy of monarchies or totalitarian government. In our country we are now embracing a form of government that can be described as democratic majoritarian tyranny or the law of the majority. In the above-mentioned work Eidsmoe shows that Calvinism gave rise to our republican form of government. A republic is a nation based upon law. Dr. Resnick knows this and he also knows what the law structure was that formed our republic. Why is he now repudiating that law structure?

A forerunner to Calvin and Knox was William Wallace. The theology of dispensationalism has made its adherents for the most part run from the cultural battle like the unprincipled morally bankrupt noble men of Wallace’s day. Dispensationalism’s distorted emphasis on the last days has paralyzed many from fighting in the cultural war. Why fight if the end of the world is just around the corner? More seriously, dispensational theology rejects law in the present. This is why dispensationalism has nothing to offer in the fight against the humanistic state. The humanistic state rules with the force of law. Our present law structure in the hands of the humanistic state is becoming increasingly anti-Christian.

There is a law that is higher, namely, God’s law. Only God’s law can effectively challenge the idolatrous humanistic state. Why does Dr. Resnick want to throw away our best weapon? Dr. Resnick’s political philosophy and his theology are characterized by serious contradictions. Unfortunately, these contradictions are shared by many. Until godless lawless human philosophy is repudiated, there will be no return to constitutional limited government in this country.

I propose that Dr. Resnick do several things. He should confess his ignorance in matters of Christian theology, apologize and ask forgiveness for his slanderous accusations, and seriously consider resigning from talk radio. Dr. Resnick is rejecting the ethical claims of Christ in favor of ethical rebellion, siding with those who promote a godless freedom destroying philosophy. Dr. Resnick needs to choose whom he will serve (Joshua 24:15).

Prayerfully, Dr. Resnick will receive Christ as his Lord and Savior. There is only one name under heaven whereby men can be saved and that is the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). The two covenant dispensational theology that deceives individuals into thinking that they can be saved based upon a covenant (allegedly the Abrahamic covenant) outside of Christ is fictitious and heretical. I fear that Dr. Resnick’s dispensational friends have led him to believe this very heresy. The Abrahamic covenant is the covenant of Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:14,29). In conclusion, I want Dr. Resnick to know that I bear him no ill will.

2. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, (New Jersey: Random House, 1989), p. 67.

3. Tommy Ice has been a guest on the American Freedom Network on more than one occasion, repeating his discredited accusations that the postmillennial and covenant theology of reconstructionism will produce anti-Semitism. These accusations have been thoroughly refuted in public and print on numerous occasions. For example, see House Divided: The Break-up Of Dispensational Theology, by Greg L. Bahnsen and Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., for a thoroughgoing scholarly refutation of Mr. Ice’s false accusations by two genuine biblical scholars. The fact that Mr. Ice keeps making these fallacious accusations speaks volumes.

Bio

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com.

The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS A review by Jack Kettler
by Robert Spencer
Regnery Publishing, Washington DC, 2015

Biography:

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of fourteen books, including two New York Times bestsellers, The Truth About Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (both Regnery). His latest book is The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS (Regnery).

Spencer has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community. His web site Jihad Watch is a valuable source of ongoing research and news stories.

What others are saying about this book:

“As always, Robert Spencer is scholarly, thorough, fearless, and insistent in making sure we know the Islamic State. Don’t say you haven’t been warned.” – Andrew C. McCarthy, contributing editor of National Review and New York Times bestselling author of The Grand Jihad, Willful Blindness, and Islam and Free Speech

“Contains everything the people of the free world need to know about the foremost threat to freedom, and to every free person. This book shows how ISIS plans to sow murder and mayhem—and above all, how it can and must be stopped.” – Geert Wilders, member of parliament in the Netherlands and leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV)

“ISIS is here. If sanity still prevailed in our government and media, this book would be required reading for all elected officials and journalists.” – Pamela Geller, president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative

Are you an Infidel? If so, this book is written for you:

If you are a Christian, you are an Infidel according the Koran and its most consistent adherents, ISIS or the Islamic State. As always, Spencer is spot on in his analysis of Islam and the emergence of the Islamic State. In Spencer’s latest work, you will learn things about ISIS that you will never learn about from the main line politically correct media.

The rise of ISIS has been spectacularly fast. ISIS now controls huge parts of former Iraq and Syria and is awash in millions of dollars per day in revenue. Thousands of young educated people from Europe and the United States are risking arrest from authorities for going or attempting to go to the Middle East to join ISIS and its newly established caliphate.

Spencer takes the reader on an important tour of Islamic history and how the caliphate (an absolute authoritarian military political, religious leader) began after Mohammad’s death. From its beginning, Islam has had a blood drenched history. The Islamic State wants to make sure they are on the cutting edge of this blood soaked political religion. Beheading people is their favorite method of killing people. They are innovators in other forms of barbaric savagery, such as burning people alive.

There are blocked texts sections in the book called NOT THAT THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM that document the Islamic State’s faithfulness to Koranic teaching. Also, the Ostrich Alerts in the book show how far the so-called media experts, government officials and politicians will go in their denial of the overwhelming truth about the real Islam. These experts in denial still assure us the Islam is a religion of peace.

Spencer documents many of the Jihadist groups around the world that have currently pledged their support to ISIS. There is no doubt that sooner rather than later we as a nation will have to confront and deal with militant Islam. They are not going away, they are coming here. In fact, they are here already and planning to commits acts of murder and mayhem against non-Muslims. Multicultural politically correct leaders will remain in denial until war breaks out in the streets and will still be incapable of action to protect us.

The final chapter in Spencer’s book is about why we must defeat ISIS. It contains important strategies to win. I would not waste much time in trying to get politically correct congress creatures to read the book. They are paralyzed with fear regarding what the media may say about them, if they speak the truth. We have to educate our neighbors and friends one at a time on the danger we are facing. For the most part, the majority of Americans understand the danger we are facing. We need to keep pushing and educating in every forum we can. The only political candidates willing to speak forcefully against Islam, are outsiders. Support them!

Christians in the areas controlled by ISIS are experiencing unspeakable horrors at the hands of these followers of Mohammad’s genocidal political religion of backward Arab culture. Spencer chronicles the rape and selling of Christian girls into Islamic sexual slavery until your heart feels like breaking. All this is justified by Koranic teaching meticulously documented by ISIS. As Spencer shows in this book, they document all of their perverse actions with citations from the Koran.

The book is not what you can call enjoyable reading, but necessary to read and disseminate if we are to survive as a nation. If you want our nation and future to be secure, get this book and make sure you do your part to get it widely publicized. Robert Spencer is heard almost weekly on Peter Boyles radio show on KNUS radio from 5 to 9 Mountain time am.

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com web site where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Hidden But Now Revealed: A Biblical Theology of Mystery A review by Jack Kettler

Hidden But Now Revealed: A Biblical Theology of Mystery
by G. K. Beale and Benjamin L. Gladd
Publisher: IVP Academic, Downers Grove, Illinois, (2014)

The Authors:

G. K. Beale (PhD, University of Cambridge) holds the J. Gresham Machen Chair of New Testament and is professor of New Testament and biblical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. His books include The Book of Revelation (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 1-2 Thessalonians (The IVP New Testament Commentary Series), The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation, The Temple and the Church’s Mission and We Become What We Worship.

Benjamin L. Gladd received a PhD in Biblical and Theological studies from Wheaton College in Wheaton, IL. He currently serves as Assistant Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi, and has served as an adjunct faculty member at Wheaton College, teaching New Testament exegesis and interpretation, Greek, and introductory courses on the Old and New Testaments. Gladd is the author of Revealing the Mysterion.

Significant comments:

“In the realm of lay readers, I can hardly think of an area that is more misunderstood than the area of prophecy; in the realm of biblical scholars, I can hardly think of a topic more controverted than the relationship between the Old and the New. At the crosshairs of both discussions is Daniel’s term ‘mystery.’ For the sake of both readerships, I’m grateful that we finally now have a book that reduces the mystery behind ‘mystery.’ Many others will be grateful as well, and will want a copy for their own library.” – Nicholas Perrin, Franklin S. Dyrness Chair of Biblical Studies, Wheaton College Graduate School

“An intriguing theological and exegetical exploration of a key New Testament theme, especially in Paul. As the book’s authors argue, the early Christian use of ‘mysteries’ surely reflects the strong influence of Daniel.” – raig Keener, professor of New Testament, Asbury Theological Seminary

“Comprehensive and accessible, this book is a model of intertextual exegesis and hermeneutics for the sake of biblical theology. . . . Serious Bible students will find in Hidden But Now Revealed helpful detailed intertextual analysis of the way in which mystery in the book of Daniel is interpreted, adapted, and revealed in the New Testament.” – Sherif Gendy, Ordained Servant

“Beale and Gladd have ably demonstrated the viability of the claim that the New Testament writers understood and respected the context of the Old Testament passages to which they alluded and cited. Chapter 11, the conclusion, and the appendix provide a masterful synthesis with hermeneutical implications extending far beyond the narrow topic of mystery. Beale and Gladd express the hope that ‘pastors and students will benefit from this project because of its emphasis on how the two Testaments relate.’ Pastors, students, and academics alike will indeed find it beneficial to familiarize themselves with the contents and conclusions of this excellent volume.” – R. Andrew Compton, Calvin Theological Journal

Why get this important book?

The book is brilliant and original! The authors make the case why the study of the term mystery is warranted, but needed. The term mystery is found in the New Testament 28 times. It is found 9 times in the Old Testament. Interestingly, the word mystery only appears in the book of Daniel.

In its most basic meaning; mystery conveys the idea of hiddenness or partial hiddeness and then subsequent fuller revelation.

The authors stress the importance of how Daniel uses the term and how it informs the New Testament writers understanding of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. The authors point out: “The initial revelation was not entirely hidden but only partially, and the subsequent revelation discloses the fuller meaning of the end-times events” (43).

