Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, Received Text-KJV, Dispensational
Friday, September 30, 2022
CREATIONIST ANARCHO-SOCIALISM
CREATIONISM
Until the post-Reformation revival of Greco-Roman paganism, the Christian world believed in the creation of the world by a transcendent, infinite-personal God. His revelation to us in the Bible records this creation occurring in six days, not more than a few thousand years ago, culminating in the placement of Man -- God's image-bearer -- in a Garden paradise in Eden. Although Man soon decided it was better to rule over others in a wilderness than to serve God and Man in the Garden, the Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit is going to convince Man to return to the Garden, and that the same Spirit will regenerate the entire globe, restoring Edenic conditions. Philosophers and politicians --
• preferring transitory sexual exploitation to Marriage
• and corporate fascism to decentralized productivity
-- masterminded a shift in perspective from Creationism to Evolutionism using State-schools and elite "scientific" spokesmen from the "Military-Industrial Complex." "Creationism" was self-consciously rejected not because it was "unscientific" (all scientists and naturalists were creationists before the modern revival of paganism) but because of the moral demands the Creationist Bible made upon Man. As "creationists" we are "Bible-believers."
ANARCHISM
Jesus said that Gentile kings love to be "archists" -- they love to rule over men, living off them politically rather than serving them economically. But Jesus said His disciples are to be servants, not "archists" (Mark 10:42-45). The origin of the idea to "be as god" and exercise man-centered predestination and dominion over others came from the mouth of Satan (Genesis 3:5). Although the founders of pagan nations quickly rebelled against family-centered economies to form political machines (Genesis 10), it took several centuries for God's chosen people to work up the nerve to openly call for "archist" systems (I Samuel 8) which we now generally call "the State." Jesus, through the power of the Holy Spirit, is going to disarm and disable the empires (I Corinthians 15:24-25), either by turning dictators and politicians into disciples and producers or by allowing the empires to self-destruct (Isaiah 10, 13). "Men must choose to be governed by God or they condemn themselves to be ruled by tyrants" (William Penn).
SOCIALISM
When we think of "anarchism" we think of bomb-throwing assassins. When we think of "socialism" we think of dictatorship and the loss of private property. Curiously, "anarcho-socialism" is the complete antithesis of both of these phenomena. Politically speaking, "anarcho-socialists" defend private property, the Family, and a market economy. Bombs, bullets, and ballots are all repudiated. The "anarcho-socialist" is a spontaneous, productive, self-governing servant. But unlike SOME "anarcho-capitalists," who hold that the individual is primary and extol the "virtue of selfishness," "anarcho-socialists" are not unmindful of Man's need for community. The creationist anarcho-socialist is dedicated to obeying Biblical Law, which perfectly balances the protection of the individual and the holistic development and harmony of human community, reflecting the character of the God Who authored it -- in Whom Oneness (monotheism; unity) is equally ultimate with Manyness (trinitarianism; diversity).
For more click this link.
Thursday, September 29, 2022
A DEFENSE OF (REFORMED) AMILLENNIALISM
In a series of editorials in the Standard Bearer from April 1, 1995 through December 15, 1996, Prof. David J. Engelsma presents a defense of Amillennialism against Postmillennialism.
- An Introduction (1)
- Revelation 20 (2)
- Apostasy and Persecution (3)
- Matthew 24 (Again) (4)
- Matthew 24 (Continued) (5)
- Matthew 24 (Continued) (6)
- Matthew 24 (Concluded) (7)
- Those Glorious Prospects in Old Testament Prophecy (8)
- A Spiritual Interpretation of Isaiah 65:17ff. (9)
- A Spiritual Fulfillment of Isaiah 65:17ff. (10)
- A Spiritual Fulfillment of Isaiah 65:17ff (Concluded) (11)
- The Victory of Christ in History (12)
- The Vistory of Christ in History (Concluded) (13)
Confessions of an Island Anarcho-Theonomist/Theocrat
Tuesday, September 27, 2022
The Importance of Spreading the Full Gospel Message
Sometimes it is misunderstood that since God unconditionally elects the Saved and choses to not elect the reprobate that we as Christians have no place in the process of redemption. This stance which is really Sub Calvinist and unbiblical is often called Hyper Calvinist.
This is a horrible name as it is not Reformed or Calvinistic in anyway. The truth is that we are to spread the gospel as that is how the elect not yet in space and time regenerated find out about The Gospel. Yet, we do not do the saving only God can regenerate a depraved heart.