The book supplies background into the New Testament’s use of mystery by examining the use of mystery in early Judaism, in key texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the practice of mystery religions in the early centuries of church history.

The authors look at the use of the term mystery throughout the whole of Scripture. The authors thoroughly work through Matthew, Romans, 1st Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 2nd Thessalonians, 1st Timothy, and Revelation. Beale and Gladd discover most importantly that the term mystery is linked to Christ, the crucifixion and Christ’s heavenly reign in the cosmos. Beale and Gladd do justice to the biblical concepts of continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants in this important work.

Summery of some significant examples of Mystery and fulfillment in the Bible:

The conversion of the gentiles
Israel set aside and the gentiles graphed in
The restoration of Israel, (Romans chapter 11)
The marital mystery of Christ and His Church
The suffering Messiah and crucified King
Christ ruling the cosmos, both in the heavenly and earthly realms

One can say, the authors do an extraordinary job of taking away the mystery from the use of the term mystery in Scripture. Every serious student of Scripture should have this book in their library.

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com web site where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, an english professor’s journey into the christian faith
And,
Openness Unhindered
2012, 2015 Crown & Covenant
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Rosaria Champagne Butterfield

Both titles reviewed by Jack Kettler

I strongly encourage the reader of this review to get both books by Roaria Butterfield PhD. In these works, the reader will find an edifying story of God’s grace and redemption. Dr. Butterfield is a former lesbian, and also, a former radical tenured English professor at Syracuse University. Rosaria’s story reminded me of C.S. Lewis and how some are brought screaming and kicking into the Kingdom of God.

Both of these books are extremely personal. So much so, that you feel like you know her. Not only does Rosaria open her heart, but also her home. I have no doubt that her children will rise up and call her blessed (Proverbs 31:28). She has and is raising a house full of home schooled scholars. She even acquaints us with Murphy and Sally her now deceased beloved dogs.

Rosaria’s heart felt knowledge and fidelity to Reformed theology is awe-inspiring. She is well read in the theology of the Puritans. One of the blessings of both titles is the many gems from the Puritan writers she passes on to the reader. In fact, you could build a good library of theological titles she references. Her intense compassion for sinners, is clear in both works. Her exhortations to her fellow Christians are convicting in a positive way.

As a young Christian Rosaria endured trials that inspires hope in God’s grace. One Christian woman, while preparing food in the church kitchen, asked if it was safe to be alone with her. She rightly wondered if she would always be a marked woman. A former fiancée called off their wedding, within a couple of weeks of the event, an emotional shock few have experienced. He then went on to send letters to all the pastors in the Presbytery, asking them to review his reasons and decision to call off the wedding. I sympathize with her thoughts at this point that she was being scrutinized by a pack of alpha males. Through all of these, and many more trials, Rosaria’s faith did not waiver, but has continued to grow strong.

In her second book, Openness Unhindered, Rosaria takes the reader into some serious studies of sexual identity and politics. She aptly traces for what passes as current knowledge in the areas of sexual identity, comes from Sigmund Freud. Her insights on how to communicate with individuals struggling with sexual sin is noteworthy. Her humbleness and compassion for those struggling with these temptations is ennobling.

There are many important truths that the reader can learn from these two titles. I will use an endorsement from the Rosaria’s second book, since my words are inadequate to do justice to these indispensable works.

From the back cover of Openness Unhindered:

“King Jesus knows just what the church and world need, and just when we need it. When we needed a Pascal; behold, there was Pascal. When we needed Spurgeon, there he was. In his wisdom, Jesus knew that we would need the gift, right now, of Rosaria Butterfield. This book deals with some of the most difficult and incendiary questions with wit, joy, maturity, and, above all, radiating love.

If you’re struggling with sexual sin, this book will help you. If you are gripped with guilt from your past, this book will strengthen you. If you don’t know how to love or bear witness to your neighbors, this book will equip you. Like Jael of old, Rosaria Butterfield wields the tent peg of the gospel against deception and accusation. And with this book she nails it.”
Russell Moore, president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

Rosaria and her pastor husband Kent are leaders in pioneering hospitality ministries in the larger church. Every serious Christian and pastor will profit from reading and having these two books on hand for the needs of ministry. Rosaria is one of the best sources for information on the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) movement. I hope that these two books are the first of many more to come from the author.

Be sure to visit Rosaria’s site at:

Rosaria Butterfield

http://rosariabutterfield.com/

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com web site where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Can Judges make Law, or is it their Job to Interpret the Law? by Jack Kettler

Endeavoring to interpret laws in light of their original meaning is sometimes difficult. However, when judges depart from the written law in question and resort to judicial activism, or the making of new laws, they are in violation of Constitution.

How so?

The role assigned to judges in our system was to interpret the Constitution and lesser laws, not to make them. It was to protect the integrity of the Constitution, not to add to it or subtract from it—certainly not to rewrite it. For as the framers knew, unless judges are bound by the text of the Constitution, we will, in fact, no longer have a government of laws, but of men and women who are judges. And if that happens, the words of the documents that we think govern us will be just masks for the personal and capricious rule of a small elite.1 – President Ronald Reagan

(1) Ronald Reagan, Remarks at the Swearing-In Ceremony for Anthony M. Kennedy as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Feb. 18, 1988).

In a recent landmark opinion, a divided Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples can marry nationwide, establishing a new civil right (or a new law, while at the same time invalidating constitutional laws of many state legislators) and handing gay rights deviants a victory.

Figuratively, Kennedy is stabbing President Reagan and all Americans in the back:

In the 5-4 ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority of the four activist justices in violation his constitutional oath of office.

Consider some of the fallout over this:

“This court is not a legislature,” and “Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.” – Obama/care savior, justice John Roberts

We can agree that in his analysis of the court’s ruling, Obama/care savior is correct in his criticism that court is acting as a legislature. Since the court has clearly overstep its constitutional boundary, the ruling is not law, and should not be treated as such. It is simply the opinion of 5 activists who wear black robes.

It is perplexing why the majority of the prominent critics of the recent court opinion, are treating this opinion like it is the law. Especially when people are being forced to violate their beliefs as in the case of the Kentucky clerk who in jail for refusing to follow the opinions of 5 activist black robe wearers, who have been elected by no one. In fact two of the activists should not even be on the court in light of the fact they were nominated by Barry Soetoro, an ineligible fraud and serial lying con-man.

For example:

GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina told the Hugh Hewitt radio show that it was inappropriate for a Kentucky clerk to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. “When you are a government employee as opposed to say, an employee of another kind of organization, then in essence, you are agreeing to act as an arm of the government, and while I disagree with this court’s decision, their actions are clear,” she said.

Does Fiorina belief the court’s ruling is law, or an opinion? Fiorina is hardly alone in going along with the latest judicial activism and saying people should submit to it. What does she propose as a remedy? Getting the republiCON leadership to do something?

Not only is Kim Davis, the county clerk from Kentucky being consistent with her faith, she is doing what all local lesser magistrates should do, ignore UN-constitutional opinions of the court. The lesser magistrate is suppose to protect the citizens from federal government tyranny.

Find out why at:

http://americanvision.org/12412/kim-davis-is-doing-what-every-christian-magistrate-should/

http://americanvision.org/12425/kim-davis-and-the-call-to-all-christian-officials/

In agreement with Reagan and the constitution, GOP candidate Mike Huckabee said:

“Judicial review is exactly what we have lived under; we have not lived under judicial supremacy,” “The Supreme Court can’t make a law; the legislature has to make it, the executive has to sign it and enforce it. The notion that the Supreme Court comes up with a ruling and that automatically subjects the two other branches to following it defies everything there is to equal branches of government.”

Learn more why the Supreme Court Offers Opinion, Doesn’t Make Law at:

Supreme Court Offers Opinion, Doesn’t Make Law

If we agree with President Reagan’s view, we must treat these actions by the court as mere opinions, and not law.

What should be done?

All lower elected magistrates should consider the Kennedy opinion, nothing more than an opinion and ignore it.

“For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy to be reckoned among the number of mankind. We ought, rather, to spit upon their heads than to obey them.” – John Calvin (Commentary on Daniel, Lecture XXX Daniel 6:22)

“If they (government authorities) command anything against Him (God), let it go unesteemed. And here let us not be concerned about all the dignity which the magistrates possess.” – John Calvin (The Institution of the Christian Religion, written in 1536)

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com web site where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

The Constitution, What Has Gone Wrong? By Jack Kettler

For those who have loved the freedoms we have enjoyed in this great nation, it may be painful to consider the following thoughts on the Constitution from Lyander Spooner.

Who is Lysander Spooner?

Lysander Spooner was an 19th Century American individualist, political philosopher and business entrepreneur. The two following quotes from Spooner come from his book titled; No Treason The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner.

Lysander Spooner observed:

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

It is obvious that almost all of the checks and balances put into the constitution, have broken down. It is also becoming apparent that there is in reality on one political party in Washington and that is the “giant government party.” For the most part, the politicians are bought and paid for. The supreme court in recent decisions has manifested itself to be nothing more than a rubber stamp court twisting the plain language of the constitution out of all logical context, making a mockery of the English Language. Therefore, it appears beyond dispute that Spooner is correct in the above quote.

Spooner continued his devastating critique of the constitution:

“And yet we have what purports, or professes, or is claimed, to be a contract—the Constitution—made eighty years ago, by men who are now all dead, and who never had any power to bind us, but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound three generations of men, consisting of many millions, and which (it is claimed) will be binding upon all the millions that are to come; but which nobody ever signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged; and which few persons, compared with the whole number that are claimed to be bound by it, have ever read, or even seen, or ever will read, or see.”

Spooner continues:

“Our constitutions purport to be established by ‘the people,’ and, in theory, ‘all the people’ consent to such government as the constitutions authorize. But this consent of ‘the people’ exists only in theory. It has no existence in fact. Government is in reality established by the few; and these few assume the consent of all the rest, without any such consent being actually given.”

What about this supposed social contract, is it binding? Consider the following from author Robert Higgs:

“In regard to the so-called social contract, I have often had occasion to protest that I haven’t even seen the contract, much less been asked to consent to it. A valid contract requires voluntary offer, acceptance, and consideration. I’ve never received an offer from my rulers, so I certainly have not accepted one; and rather than consideration, I have received nothing but contempt from the rulers, who, notwithstanding the absence of any agreement, have indubitably threatened me with grave harm in the event that I fail to comply with their edicts.”

Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe elaborates more on this supposed contract:

“No, the state is anything but the result of a contract! No one with even just an ounce of common sense would agree to such a contract. I have a lot of contracts in my files, but nowhere is there one like this. The state is the result of aggressive force and subjugation. It has evolved without contractual foundation, just like a gang of protection racketeers. And concerning the struggle of all against all: that is a myth.”

James Madison was keenly aware of the dangers of the government being created. Madison said:

“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be to-morrow.”

In the book Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent by Harvey Silvergate is in agreement with Madison’s concerns:

“We are in danger of becoming a society in which prosecutors alone become judges, juries and executioners because the threat of high sentences makes it too costly for even innocent people to resist the prosecutorial pressure. That is why nearly all criminal defendants today plead guilty to “reduced” charges rather than risk a trial with draconian sentences in the event of a conviction.”

It is only a slight exaggeration to say that the average busy professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, takes care of personal and family obligations, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she likely committed several federal crimes that day.

Most freedom loving patriots today know that something has gone horribly wrong. John Adam’s insight on what could go wrong and why is spot on:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Noah Webster concurs with Adams:

“The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence.”

Both Adams and Webster hit the nail on the head regarding what has gone wrong with our constitutional system of government. Most readers are well aware that our American constitutional republican form of government has been subverted into a democracy, an evil form of government!

How is democracy evil?

Democracy forces you to be in conformity with the demands of the “will of the people,” regardless of what economic realism, common sense, or what biblical law says.Democracy obligates you to relinquish your freedom and your assets including property for the so-called “general welfare” Article 1, Section 8, today a grossly misinterpreted term. Democracy in the end, destroys freedom and property. It is consumed by the parasites who vote for the political prostitutes who promise to give away the fruits of stolen capital from the productive sector of society.

At first, democracy is very particular on who is allowed into the country. There are strictly enforced immigration laws only allowing in people who have something to contribute along with secure boarders.In the late stages before a democracy collapses, the politicians who promise people free things to get elected, find that many people are starting to recognize the voting scam for what it is. In order to keep the scam of democracy going, the politicians need more stupid people who cannot not recognize the political lies. In the case of the U.S. the corrupt vote buying political prostitutes (most politicians) create an open boarder disaster and start flooding the country with millions of stupid people who fall victim to specious promises of the vote buying prostitutes. The new wave of immigrant law breakers are coming for government handouts, taken from people who are producers and given to non-producing bums and parasites.

Consider professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s thoughts on democracy:

“What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty.”

“One-man-one-vote combined with “free entry” into government-democracy–implies that every person and his personal property comes within reach of-and is up for grabs by everyone else: a ‘tragedy of the commons” is created.”

“Democracy allows for A and B to band together to rip off C. This is not justice, but a moral outrage.”

Adams and Webster would put the root cause of failure of the Republic as a result of an immoral people. I would agree. This brings us to another point well made by Spooner concerning the operation and legitimacy of the state.

Where we are at today? Spooner’s analysis get right to the point:

“The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life…The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber…Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful ‘sovereign,’ on account of the ‘protection’ he affords you.”

In his article “Forget the Constitution” at LewRockwell.com, John Keller notes:

“Our patriots fought for individual, God given rights, instead of aetheistic utopian groups rights. Still, the men who founded our current Republic by writing and ratifying the Constitution understood the dangerous path they were taking. Students of antiquity, they tried to avoid following the Roman path of Kingdom, then Republic, then Empire, by writing everything down. It turns out in practice that the “social contract” cannot bind the politician or the entrenched bureaucrat, any more than the Soviet Union could make the New Soviet Man. In hindsight we can see that a piece of paper is no match for the linguistic gymnastics of our permanent caste of lawyer kings.

When things do change in this country, it will not be because the bureaucrats, professional liars, and assorted utopians come to work one day and say “Gee, we failed in our job. The private market would be so much better at this.” It will be because the people have finally figured out that Ben Franklin was right all along, liberty can’t be traded for security, and it looks like Rothbard, Spooner, and Patrick Henry were right about the Constitution.”

Kevin Craig makes the following comment about what has happened:

“And the Congress has effectively destroyed Constitutional government in America, replacing it with “The Administrative State” by delegating unconstitutional authority to swarms of bureaucrats.”

The following description of our current form of government is hard to beat:

“What is this oozing behemoth, this fibrous tumor, this monster of power and expense hatched from the simple human desire for civic order? How did an allegedly free people spawn a vast, rampant cuttlefish of dominion with its tentacles in every orifice of the body politic?” – P. J. O’Rourke, Parliament of Whores

It is hard to disagree with the following sentiments:

“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” – H.L. Mencken

In closing it can be said, the original Constitutional construction of government no longer exists. In fact, the Constitution has been destroyed by a powerful centralized federal government.

We must again take seriously what is set forth in the following article:

Civil Government and Resistance

“And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.” – Isaiah 49:23 (KJV).

“The orthodox churches believe also, and do willingly acknowledge, that every lawful magistrate, being by God himself constituted the keeper and defender of both tables of the law, may and ought first and chiefly to take care of God’s glory, and (according to his place, or in his manner and way) to preserve religion when pure, and to restore it when decayed and corrupted: and also to provide a learned and godly ministry, schools also and synods, as likewise to restrain and punish as well atheists, blasphemers, heretics and schismatics, as the violators of justice and civil peace.” – George Gillespie, Works, 1:12.

“Moreover, to kings, princes, rulers, and magistrates, we affirm that chiefly and most principally the conservation and purgation of the religion appertains; so that not only they are appointed for civil policy, but also for maintenance of the true religion, and for suppressing of idolatry and superstition whatsoever: as in David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, and others, highly commended for their zeal in that case, may be espied.” The Scottish Confession of Faith (written by John Knox and others), Chapter 24, 1560. “Yet civil government has as its appointed end, so long as we live among men, to cherish and protect the outward worship of God, to defend sound doctrine of piety and the position of the church, to adjust our life to the society of men, to form our social behavior to civil righteousness, to reconcile us with one another, and to promote general peace and tranquility.” – John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4:20:2.

“Reformation is desperately needed in our languishing nations. In the past, not only did biblical reformation sweep the church in doctrine, worship, and government, but also reformation of biblical Christianity was promoted and accelerated by Christian magistrates who wholeheartedly supported and defended the ministry of the reformed churches. Reformation is never easy. The truth is no more fashionable today than it was at the time of our reformed and covenanted forefathers. If we would see reformation we must return to the old paths of our God and of our forefathers. What is presented in the following pages is not a novel view of civil magistracy, but one which is believed to be both biblical and representative of our reformed and presbyterian forefathers from the covenanted reformation at the time of the Westminster Assembly. Civil magistracy is a blessed ordinance of the living God, given to the human family in order that it might reflect the order in which God so much delights (“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace” 1 Cor. 14:33). This ordinance should be so cherished by God’s people that when the ruling civil magistrate cannot be owned as “the ordinance of God” within a nation, the hearts of God’s people both sadly bemoan that fact and earnestly pray that God would in His mercy remove His righteous anger from the land and grant nursing fathers to the church. May God be pleased to open the eyes of His people to the need for reformation in the divine ordinance of civil magistracy.” – Greg Price, Biblical Civil Government Versus the Beast; and, The Basis For Civil Resistance, free online at http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/bibcg_gp.htm.

“Maybe now you can understand why the national reformations that took place in the OT always included the recognition and national confession of the sins of the fathers — for those sins brought God’s wrath upon the nation (2 Chr. 34:21, 2 Chr. 29:6-7, 2 Chron. 30:7-9, Ezra 9:6-10:2, Neh. 9:2-37)”. Previous attainments and obligations continue to bind the national moral person (for more on the “moral person” of nations and churches see Scott’s Distinctive Principles of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, pp. 61,70,195f.,285f. and Robert’s The Reformed Presbyterian Catechism, p. 150). Moreover, these teachings formed the biblical basis as to why the Reformers (especially during the second Reformation) where always eager to seek out the causes of God’s wrath, and repent of these, whether individual, ecclesiastical or national. The best Reformers did not try to gather together all manner of infidels, idolaters, sectarians, etc. and form some kind of general, moralistic, conservative crusade to uplift the nation — never! (Cf. Gillespie’s “Another Most Useful Case of Conscience Discussed and Resolved, Concerning Associations and Confederacies With Idolaters, Infidels, Heretics, or Any Other Know Enemies of Truth and Godliness” in his “Treatise of Miscellany Questions”, Works, volume two). They aimed at purifying and unifying the church, state and family on the basis of a covenanted uniformity — always seeking to be faithful to Christ’s Crown and Covenant and shunning all suggestions of humanly based solutions to the problems of the day! They looked first to God’s mercy and grace (after recognition and confession of sin of course) in their individual lives; and they weren’t about to start to build on a resurrected covenant of works, after having faithfully begun building on the covenant of grace, in the civil or ecclesiastical realms either — when dealing with the reformation of church and state. This is why the Reformations under Asa, Hezekiah, Josiah, Ezra and Nehemiah all involved the biblical aspects listed below. They sought to: 1. Nationally eradicate idolatry and false religion (with iconoclastic zeal) (cf. 2 Chron. 34:3-7; 2 Chron. 31:1; 2 Chron. 15:8; 2 Chron. 15:16, etc.). 2. Nationally promote the true worship, discipline, and doctrine of the church of Christ (2 Chron. 29:11-30:6; 2 Chron. 30:12-27; Ezra 10:10vv.; Neh. 10:31-32, etc.). 3. Nationally establish the one true religion and church (cf. 2 Chron. 34:8- 17; 2 Chron. 29:3-5; 2 Chron. 31:2-3; 2 Chron. 31:20-21; 2 Chron. 32:12, etc.). 4. Nationally confess their own sins and the sins of their fathers (2 Chron. 34:21; 2 Chron. 29:6-7; 2 Chron. 30:7-9; Ezra 9:6-10:2; Neh. 9:2-37, etc.). 5. Nationally publish the truth (2 Chron. 34:30; Ezra 10:7-8, etc.). 6. Nationally renew covenant with God (with specific regard to the present testimony) and set the state upon a fully covenanted biblical pattern, agreeing to nationally obey the law of God (2 Chron. 34:31; 2 Chron. 29:10; 2 Chron. 15:12-15; Ezra 10:3-4; Neh. 9:38-10:31, etc.). 7. Nationally cause (by civil power) the inhabitants of the nation to stand to the covenant (2 Chron. 34:32-33; 2 Chron. 15:12-13; Ezra 10:5, etc.).” – Dr. Reg Barrow, A Contemporary Covenanting Debate; Or, Covenanting Redivivus (Reg Barrow Debates Joe Bell), free online at http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/covdebrb.htm.