However, the news is good because of what happened on the Cross. It happened because of our depravity and only God himself could atone for what we deserved. He took everything on the Cross we deserved of God's Wrath because he desired to save some from that said wrath.
None of us deserve salvation as Adam was God's Head in covenant with us. Adam and Eve chose to disobey God when tempted by The Evil One. Thus depraving through original sin all of us. The remedy to come under the heads-up of New Adam or Second Adam Christ Jesus whom did pass the test.
His righteousness is imputed to us and our guiltiness was imputed to Him. Making those saved have both a continuing sinner nature and also now Saint. We will live a Godly Life to the best of our ability. Never perfect, but, we continue to strive to live holy lives. For by nature God is Holy and we are not.
That is the Gospel in short and I plead with you to repent and confess. To submit to Christ's Reign and live accordingly. Your eternal destiny very well may hang on this very post.
Sunday, September 25, 2022
Remembering Humility in a time of stopped distract
As I lay me down to sleep tonight the need for Humility rang through my head. I have been making a lot of pronouncement about the ideal this and that lately. We need to all remember that we are not in charge, but, God is.
I might have my ideas about what would be the best whatever it may be. However, if God did not decree it from Eternity Past it will not come to be. We all need to continue to rest in God's Providence knowing He reigns over all things from His Throne in Heaven.He is sovereign over His Creation and as His Creatures we are not sovereign over anything. We can come up with all kinds of lofty ideas. Yet, God will not let our lofty ideas come to life unless He too decreed that said idea would come to pass. God's Providence is the ultimate cause of all things and I mean ALL things. There is not a maverick quark, or quantum unit, or higs boson, atom or molecule. ALL THINGS are part of God's pre-creation Eternal Decree.
No matter what it turns out the secondary cauee of a situation is. The primary cause which used the secondary cause for His Purposes is God. This is especially true to remember in a situation like this hurricane. God Decreed this to be to the own glorious praise of His Glorious Grace and His own purposes.
We need to understand how small we are in the Big Picture and how Holy, Holy, Holy other God is from his Creation. This storm should also remind us of the Wrath we all deserved from our conception. Of our Totally Depraved nature as the offspring of Adam and Eve. We sin because we are conceived as sinners. Human nature is to be born a son of Wrath and a slave of Satan.
We literally come into this world, if not regenerated in the womb, as a son or daughter of the Devil and on their team. Due to what happened in The Garden of Eden. We are born traitors and rebels to God though original sin. We all deserve; death, hell, and eternal damnation. It is by God's Sovereign Free Grace and His choice alone that he Saves some to be His Children.
We need to be humble and accept that God knows what He is doing and He is in charge. We are not in charge and have no right to demand Him not to or to do something. He will answer our prayers His way and on His terms not ours.
Force is required to have a stable society
The problem with our current States is not the use of force, but, illegitimate use of force. All stable society requires a law code and a justice system forces people to not do unjust things. It is wrong that the secular and atheistic Libertarian philosophy sees force itself as an evil. As opposed to comparing the justified use of force (including initiating it when nessecary) to when it is unjustified.
All law codes, even the most local and even a completely market based one requires force to enforce it. This includes initiating force against some people and groups. For example; one does not wait till there is casualties to stop someone who's product will kill someone from being able to introduce it to the marketplace. This is initiating force before the party or parties have initiated force from their end.Working to eliminate the sexul slaveries of the commercial sex industries (pornography included) does not wait and cannot wait for them to entrap a person into it. Renewing the normality of Creation ordinance in sexuality and gender cannot wait until someone in said group threatens violence. Even local ordinances require force to back them up.
Force is anything which stops someone from doing something they want.
Which means all murderers, rapists, thieves, and so forth will always need to be forced to not get what they want. Or a society could not exist. I would argue that civil governments should be using force to defend God's Abiding Moral Law and use force as much as needed to keep society and civilization stable.
Which means I agree that force should be used when someone aggresses against their neighbors. However, the Non Aggression Principle making only retaliatory force legitimate ignores the legitimate use of initiating force when that is the only option. We must initiate force for example to stop someone from harming others before they do if we have ample evidence they will.
This would need to happen even in an anarchic-Libertarian world. Every time you enforce the NAP on people you are using force and forcing a moral code on them. ALL laws legislate morality on a society. The question is, "is it God's Law or Man's Law?"
I would want to make adultery enforced against, but, I do not agree with being in everyone's bedroom to do it. However, it should be enforced in society. When someone makes accusations of adultery and there is ample evidence one does not wait for the guilty party to initiate physical force to force them into court. They will be brought to court and it dealt with there even if the Court was private and not State ran.