“There is not a single square inch of the entire cosmos of which Christ the sovereign Lord of all does not say, ‘This is mine.’” – Abraham Kuyper

Resource Links:

http://kevincraig.us/constitution.htm

The Bible verses the man-made Constitution

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com web site where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

The Fallacy and Contradiction of so-called Neutral Government Courts by Jack Kettler

The following material is my ongoing rambling thoughts on the nation’s descent into tyranny.

Article VI of the Constitution says:

The Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The supremacy clause asserts the Constitution is the “supreme” law of the Land, not treaties with foreign governments or global organizations, such as the UN.

In the 10th Amendment we read:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This Amendment does not contradict the “supremacy clause,” it clarifies the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution. Today the federal government is engaged in massive overreach, clearly violating the 10th Amendment.

How do we rectify this now that the separation of powers has clearly broken down? There are countless disputes between federal and state courts. Many people assume that the Supreme Court can resolve these disputes.

Consider this:

It is a fact that the federal judges are appointees and employees of the federal government. Is the federal government a neutral disinterested party? How can a federal court or Supreme Court be neutral to rule upon a case that they have an interest in or are a party to? It is a basic principle not to have a party that is involved in a dispute be the sole judge of its own case.

To elaborate why a federal court which is branch of the government is not neutral party, consider the following excerpt from the FSK’s Guide to Reality from a post called “Cargo Cult Justice:”

Another example of “Cargo Cult Science” is global warming research. Scientists who give the State-preferred opinion get research grants, and the opposite opinion is denied funding. Most “global warming computer simulations” have “carbon dioxide causes global warming” as an assumption. The computer model is using circular reasoning. In the “Climategate” scandal, global warming scientists were caught faking their data. A group of State-licensed scientists concluded that the State-licensed scientists did nothing wrong. What a surprise! It’s as impartial as the “internal affairs” division of the State police monopoly.

The US legal system has degenerated into “Cargo Cult Justice.” Judges go through the motions of being fair and impartial. They’re just making up excuses to justify State evil. The problem is that the State legal system has a monopoly. You don’t get appointed as a State judge unless you’re a severe pro-State troll and you’re very politically connected. There’s no accountability when the State justice system abuses State power. State judges don’t know that they’re frauds. They go through the motions of justice without performing actual justice. See full post at: http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/2010/08/cargo-cult-justice.html

In disputes with the states, the federal courts are never neutral. The judges, the court licensed attorneys working for the federal government have a vested interest in the federal law prevailing.

Even the media is controlled by the government:

We are now, my friends, in a situation where the majority of Americans get their news and information about what is going on with their government from entities that are licensed by and subject to punishment at the hands of that very government. Nobody can truly believe that this is what our founding fathers had in mind.- Neal Boortz

A recent article from Republic Magazine regarding the high court’s upholding Obama law:

John Roberts, Constitutional Traitor: Chief Justice Approves Obamacare Tax Mandate

In a ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court — the same entity that acknowledged in 1819 that the “power to tax is the power to destroy” – has ruled that the federal government can use the taxing power to compel its subjects to participate in a government-run corporatist health care system.

Roberts’ ruling is applied Leninism – a pragmatic way of justifying the government’s intention to exercise “power without limit, resting directly on force.” Money and time are essentially the same thing; one earns money by investing his time – an irreplaceable and finite quantity – in commerce or labor. Through taxation the State steals life incrementally, rather than destroying it outright.

In his decision, Chief Justice Roberts has placed the High Court’s imprimatur on the proposition that the regime ruling us can steal our lives incrementally in order to force each of us to participate in a health care program that will regulate every aspect of the lives that remain – and either kill or imprison those of us who refuse to participate.

See more at: http://www.republicmagazine.com/news/john-roberts-constitutional-traitor-chief-justice-approves-obamacare-tax-mandate.html#sthash.j7XG9lpZ.dpuf

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a scathing dissent, describing the Court’s ruling as the “defense of the indefensible,” “somersaults of statutory interpretations,” and said, “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”

Presidential hopeful, Senator Ted Cruz tells members of Supreme Court to “Resign and run for Congress, if those justices want to become legislators.” Cruz is correct to see the tyranny in the recent Robert’s ruling for Obama law.

It is now becoming obvious that the high court is becoming a Stalinist rubber stamp supporting federal government tyranny. One thing is obvious, Roberts writing for the majority of the federal government high court employees, has made sure the fed gov keeps growing in power over the people.

Some have said there are ways to put the brakes on an out of control federal judiciary. For example, Dr. Ben Carson has argued that the high court is not able to make law nor does it have the final say on law:

First of all, we have to understand how the Constitution works, the president is required to carry out the laws of the land, the laws of the land come from the legislative branch. So if the legislative branch creates a law or changes a law, the executive branch has a responsibly to carry it out. It doesn’t say they have the responsibility to carry out a judicial law [judge made law].

Thomas Jefferson speaks in a similar way in a letter to Abigail Adams:

You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the Sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, more than the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because the power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, were bound to remit the execution of it: because that power has been confided to them by the Constitution. That instrument [the Constitution] meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.

Dr. Carson and Jefferson are correct in their understanding of the limits of judicial review. Unfortunately, the supreme court in now seen as the final arbitrator and maker of law.

Consider a bleak assessment of the constitutional inability to stop tyranny:

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. – 19th Century attorney, Lysander Spooner

The congress and courts have for all practicable purposes, have failed to stop government abuse. It appears, there is now only one political party in Washington D.C, and it is the big government party. The people have become slaves. Is this there any way to stop this tyranny?

Lysander Spooner believed that a jury was the only way to resolve disputes where the jury had the right to rule on the law itself. He says:

If the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of the government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law.

For more than six hundred years — that is, since the Magna Carta in 1215 — there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust, oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating or resisting the execution of such laws.

For example, what if an evil leader pressured the legislature to pass a law that would erect statues of the leader in every major city. Anyone passing by who did not bow down and kiss the ground would be guilty and sentenced to death. This is an extreme example, but easy to see that technically, a person could easily be guilty by violating this insane law. The jury has the right to declare this law null and void. It is shocking, today, judges would tell the jury to only consider the facts of the case. If the jury did this, the defendant would be executed. When judges fail to inform a jury that they can also rule on the morality of the law, is itself tyranny.

Combine jury nullification with state nullification and we have a way to win back freedom!

Consider, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.’

Jeffrey Tucker interviews Tom Woods on the topic of Tom’s latest book ‘Nullification:

Why is nullification so vilified today by so-called conservatives? Let’s remember our history on Independence Day this year when we should be grieving for our loss of liberties.

The ultimate form of nullification:

Preamble to the Declaration Of Independence

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Can Government Abridge God Given Rights?

No government possesses any real legal power to violate an individual’s God given, unalienable rights! Why? Because these rights are from God. Corrupt governments can and do unconstitutionally try to impede the use of man’s unalienable God given rights. It is of the utmost importance to know, that our rights are not given to us by government. The purpose of civil government is to secure these rights from God. If government gives the rights, then they can take them away. In this sense, rights given by government is a misnomer. All a government can give are privileges or exemptions to their friends and organizations who are being bought off.

In light of the fact that the original Constitutional compact gives the citizens the right to resist government tyranny, non-Compliance is a Christian Duty in which to Remedy the Unjust Usurpation of Freedom by the fed gov., when the spineless potted plant like Congress fails to protect our God Given Liberties! The people, the body politic are the last resort to stop tyranny. We are the final jury. As noted by Spooner, historically the jury could find a defendant innocent, even if violating a law, that the jury determined was unjust.

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com web site where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Democracy for Dummies by Jack Kettler

There are many political leaders today and in recent times who say positive things about democracy. Perhaps you have heard some of them extol the supposed virtues of democracy, like: “we have to make the world safe for democracy” or, vowing to “promote democracy both at home and abroad.”

The following quotes are from a wide range of sources. They demonstrate sound thinking on the topic of democracy throughout history. Some of quotes are quite funny, other dead serious. Next time you attend a political speech and the speaker starts spouting off about democracy, ask them for comment on some of the following quotes.

This list of quotes on Democracy is one of the largest collections you can find:

“Democracy is the road to socialism.” – Karl Marx

“We believe socialism and democracy are one and indivisible.” – Socialist Party U.S.A.

“Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else.” – Hans-Herman Hoppe

Some thoughts from the Founding Fathers on Democracy:

“Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths… A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.” – James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787).

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” – Ben Franklin

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” John Adams

“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” – Chief Justice John Marshall

“Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.” – John Witherspoon

A collection of important insights on Democracy:

“Democracy… is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.” – Plato

“In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.” – Aristotle

“The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don’t have to waste your time voting.” – Charles Bukowski

“The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.” – John F. Kennedy

“Democracy is the menopause of Western society, the Grand Climacteric of the body social.” – Jean Baudrillard

Democracy is also a form of religion:

“It is the worship of jackals by jackasses.” – H. L. Mencken

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” – H.L. Mencken

“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.” – H.L Mencken

“Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they’ve told you what you think it is you want to hear.” – Alan Corenk

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” – Winston Churchill

“In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority” – Edmund Burke

“Democratism and its allied herd movements, while remaining loyal to the principle of equality and identity, will never hesitate to sacrifice liberty.” – Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

“Despite popular rhetoric, democracy is not synonymous with freedom. Taking something without permission is theft, but not when the majority goes along with it and calls it taxation. Matters that should be of no interest to any other person (e.g., what a person chooses to do with his or her body) become matters of public policy when the majority says so. The recipe is fairly straightforward. All you have to do is appoint someone else to initiate force on your behalf, get enough people to pick the same candidate, and then hide behind the waving banner of free and open elections. The syllogism goes something like: The initiation of force is wrong, so I cannot initiate force without punishment. Democratic elections are good. I help to elect someone to public office, then he or she initiates force on my behalf.” – Brian Drake

Most people are cowardly and would not rob their neighbor with a weapon, instead as Mr. Drake has just pointed out, the people use the government to steal for them.

“Parliamentary government is simply a mild and disguised form of compulsion. We agree to try strength by counting heads instead of breaking heads, but the principle is exactly the same… The minority gives way not because it is convinced that it is wrong, but because it is convinced that it is a minority.” – James Fitzjames Stephen

“I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.” – Thomas Carlyle

“The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.” and, “It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority. For there is a reserve of latent power in the masses which, if it is called into play, the minority can seldom resist.” – Lord Acton

“It is a logical absurdity to equate democracy with freedom in the way that mainstream political philosophers and commentators typically do. A system where individuals and minorities are at the mercy of unconstrained majorities hardly constitutes freedom in any meaningful sense.” – Keith Preston

“The concept of the Will of the People is dangerously arbitrary. Certainly not worthy of being the foundation of a rational and practical political system.” – Stephen Townshend

“Democracy is mob rule with income taxes.” – Gloria Steinem

“Gang rape is democracy in action.” ~MRDA~

“Democracy plus Islam, equals, radical Islam” – unknown

“Democracy is the will of the people. Every morning I am surprised to read in the newspaper what I want.” – Wim Kan, Dutch comedian

Thoughts on the inevitable results of Democracy in the Civil Realm:

“Every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.”- H.L. Mencken

“Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” – Frederic Bastiat

“Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.” – Ludwig von Mises, Austrian economist and great free market defender

Many people agree with the following sentiments on the inability to keep government growth in check once democracy takes hold:

“The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it’s good-bye to the Bill of Rights.” – H.L. Mencken

Speaking about the hand in the neighbor’s pocket:

“Where shall we get to and how are we to maintain progress if we increasingly adopt a way of life in which no one wants any longer to assume responsibility for himself and everyone seeks security in collectivism?” Ludwig Erhard, former German Chancellor See Ludwig Erhard’s The German Miracle vs. the Welfare State.

“Democracy is majority rule at the expense of the minority. Our system has certain democratic elements, but the founders never mentioned democracy in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence. In fact, our most important protections are decidedly undemocratic. For example, the First Amendment protects free speech. It doesn’t – or shouldn’t – matter if that speech is abhorrent to 51% or even 99% of the people. Speech is not subject to majority approval. Under our republican form of government, the individual, the smallest of minorities, is protected from the mob” – Ron Paul

“Democracy? I want nothing to do with a system which operates on the premise that my rights don’t exist simply because I am outnumbered.” – R. Lee Wrights

“The problem with [democracy] socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” – Margaret Thatcher

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” – Sir Alexander Fraser Tyler, Scottish historian

Consider two quotes by economic professor Hans-Herman Hoppe author of the powerful book; Democracy – The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order.

“What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty.” – Hanse-Hermann Hoppe

“Thus, if one is indeed concerned about America’s moral decay and wants to restore normalcy to society and culture, one must oppose all aspects of the modern social-welfare state. A return to normalcy requires no less than the complete elimination of the present social security system: of unemployment insurance, social security, medicare, medicaid, public education, etc.- and thus the near complete dissolution and deconstruction of the current state apparatus and government power. If one is ever to restore normalcy, government funds and power must dwindle to or even fall below their nineteenth century levels. Hence, true conservatives must be hard-line libertarians (antistatists).” – Hanse-Hermann Hoppe

“You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.” – John Adams

It is significant that Adams grounds these rights in the biblical God and not from government!

The following article is a good theological analysis of democracy:

THE HERESY OF DEMOCRACY WITH GOD

By Rousas John Rushdoony [From Chalcedon Position Paper No.6]

A YOUNG woman, mother of a girl of six years, described conditions in the grade school (K-6) across from their church. One teacher is openly a lesbian. Some boys regularly drag screaming girls into the boys’ restroom to expose themselves to the girls, and nothing is done about it. The leading church officer had an answer to her call for a Christian School: he did not believe in spiritual isolationism for Christians, and this is what Christian Schools represent. Unusual? On the contrary, all too common an attitude.

In Chalcedon Position Paper no. 2, I wrote on “Can We Tithe Our Children?”, I quoted Psalm 128:1,

“Blessed is every one that feareth the Lord; that walketh in his ways.”

This fell into the hands of a minister, who was apparently very upset by it. He corrected the word of God, and wrote to declare, “I do not like the word feareth, Rather loveth the Lord.” Unusual? No, all too common.

A pastor, planning to speak on Biblical authority had the word “authority” altered in the church bulletin by members to read “leadership.” A prominent church publication spoke with ridicule and hatred of all who would believe in anything so “primitive” as Biblical law. Another pastor, planning to discipline a seriously sinning member, was attacked by his fellow pastors at a church meeting; somehow, it is unloving to deal with sin as God’s word requires it.

Is it necessary to give further examples? More pastors lose pulpits for their faithfulness to Scripture than for any other reason. Trifling excuses are found to make possible the dissolution of a pastoral relationship. Open sin is condoned, and simple faithfulness is despised. The telephone rings regularly to bring reports of fresh instances of churches in revolt against God and His word. Gary North is right. Humanism’s accomplices are in the church (Christian Reconstruction, III,2).

Much of this stems from one of the great heresies of our day, the belief in democracy. At the beginning of the century, some churchmen began talking about the democracy of God, i.e., that God wants a universe where He and His creatures can work and plan together in a democratic way. Of course, if our relationship with God is a democratic one, we can correct the Bible where it displeases us, eliminate what we cannot correct, and use other standards and tests for the church and the clergy than God’s enscriptured word. Then, logically, our word is as good as God’s word, and as authoritative as God’s.

In his important study, The Heresy of Democracy (1955), Lord Percy of Newcastle declared of democracy that it is “philosophy which is nothing less than a new religion” (p. 16). The justification for all things is not to be found in the triune God but in the people. Virtue means meeting people’s needs, and the democratic state, church, and God have one function, to supply human wants. State, school, church, and God become chaplains to man, called upon to bow down before man’s authority. In fact, Lord Percy said of state schools, “This is, indeed, democracy’s characteristic Mark of the Beast… of all means of assimilation, the most essential to democracy is a uniform State-controlled education” (p.13). To challenge that system is to shake democracy’s structure, including its state and church. Earlier, Fichte saw statist education in messianic terms: “Progress is that perfection of education by which the Nation is made Man.”

Within the church, the modernists first advocated the state as God’s voice and instrument. Wellhausen, the German leader of the higher criticism of the Old Testament, declared: “We must acknowledge that the Nation is more certainly created by God than the Church, and that God works more powerfully in the history of nations than in Church history.”

Behind all this is the question of authority: is it from God, or from man? If God is the sovereign authority over all things, then His law-word alone can govern all things. Religion, politics, economics, science, education, law and all things else must be under God, or they are in revolt!

If the ultimate authority is man, then all things must serve man and bow down before man’s authority. As T. Robert Ingram has so clearly pointed out in What’s Wrong with Human Rights (1979), the doctrine of human rights is the humanistic replacement for Biblical law. Man now being regarded as sovereign, his rights have replaced God’s law as the binding force and authority over man and his world.

The cultural effects of this change have been far reaching. In a remarkably brilliant and telling study, Ann Douglas, in The Feminization of American Culture (I977), has shown the effects of Unitarianism and religious liberalism on American culture. From a God-centred emphasis (not necessarily consistent or thorough in application), a man centred focus emerged. The new justification of women became the cult of motherhood (a humanistic, man centred focus), and for men and women alike, “doing good” for one’s fellow men. With this new emphasis, men left the church, or regarded it as peripheral to their lives, and the liberal clergy developed the fundamentals of what we have today as soap opera religion. In Ann Douglas’ delightfully incisive wording, it’s hardly accidental that soap opera, an increasing speciality of nineteenth century liberal Protestantism, is a “phenomenon which we associate with the special needs of feminine subculture” (p.48). Liberal religion feminized the clergy, made women and Christianity irrelevant to life, and created a spineless, gutless clergy for whom the faith is sentimental talk and not the power of God unto salvation. To quote Dr. Douglas again, “The liberal minister who abandoned theology lost his right to start from the ‘facts’ of the Bible as his predecessors understood them: that God made man, man sinned against him, and God had and has the right to assign any punishment he judges fit for the offences” (p. 200).