I think we need to do something about sexual immorality. At some point of enough of it force needs to be used. Sexual immorality can be enforced against at the extreme ends of the spectrum by the use of as much force as nessecary. Most of it would be done via courts and not a prison system. However, forms of it that contain sexual assaults and harassment or worse would call for police getting involved. Which equals the use of force.
Another example is drugs. Even if you disagree with the War on Drugs you would not want Harroin vending machines out in public spaces where Children can get at them. To support this being stopped is to support the initiating of force against anyone being able to do such things. I personally do not think the solution to any issues with the Drug War is to just have a free for all where there are no drug laws at all.
Coveting cannot be legislated against as that would be thought crime. However, acting on that desire by taking peoples stuff is a form of policing coveting as much as policing the stealing that comes from it. Similarly, blaspheming in speech cannot be policed, but, acting on it by resurrecting blasphemous statues or Publicly endorsing Satanism or False God's can be without enfringing on anyone's rights.
Again, I would prefer all of this to be as localized and decentralized as possible. However, I do support it being enforced by whatever civil magistrate exists where all other non governmental means are unable to deal with the issue. I am not against force. I am in favor of force used properly. That is the main difference between a Christian Libertarian with a Concice integrated Biblical Worldview of society and a standard Libertarian that would support say The Libertarian Party with its NAP foundations.
God is a God of Order not Chaos
One of the mistakes people make when looking at the world and its messed up ways is to assume there is too much order. That natural Heirarchies and/or meritocracy is not Godly and a creation of the World system. Quite the opposite is true God is a God of Order and not chaos. Natural hierarchies based on God's ordering of Creation and society are good and not evil.
Egalitarianism is as Murray Rothbard said, " a revolt against God's nature." Women and men are different and have been made to be compliments to each other not the same. Some peope are naturally better at certain things than others. Some people are better leaders in endeavors than others. Others are better at helping people with leadership roles than being a leader themselves. Some roles were divinely meant for some and not others.For example; God's Creation Order goes God The Father, God the Son Christ, then man, then Woman and children. Man is the glory of God and woman is the Glory of Man. This does not in anyway condone abuse or other mistreating of women. However, they are to be submissive to their own Husband's and men are to love women as Christ loves His Church.
Women are forbidden by nature of being women from leading roles in Churches. No pastors, elders, deacons and no teaching men in the Church only the other women. Or working in the Nursery.
Complementarianism is part of God's Order of Creation and Egalitarianism is a direct threat to the Creation Ordinance set by God in The Holy Bible. Anything other than Equality Under The Law is a revolt against God Himself and not compatible with His Authority set down in Scripture.
Friday, September 23, 2022
Romans 13 must not be rebelled against in the name of getting a Christian Nation.
When people see my political worldview it would be easy to assume I support not obeying the Government we currently have at all. This would be a mistake as Roman's 13 clearly states we are to submit and obey to all governmental laws that do not instruct us to go against The Holy Bible and God's Word. I do not support some sort of violent revolution or rebellious overthrowing of the current regime.
I am for peaceful transformation from the bottom up and not rebellion or revolting. I agree that we need to abide by all laws that do not order us to go against God's word. Thus, I agree with the command to submit and obey all authorities outside of when they order you to go against something found in The Holy Bible. It does us no good to end up in prison or dead if we wish to gradually change towards the goal of a more Christian Nation.
Besides it is a command and not a suggestion to obey and submit to all authorities whenever possible as all authorities are setup by God Himself or torn down by God Himself.
Thursday, September 22, 2022
Any repeal or abolishment of coercive forms of taxation is the last step not the first.
The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing—how to determine the best means of applying it in practice—is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable. The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today—since the principle will be practicable only in a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions.
Any program of voluntary government financing has to be regarded as a goal for a distant future.
What the advocates of a Godly and free society have to know, at present, is only the principle by which that goal can be achieved.
The principle of voluntary government financing rests on the following premises: that the government is not the owner of the citizens’ income and, therefore, cannot hold a blank check on that income—that the nature of the proper governmental services must be constitutionally defined and delimited, leaving the government no power to enlarge the scope of its services at its own arbitrary discretion. Consequently, the principle of voluntary government financing regards the government as the servant, not the ruler, of the citizens—as an agent who must be paid for his services, not as a benefactor whose services are gratuitous, who dispenses something for nothing.