This humanistic soap-opera religion conquered other areas of the church. Arminianism quickly adopted it, as did much of Calvinism, as their emphases shifted from God’s sovereign act of salvation to man’s ostensible choice, or man’s experience, and from the centrality and authority of the word, to an emotional, experientially governed “heart-religion.”

In this humanist parody of Christianity, man’s experience has priority over God’s word. One “Christian worker” told me that it was unwise for people to read the Bible without the guidance of a “real” experience of “Spirit-filled” heart religion. Of course, for him the Spirit freed him from the word, a heretical opinion. One pastor, who announced a series of sermons on authority, i.e., the authority of God, of His word, authority under God, etc., was told bluntly that he should preach on “fellowship” with God, not God’s authority. When churchmen are hostile to God’s authority, they are not Christians. Fellowship with God through Christ is on His terms and under His grace and authority.

“If we say we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth” (I John 1:6).

A church which denies God’s authority will be in no position to resist the state’s authority. It will look to authorities other than the Lord’s for its justification, and, in yielding to the state, it will do so in the spirit of cooperation, not compromise, because its true fellowship is with man and the state, not the Lord. Ambrose, in A.D. 385, resisted the state’s requisition of a church in Milan, declaring, “What belongs to God is outside the emperor’s power.” Ambrose said further, in his ‘Sermon Against Auxentius’, “We pay to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. Tribute is due to Caesar, we do not deny it. The Church belongs to God, therefore it ought not to be assigned to Caesar. For the temple of God cannot be Caesar’s by right.” The emperor, he added, could be in the church by faith, but never above or over it.

Chrysostom, in dealing also with conflict with Caesar, warned his people, in Concerning the Statutes, Homily III, 19:

“This certainly I foretell and testify, that although this cloud should pass away, and we yet remain in the same condition of listlessness, we shall again have to suffer much heavier evils than those we are now dreading; for I do not so much fear the wrath of the Emperor, as your own listlessness.”

Here Chrysostom put his finger on the heart of the matter: the threat was less the emperor and more a listless and indifferent church. The same problem confronts us today. The greater majority of church members do not feel that Christianity is worth fighting for, let alone dying for. They only want the freedom to be irrelevant, and to emit pious gush as a substitute for faithfulness and obedience. In soap opera religion, life is without dominion; instead, it is a forever abounding mess, met with a sensitive and bleeding heart. Soap opera religion is the faith of the castrated, of the impotent, and the irrelevant. The devotees of soap opera religion are full of impotent self-pity and rage over the human predicament, but are devoid of any constructive action; only destruction and negation become them.

The heresy of democracy leads to the triumph of sentimental religion. Dr. Douglas defines sentimentalism thus:

“Sentimentalism is a cluster of ostensibly private feelings which always attains public and conspicuous expression” (p. 307). The focus in sentimental religion shifts from God’s word to man’s feelings, and from basic doctrine to psychology and human needs. The doctrine of the sovereignty of man means the sovereignty of the total man, and all his feelings. We have a generation now whose concern is themselves, whose self-love blots out reality and truth.

So great is this self-absorption that, in any office, faculty, church group, or other fellowship, there are commonly persons who give their momentous personal communiques on purely private matters: “I didn’t sleep well last night … I’m so tired today…Nothing I eat agrees with me lately, and I’m always gassy… I saw the film and used oodles of Kleenex. … The colour green always upsets me… I can’t bear to have children around …” and so on and on. Purely private feelings are announced as though the world should react, be concerned, and be governed by them.

Even worse, God is approached with a similar endless gush of private feelings, as though God should be concerned and upset when an egomaniac is distressed. Few people pray, asking, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” (Acts 9:6). Rather, they pray with a list of demands on God, for Him to supply. Now Paul declares that God will supply all our needs “according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:19), but that promise is preceded by an epistle which speaks at length of God’s requirements of us, and also calls for contentment on our parts with our God-decreed lot (Philippians 4: 11).

Basic also to the heresy of democracy in the church is its belief, not only in man’s needs as against God’s requirements, but its belief in the irrelevance of God’s law. If man is sovereign, God’s law cannot bind man, and both hell and justice fade away. God, then, is allowed only one approach to man – love. He is portrayed as needing, yearning for, and calling for man’s love.

Man is in the driver’s seat, to accept or reject that plea. Lord Percy stated it succinctly: “A mere breaker of law… may always be saved; but there is no salvation for the deniers of law” (p.108). They have denied God’s sovereignty and His power to save. Their only logical relationship to God, then, is not by salvation but by man-ordained fellowship. Then, too, what man has ordained, man can destroy, so there is efficacious salvation, and no perseverance of the saints.

This brings us to the conclusion of sovereign man. On both sides of the “Iron curtain,” politicians trumpet the claim that theirs is the free world. “The free world” is a curious and popular term in the twentieth century, so commonly used that its meaning is hardly considered. What is the free world free from? First of all, it means freedom from the other side. The enemy represents bondage, “our side” freedom, although all the while freedom decreases in the West, even as its relics grow fewer behind the Iron Curtain. The less free we become, the more we are told of the virtues of our freedom. But, second, the whole world is not free in its more basic sense, “free” from God. For the Marxists, religion, Biblical faith in particular, is the opium of the masses. For democratic thinkers like John Dewey and James Bryant Conant, Christianity and the family are anti-democratic and aristocratic, and hence incompatible with democracy. (See R.J. Rushdoony: Messianic Character of American Education.) The Death of God School of a few years ago did not say that God is dead in Himself but that God is dead for us, because, they declared, we find Him “non-historical” and irrelevant to our purposes in this world. Only that which meets man’s needs and purposes is alive for man, and therefore man wants to be free from the sovereign God.

The man who did not believe in “spiritual isolationism,” of which he accused the Christian Schools, was emphatic on one point: we must obey the powers that be, the state, because God ordains it. Peter’s words, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts3:29), brought little response from him. Obedience to many other things in Scripture, such as tithing, bring no similar strong demand for obedience, but all such are ready to call their compromise with Caesar a faithfulness to God.

But to obey in the Hebrew Scripture means essentially to hear the word of God, to believe it, and to act on it. Therefore, W.A.Whitehouse said that the word obey has “the closest possible association with ‘believe’” (A. Richardson, editor: A Theological Word Book of the Bible, p. 160.).

Contrary to the humanistic, democratic mood in religious thought today, Christianity is an authoritative faith. It is held, throughout all Scripture, that all human authority is derived or conferred (or falsely claimed) and is always subject to the sovereign and absolute authority of God and is always subject to the terms of His law-word.

We have an age that wants (if it has anything to do with God) only His fellowship, on man’s terms, and without His sovereignty and lordship. lt dares to correct and amend God’s word; it refuses to hear Him but offers, rather, to love Him. (One Hollywood “Christian” leader of a few years back spoke of God as “a living doll.”) It wants a universe in which man plays sovereign and creator, endeavouring to create a brave new world out of sinful man, or out of self-centered churchmen, and it produces a fair facsimile of hell. Such a world is begging for judgment, and then as now “judgment must begin at the house of God” (I Peter 4:17). As always, judgment precedes salvation.

End of article

Final quotes on the evil form of government known as Democracy:

“Democracy is the great love of the failures and cowards of life.” – R.J. Rushdoony

“Democracy and liberty are not the same. Democracy is little more than mob rule, while liberty refers to the sovereignty of the individual.” – Walter E. Williams

“The tendency of liberals is to create bodies of men and women-of all classes-detached from tradition, alienated from religion, and susceptible to mass suggestion-mob rule. And a mob will be no less a mob if it is well fed, well clothed, well housed, and well disciplined.” – T. S. Eliot

“Democracy is no solution – it’s just 51% bossing the other 49% around. For God’s sake, Hitler was democratically elected! Democracy is just mob rule dressed up in a coat and tie.” – Doug Casey

In conclusion:

At first, some democracies are very particular on who is allowed to immigrate into the country. There are strictly enforced immigration laws only allowing in people who have something to positively contribute to the country.

In the late stages before a democracy collapses, the politicians who promise people free things to get elected, find that many people are starting to recognize the voting scam for what it is. In order to keep the scam of democracy going, the politicians need more stupid people who cannot not recognize the political lies. In the case of the U.S. the corrupt vote buying political prostitutes (most politicians) create an open boarder disaster and start flooding the country with millions of stupid people who fall victim to specious promises of the vote buying prostitutes. The new waves of immigrant law breakers are coming for government handouts, taken from people who producers and given to non-producing bums and parasites.

Theological problems with Democracy:

Democracy forces you to be in conformity with the demands of the “will of the people,” regardless of what economic realism, common sense, or what biblical law says. Democracy obligates you to relinquish your freedom and your assets including property for the so-called “general welfare” clause in the constitution which proponents of democracy have grossly distorted. Democracy in the end, destroys freedom and property.

Democracy springs forth from the desires of depraved men, and since man is depraved, evil is the result. Democracy seeks to make collective man like God, determining right and wrong for himself. The result, laws are changed to permit wicked behavior. Democracy is rule by the people, for the people, and of the people. It falsely raises up man to be the lord over all things. This is a violation of God’s sovereignty. The voice and will of the people, is not the voice and will of God. To assert this, is idolatry.

“… thou shall not steal, even by majority vote …” – Gary North

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com web site where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

The Importance and Necessity of Special Revelation by Jack Kettler

This article is a reply that deals with certain criticisms concerning views expressed in my article titled Pagan Philosophy, Unbelief, and Irrationalism.(1) This article briefly exposed the bankruptcy of materialistic and empirical philosophy in particular and the worldview of non-belief in general. It was asserted: “Matter is silent; it does not speak. It does not say what is right or what is wrong. The definition between good and evil is found in the Bible. God is not silent.” These assertions on my part were not original. Many Christian apologists have discussed these ideas when dealing with atheistic materialism.