The Craig Biddle Option for how to Fund a Free Society without Taxation.
Continuing on the topic from the last article I will present a summary of what Craig Biddle put forward as an alternative to our current State funding regime. Below I will present to you his view of how this funding would work.
In addressing this question, it is important to emphasize that the elimination of taxation is not the first but the last step on the road to a fully divine law-respecting society. The first steps are to educate people about the moral propriety of God's Abiding Law Code. While doing this we need to cut government spending on illegitimate programs, and to begin the process of limiting government to the General Equity of God's Moral Law. But, here as everywhere, the moral is the practical, and we who advocate a Christ-respecting society would do well to understand—and to be able to articulate—how the government in such a society would be funded.
A government is an institution with a monopoly on the use of physical force in a given geographic area. The government can legally use force, and no one else can—unless the government permits it. A government makes laws, enforces its laws, and punishes those who break its laws. This is true of all governments, proper and improper.
A proper government is one that protects rights by banning physical force from social relationships, and by using force only in enforcing God's Abiding Moral Law. A proper government outlaws murder, rape, assault, fraud, extortion, and the rest of the Second Table of The Ten Commandments. It prosecutes those it has reason to believe have committed crimes; punishes those found guilty of committing crimes; protects citizens from foreign aggressors; and settles rights-oriented disputes among citizens.
Why do we need such an institution? Why can’t we do without government? The answer, in brief, is that we cannot live and prosper if we constantly have to worry about being assaulted by criminals, being attacked by foreign aggressors, or coming to blows or worse with fellow citizens. Let’s elaborate briefly on each point.
1. Some people don’t respect rights and will use force to get what they want.
Consider Ted Bundy, Bernie Madoff, Bill Ayers, the Mafia, the Ku Klux Klan, and company. If we want to live peaceful, productive, happy lives, warring with such goons is no way to do it. By delegating to a government the task of using retaliatory force against those who initiate force, we can go about living and loving our lives as we morally should. In the absence of a government, we would be constantly consumed with the problem of protecting ourselves from predators and nihilists, gangs of which would roam the cities and countryside seeking to rape, pillage, and plunder; and we would have to form militias or gangs ourselves in order to protect our lives, our property, our loved ones.
A divine law and rights-protecting government solves this problem by providing rights-protecting laws, police, courts, and prisons.
2. Rights disputes can and do arise among rational, honest, rights-respecting people.
Good people can and sometimes do disagree over business dealings , marriage covenants, property lines, rights-of-way, water supplies, and other matters pertaining to their rights—and sometimes they are unable to settle such disputes on their own. In the absence of a government with objectively defined laws and impartial courts, such disputes could and sometimes would turn violent.
A rights-protecting government solves this problem by providing an objective means of adjudication.
In sum, a government dedicated to the protection of rights and defense of the Moral Law enables us to live in relative safety from criminals and foreign aggressors, and to peacefully settle disputes concerning rights.
What would be the scope of such a government? And what would it consist of?
A divine-law/rights-protecting government would comprise only the police, the courts, the military, and any corollary or auxiliary branches or departments necessary to their proper function—such as a legislature to establish rights-protecting laws, a budget department to determine how much money the government needs and to issue financial reports, and a treasury to receive and allocate funds. There would be no “entitlement” programs (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security), no Department of Education, no government-run schools, no Environmental Protection Agency, no Occupational Safety and Health Administration, no Food and Drug Administration, no Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, no Antitrust Division, no Internal Revenue Service, or the like. Accordingly, the scope of a rights-protecting government would be a small fraction of that of the government today.
Bearing in mind all of the foregoing, we can begin to answer the question: How would a properly limited government be funded?
Ample evidence indicates that individuals would voluntarily support a divine law- rights-protecting government simply on the grounds that they value their lives, liberties, property, and pursuit of happiness. To see the evidence, first consider some goods and services for which people are willing to pay.
People voluntarily purchase homeowners insurance, renters insurance, auto insurance, flood insurance, health insurance, life insurance, even pet insurance. People also purchase security systems and smoke detectors, hire bodyguards, pay for themselves and their children to take self-defense classes, purchase firearms, and so on. Similarly, businessmen and corporations purchase liability insurance, directors and officers insurance, key employee insurance, and the like. They also purchase extremely sophisticated security systems; hire security guards; employ legal counsels, law firms, and arbitrators; and pay for countless other precautions to enable them to remain in business, retain their property, and make more money.