The article was challenged regarding to the accuracy of these assertions and how assertions of this nature could be harmonized with the teaching of Scripture that shows matter does speak using passages such as Romans 1:19-20, dealing with creation’s testimony, and is therefore not silent. To start with, the claim “matter is silent” must not be understood apart from the context of the article: to point out that the materialistic worldview is philosophically unable to arrive at truth from any source, particularly matter. Matter according to this view is ultimately just an accident and is therefore meaningless. As will be seen, the crux of the problem is with fallen man. The article in question did not deal with the broader subject of general revelation from a Christian perspective.

Also, when stated that “matter is silent” this assertion should be understood as meaning that matter does not speak in or with an audible sound like human speech and does not communicate or have any meaning at all within the framework of a non-believing worldview. This is especially true when dealing with specifics, notably in the areas of science, ethics, and logic. Considering the Christian worldview in contrast, it can be said that matter does have a testimony. Its testimony is imprinted in it by virtue of its creation. In this reply, there will be a brief account of general revelation (creation knowledge) and special revelation (biblical knowledge) along with additional challenges to materialistic philosophy, contrasted with biblical philosophy. However to clarify things, reformed Christians believe that God conveys truth through both of these avenues. There is no conflict between these two forms of revelation. I believe that all creation testifies that God exists e.g., Psalms 19:1-3, Romans 1:18-20 and that God has spoken authoritatively in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. As will be seen, the problem is with man and specifically fallen man.

The article in question points out that the non-believing worldview is unable to articulate in a credible way a theory of ethics. The transcendental argument, or as some might say a world-view apologetic, was briefly used to illustrate the deficiency in non-believing thought. The transcendental argument shows the Christian world-view to be true because of the impossibility of the contrary. A worldview must have a theory of knowledge that can account for certain things, such as ethics, logic and science. The non-believer has never shown how one can get from matter like rocks to a concrete argument of why Stalin’s murder of millions of people, in particular the Ukrainians was wrong. The thrust of the aforementioned article is against atheistic materialistic philosophy, which produces death and destruction recorded repeatedly in history.

To start with, in light of the truth of Christianity and within the framework of the Christian worldview it can be said that creation has a testimony, albeit not audible like human speech. Creation does testify of God’s existence. In contrast, within the framework of a materialistic worldview, matter is absolutely silent. This is a suppressed or imposed silence, the result of fallen man’s ethical state reflected in his apostate philosophy. Within the Christian worldview the testimony of creation or general revelation is absolutely true but limited in its scope. Being limited does not imply deficiency. God always intended to give special or biblical revelation. Jesus is God’s fullest revelation to man and He is revealed to us in the Scriptures. General revelation does not tell us about Jesus’ death on the cross and how men are to be saved. The book of Romans and the Gospels do.

Matter is not alive. God creates matter. Because of this, matter has God’s imprint. Therefore, matter’s testimony mirrors or is reflective. It reflects God’s glory like the moon reflects the light of the sun. This testimony is general in scope. In the article it is said, “matter is silent” which is to point out the bankruptcy of materialistic philosophy and its inability to speak with intelligence concerning specifics in the area of ethics, since its worldview is deficient. The materialist starts with time and chance and matter. If non-believers start with matter, how do they get from A (matter) to B (ethics)? Matter does not logically lead to anything within the framework of materialism. There are obvious disagreements between Christians and non-Christians in the area of interpretation of matter. The reason for these disagreements can be accounted for by the way in which evidence is interpreted. In essence, fallen man rejects God’s interpretation of creation and imposes his own autonomous interpretation on created things, thus suppressing the truth. As will be seen, the materialist has nowhere to turn except his own conflicting autonomous capricious subjective evaluations.

The Christian sees all of creation as testifying of God’s existence. The Christian looks to God to find the true meaning of matter and the facts surrounding it. The non-believer, however, sees nothing except matter, which cannot mean anything nor have anything to say apart from man’s imposed interpretation. From a Christian perspective, man is governed by presuppositions. These presuppositions are determined by his nature that is either fallen or redeemed. He interprets matter consistent with these presuppositions. Fallen man is still committed to the Satanic lie that “ye shall be as gods knowing good from evil” (Genesis 3:5). In the fall mankind rejected God given knowledge

Many are not epistemologically self-conscious, including some Christians, and therefore are unaware that they have presuppositions, which govern their interpretations. In particular, fallen man generally refuses to acknowledge that he has presuppositions and that his presuppositions govern interpretations of matter or anything else. To many, what is put forward as evidence and interpretation seems self-evident; but in reality is nothing more than a subjective evaluation. Escaping from subjectivity is no easy task. Does non-believing philosophy enable man to get beyond his subjectivity? Can non-believing man’s rationalism (reason alone using logic) save him? Can the laws of logic within the framework of a non-believing worldview accomplish this? How can they, since the laws of logic cannot even be explained or justified within the framework of this philosophy? For example, where did these laws come from? Are they universally interpreted in the same way? The laws of logic within the framework of non-belief are nothing more than a philosophical construct, which ends up collapsing into irrationality.

Rational man, in other words, has no basis for his rationalism. The statement “matter is silent” should be understood in contrast to the statement that “God is not silent.” This second assertion is the Christian solution to obtaining knowledge. God has spoken clearly to all men through the Scriptures. We have a biblical foundation for seeking knowledge and obtaining it. God given revelation is objective. Ungodly men reject biblical revelation, they suppress the truth that God has revealed to them through creation (Romans 1:18). God has clearly spoken in the Scriptures, i.e. special revelation to mankind concerning what is required of him. The suppression of God’s revelation by fallen man is evidence of his epistemological rebellion.

In addition, regarding matter it can be said that, whatever testimony general revelation has, it is because God is the author of it. In and of itself, matter has nothing to say. Someone may object and say, “we can learn many things from rocks.” This type of assertion is naive. Evidence is interpreted within the framework of a worldview. The presuppositions that govern a worldview determine what may be learned. If the presuppositions are false, evidence will be misinterpreted or suppressed. The mind of man does not interpret raw data without the aid of controlling presuppositions. Some deny this. For example, empiricists, those who believe that man’s mind is blank in the beginning of life and then knowledge comes through sensations, believe that man’s mind is capable of assimilating and correctly interpreting these raw data.

For example, empiricism historically argues that knowledge comes through sensations in the following order: (a) sensations, (b) perceptions, (c) memory images, (d) and the development of abstract ideas. In this system of interpretation perceptions are inferences from sensations. How does the empiricist know valid from invalid inferences? Given this uncertainty, how can the empiricist be sure of anything, let alone what type of matter he has? In addition, studies have shown that some individuals do not have memory images. How can this group of people know things empirically? This is no small problem for empirical epistemology. Tiredness, drugs, and optical illusions can deceive the senses, particularly in the area of sight (color) and hearing (sound) causing further uncertainty. The Christian would also not rule out sin and demonic deception as factors leading to false conclusions. Assuming that empirical epistemology has resolved these difficulties is just that, an assumption.

Consistent empirical epistemology leads to skepticism, as in the case of Scottish philosopher David Hume. Allegedly, Emmanuel Kant was awakened from his dogmatic slumbers when he saw the effects Hume’s skeptical consistencies were having on empirical epistemology. Kant tried to save epistemology by positing that man’s mind organized empirical data by a priori categories through which sensations could be understood. Whether he did or not is another issue. Another problem for the empiricist is that it is impossible to know the totality of empirical data on any subject with the endless complexities of inter-related details, which always leaves open the possibility that the empiricist is mistaken in more than just his perceptions. Moreover, empirically, how does the empiricist assimilate the numerous sensations such as sight and touch into a coherent basis for knowing what anything is? The empiricist needs to explain his process of abstraction and demonstrate that it is free from error. Assuming the system works without demonstrating the process is nothing more than begging the question. Empirical scientists are notorious for making unjustified metaphysical assertions. See Gordon H. Clark’s The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God(2) and John W. Robbins, The Sagan of Science(3) for a number of instructive examples of this.

In addition to numerous philosophical problems relating to interpretation, it should be clear that matter has nothing to say within the framework of non-believing philosophy. What could it say? Within this framework, matter is ultimately an accident and therefore meaningless. In addition to this problem, all men have a priori commitments, which are at work and from which truth or falsity is deduced. The question is not does man have these commitments, but what are they? Do these commitments acknowledge God in the reasoning process? If one starts with non-Christian premises it is impossible to arrive at biblical truth. For a conclusion to be valid it cannot contain information not stated in the premises. The non-believer cannot have accurate knowledge because his presuppositions, starting premises, or axioms, which govern interpretations, are false.

When non-believers seem to arrive at conclusions consistent with biblical revelation, it is by accident, inconsistency, or theft. Many times the non-Christian worldview steals the ethical conclusions from the Christian worldview. This borrowing or more properly stealing from the Christian worldview is why non-believers at times seemingly speak the truth without having the necessary presuppositions to arrive at the truth. The non-believer, because of the bankruptcy of his position, is forced to live on stolen concepts. Thankfully, many non-believers rejected Nazism’s “final solution.” In other words, at times, by God’s common grace, the non-believer sees the reductio ad absurdum and horror of where his own philosophical commitments lead.

Since God is the creator, He gives the true interpretation of all things. All true interpretation must come to a grip with God’s revelation, in which is found the meaning and interpretation of matter. When dealing with the difference between right and wrong one deals with specifics. Natural or general revelation is only good as far as it is intended. It is right and true as far as it goes. It is intended to show man that God exists and testifies of His eternal power and Godhead (Romans 1:18-20). General revelation testifies but its testimony is not intended to address specifics in the area of science, logic and ethics. It is to special revelation in the Bible that we must turn.