Why are people and businesses willing to pay for such things? Because they value their lives, they value their homes, they value their properties, their health, their loved ones, their businesses, their employees, their profits, their happiness. Consequently, people also value the political condition on which their pursuit and protection of all such values depend—namely: a Godly and Free society.
The question, “Will people voluntarily pay to support a rights-protecting government?” is the question, “Do people value the protection of their rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness?” Given that people do voluntarily pay to augment their general security, rational people would voluntarily pay to establish and maintain their general security—if it were not already covered. If they were not being forced to pay for a government, people would pay to establish and maintain a rights-protecting government because such a government makes possible their unfettered pursuit and enjoyment of all their other values.
As to the so-called problem of free riders (i.e., those who wouldn’t financially support the government and thus would “ride for free”), this is not really a problem. To begin with, observe that there are two kinds of free riders: rational and irrational—or moral and immoral. We’ll consider them in turn.
A person who does not financially support the government is not necessarily immoral. The question is: Why does he not support the government? Is the person in question a student who is struggling to pay his way through college? If so, there is nothing wrong with him refraining from supporting the government until he graduates and starts earning enough money to contribute. Is the person in question someone whose capacities are such that even when he tries his hardest in life he can barely cover his own basic living expenses? If so, it would be morally wrong for him to send money to the government, because sending money would constitute a removal of his basic needs of living. Is the person in question starting a business that is still in the red? If so, and depending on his broader financial situation, it might be difficult for him to send money to the government at this time. And so on. People in such circumstances may “ride for free,” so to speak, but there is nothing wrong with such free riding.
As to those who could afford non-sacrificially to support a rights-protecting government but chose not to on grounds such as, “I don’t need to contribute because all you suckers will contribute, and I’ll have my rights protected for free”—bear in mind two important facts.
First, as irrational as such a free rider is for ignoring obvious causal connections and the basic principle of justice that he could have learned from The Little Red Hen, his refusal to contribute does not violate anyone’s rights. As long as no one is forced to contribute to the government (and that’s the context we’re assuming here), no one’s rights are violated by someone else’s refusal to contribute.
Second, those who choose to support a rights-protecting government are not committing a sacrifice by indirectly protecting the rights of free riders, so long as the value the contributors receive—that is, the protection of their own rights plus all the benefits that flow from a rights-respecting society—is of equal or greater value to them than the funds they contribute.
In sum, in a free society, the existence of free riders is not a problem because (1) no one is forced to support them, and (2) everyone who non-sacrificially supports a rights-protecting government is acting in his own best interest.
Under a system of voluntary financing, the government’s budget department would periodically (perhaps annually) issue reports specifying how much money the government needs to fund its proper functions. Private individuals and watchdog agencies would scrutinize these numbers in great detail and offer their own related reports and analyses, as they do today when the government issues a budget.
Upon reading the reports and analyses, individuals and businesses would scrutinize the numbers, do the math, and determine, all things considered, how much money they reasonably think they should contribute. Socially acceptable standards would likely arise, but individuals and companies would be free to abide by or ignore them. Everyone would be free to act on his own judgment, with respect to his own values and his own context. For instance, an individual who barely uses the court system might decide that his contributions should reflect this fact. A large organization that uses the court system heavily and regularly might tailor its contributions accordingly. Everyone would decide for himself whether to contribute and, if so, how much.
When an individual, business, or other organization contributed funds to the government, the government would issue a receipt—call it a Government Support Receipt (GSR).8
GSRs would not likely come into play on small transactions, say, when someone purchases a cup of coffee. But they would certainly come into play on many major organizational transactions, and they might well come into play on lesser transactions, such as employment contracts, vacation rental agreements, and the like.
The amounts of money that individuals and organizations would need to contribute in order to support a proper, rights-protecting government would be small (especially compared to what they are forced to pay in taxes today).
It is a contradiction to hold that although people value their lives, their homes, their health, their safety, their children, and so on enough to pay to augment the security and protection of these things, they nevertheless wouldn’t choose to help fund the kind of government that makes possible the general security and protection of all such values. Although some people tenaciously embrace this contradiction, the contradiction remains a contradiction.
If people were not forced to support a government, people would voluntarily contribute to support a divine-law-rights-protecting government. Evidence in support of this fact—evidence in the form of the kinds of observations and integrations presented above—abounds.
In light of the foregoing, we can see that the last step toward a fully free, divine-law-rights-respecting society is an easy one. So let us redouble our efforts on the first and more difficult steps. Let us increase our efforts to educate people, to cut government spending, and to limit government to the protection of divine-law-rights.