Any theory of knowledge that attempts to build a philosophy without God’s special revelation (the Scriptures) is doomed to failure. Reformed Christians believe that general revelation is sufficient to condemn man. Special revelation, i.e. biblical revelation, adds to man’s culpability. God’s purpose in general revelation is not to give man specific knowledge in many areas. To illustrate, matter does not give specifics concerning the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter nor adultery and fornication, or whether fornication (pornea) is a category under which adultery is defined. This is found in special revelation, e.g., in the case laws of the Old Testament.

As has been seen, Christians have a solid basis for knowledge. All men have God’s moral law stamped upon their conscience. The diligent reader should consult Ronald H. Nash’s The Word of God and the Mind of Man(4) and his The light of the mind: St. Augustine’s theory of knowledge.(5) These two books explain and develop for the modern reader elements of Augustine’s philosophy in the area of epistemology that is found in his De Magistro.(6) These works deal with the mechanics of how the Christian receives knowledge into his mind. Man has a moral awareness of right from wrong, not learned from matter or uncertain sensations but from our mind being illuminated directly by God. We read: “That was the true Light which gives light to every man who comes into the world” John 1:9; and, “For in Him we live and move and have our being…” Acts 17:28a. God directly illuminates man’s mind so he knows the difference between right and wrong. God’s law is stamped upon our consciences. This knowledge gives man his moral awareness and is the result of man being created in the image of God.

In summary, to press non-belief further, it can be said the apostate worldview man has erected is full of contradictions. Oftentimes, if consistent with this materialist worldview, he cannot know anything, since consistent empiricism leads to agnostic skepticism which he then uses as a smoke screen or cover to justify ignorance and hostility to God’s law. If not consistent with the philosophical conclusions of a materialistic worldview derived from sensations, he then claims as an atheist to have certain knowledge of right and wrong using his reason, alone which is in defiance to biblical knowledge. Philosophically unbelief vacillates between these two positions of knowing and not knowing. These two opposite poles of allegiance constitute a never-ending dilemma, thus revealing the futility of non-Christian epistemology. Does any of this affect the non-believer? No, the philosophy of non-belief presses on irrationally, certain of its uncertainty, oblivious of the self-refuting contradiction being advanced. To illustrate, for example, some non-believers claim absolutely that there are no absolutes. The philosophy of non-belief contradicts itself when it claims not to know (uncertainty, agnosticism) and to know (certainty, atheism). Both atheism and agnosticism are two sides of the same coin. Fallen man’s contradictory uncertainty and certainty are manifestations of his epistemological and ethical rebellion against God.

Also no less devastating, many examples could be given of non-believers asserting absolutes and omniscient statements within the framework of a system that does not allow absolutes. When finite man without biblical authority asserts absolute omniscient statements, it is indefensible. Also, it should be noted the absurdity of atheism’s claim when asserting “there is no God.” The absurdity is this: it is impossible to prove a universal negative. Furthermore, when the atheist asserts that “there is no God” the second question of the Socratic technique “how do you know that?” reveals the failure of this unverifiable claim. So much for the non-believer’s demand for verification. The agnostic claims for himself ignorance concerning the existence of God. It should be noted that this claim of ignorance is not an argument against the existence of God. Rather, it is a sign of epistemological bankruptcy and what could be described as a deficiency of knowledge, or a self-confessed mental condition.

In essence, fallen man has erected a closed system. His system is closed to God. He does not allow God to speak. Since man rejects the Creator, he has nothing within his closed system that he allows to speak with ethical certainty. He is left to himself. As long as fallen man excludes the biblical God from his system, he cannot know anything with certainty. Non-believing thought has no basis for absolutes. If there are no absolutes there can be no meaning attached to anything since everything could be said to be true and not true at the same time, which is unacceptable nonsense. Thus, fallen man is left with only endless matter, unintelligible sensations, or his atheistic apostate reason. This is the bankruptcy of atheistic materialistic humanism.

It is only the Christian that has a rational basis for knowledge. This is because we allow God to speak to us in creation and Scripture. Our system is not closed like the non-Christian. The Bible tells us about general revelation and man’s requirement to worship the creator. The Bible tells us the specifics on how to worship the creator. It is only because we have special revelation that an intelligent conversation on these matters can be carried on. General and special revelations are biblical concepts. It would be impossible to have a discussion about these concepts without God’s special revelation, the Bible, since biblical revelation is where the concepts appear. Clearly, without special revelation there would be no discussion of ethics, science, and logic with any certainty.
In conclusion, without the Bible, i.e., special revelation we would not be able to talk about the concept of general revelation. This is because; it is in Scripture we learn of general or creation revelation. The objector to my previous article recognized the truth of Christian revelation, but gave away unnecessary ground to non-belief by not fully grasping the effects of the fall and therefore missed the thrust of the argument, which was directed against non-believing philosophy. Our knowledge of general revelation is dependent upon special revelation. Therefore, special revelation is indispensable. The importance and necessity of special revelation is absolutely essential. Without special revelation we would be left in a swamp of autonomous empirical subjectivity which is where the non-believer finds himself. The non-believer is left in the dark as long as they suppress the truth of God that has been revealed to them. God has spoken. This is certain: God speaks to us in the Scriptures (special revelation) with human language utilizing logically structured sentences in which He tells us the difference between right and wrong. Consequently, the strength of the Christian worldview is clearly seen by the impossibility of the contrary.

Notes:
1. Jack Kettler, Pagan Philosophy, Unbelief, and Irrationalism, (Minneapolis: Contra Mundum, 1998). http://www.visi.com/~contra_m//cm/discuss2/cm98_jk_pagan.html
2. Gordon H. Clark, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God, (Jefferson, Maryland: Trinity, 1987).
3. John W. Robbins, The Sagan of Science, (Jefferson, Maryland: Trinity, 1988).
4. Ronald H. Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: The Zondervan Corporation, 1982).
5. Ronald H. Nash, The Light of the Mind: St. Augustine’s Theory of Knowledge, (Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 1969).
6. Augustine, De Magistro in Augustine: Earlier Writings, Editor, John H. S. Burleigh, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, MCMLIII).

Special note:

As in my previous article nothing in the above article should be understood as being original with me. I am indebted biblically and philosophically for the above comments to Francis A. Schaeffer, Gordon H. Clark, Ronald H. Nash, Cornelius Van Til, and Greg Bahnsen.

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Pagan Philosophy, Unbelief, and Irrationalism By Jack Kettler

Biblically speaking, holding philosophical beliefs that contain internally self-refuting contradictions is an expression of irrationalism. It can also be a case of inexcusable ignorance. Ultimately, all non-Christian philosophy starts with bold rationalistic assertions about reality and ends up in irrationalism. The philosophy of logical positivism is one example. The positivist philosophy can be described as empiricism (all knowledge comes through sensations) with a vengeance. This positivist philosophy is a vengeance against all metaphysical statements. A popular contemporary form of empiricism that derives from John Locke is known as the theory that the mind at birth is a blank tablet (tabula rasa) and then assimilates knowledge through sensations. This theory could be called the “blank mind theory” of knowledge.

The Positivist School boldly asserted as it’s starting principle that they will only accept what can be verified empirically. The positivists would accept a statement like “some cars are red,” because this could be verified empirically. A color-blind person would have to take this statement by faith. A statement like “God exists” would be rejected since God cannot be brought into a science laboratory and inspected. Once upon a time, someone asked, “How does the positivist school verify its own starting principle empirically?” With that question, the empirical, positivist school collapsed. There are still those who promote elements of this philosophically discredited theory, not realizing that in doing so they have become an irrationalist, or guilty of inexcusable ignorance. Positivism collapsed because, as in all non-Christian philosophy, it contains its own internally self-refuting contradiction. This positivist contradiction is in the same category as with those who assert “there is no truth.” Supposedly, this assertion is true.

Many non-Christians hold to a materialistic atheistic world-view. Adherents of this pagan world-view proclaim their belief in the laws of science, morality, and logic. It should be noted that adherents of this world-view have never shown how the laws of science, morality, and logic can ever arise in a materialistic universe. Non-Christians who hold this world-view continue to proclaim their belief in such things without showing how their system can account for them. This is philosophically called “begging the question.” In the area of morality for example, the non-Christian is unable to define the difference between right and wrong in terms of his world-view or belief system. Today, many see this ignorance as a virtue. If Biblical absolutes are rejected, it is meaningless to even talk about right and wrong.

In a materialistic atheistic world-view, laws against evil, such as murder, are merely arbitrary social formalities. For example, in pagan democracies the laws change when a mere fifty-one percent of the population is swayed in a different direction. When it comes to knowing the difference between right and wrong many non-Christians act as though they have a blank mind. Pagan attempts to define right from wrong are arbitrary, or they borrow definitions from the Christian world-view in order to escape the utter bankruptcy of their own world-view.

Matter is silent; it does not speak. It does not say what is right or what is wrong. The definition between good and evil is found in the Bible. God is not silent. For example, the definition of murder is found in the case laws of the Old Testament. The Bible even defines precisely the difference between pre-meditated murder and manslaughter. Only the Christian world-view can account for the laws of science, morality, and logic. This is because God is the creator of the world, and we understand all things as defined and interpreted by Him in Holy Scripture. Nothing exists apart from His definition. Since God governs the universe, we can under normal providential conditions use scientific procedures to help us systematically understand how elements of the world function. God speaks to us in scripture with human language utilizing logically structured sentences in which He tells us the difference between right and wrong. Because God has spoken, the Christian has a Biblical basis for the laws of science, morality, and logic. Only in Christ Jesus can one find answers to the questions of life. In Christ Jesus alone can one find the basis for truth and absolutes. All pagan philosophy suppresses the truth in unrighteousness and ends in internally self-refuting irrationalistic contradictions. CM

Note:

Nothing in the above article should be understood as being original with me. I am indebted Biblically and philosophically for the above comments to Francis A. Schaeffer, Gordon H. Clark, Cornelius Van Til, and Greg Bahnsen.

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.