Saturday, October 24, 2026
Being a Gracious KJB Fundamentalist
Last night I met a new Brother in Christ one Randy Bushey from Ontario. He is the speaker for the Fall Conference. I will share all his Conference messages on the blog as well. I think my interactions with him is a great example of being a gracious King James Only Christian Fundamentalist.
I let him know I was a KJB Christian and Only used the King James due to its underlying manuscript pedigree. I also explained to him I was an unabashed Fundamentalist and gave an explanation of the reason and the meaning I meant by it.
It went smashingly with no judgements at all only interest in how I defended my positions. He is using the ESV for his presentations. Anyone that has talked to me at length or read my articles on the topic knows my dislike of the ESV and the hyper Reformed group of translators behind it. However, as he did not judge me I also do not judge him.
Although I am very open that the Crossway version of the ESV uses what I consider to be a corrupted line of manuscripts behind the translation. The Gideons or Share Word ESV uses the Textus Receptus and majority text and not the corrupted manuscripts as a base.
This is what it means to be gracious. It does not mean compromising your KJB Believer views or your actual Fundamentalist stance on anything. It simply means being gracious to those whom disagree. I plan to listen intently to what he has to say this weekend. If I disagree with something I do. If I do not I do not.
I will love him as a Brother in Christ and look forward to an edifying weekend at The Chapel.
Friday, October 23, 2026
Thursday, October 22, 2026
Wednesday, October 21, 2026
Tuesday, October 20, 2026
Monday, October 19, 2026
Sunday, October 18, 2026
Friday, October 16, 2026
Thursday, October 15, 2026
Wednesday, October 14, 2026
Tuesday, October 13, 2026
Monday, October 12, 2026
Sunday, October 11, 2026
Saturday, October 10, 2026
Friday, October 9, 2026
Thursday, October 8, 2026
What is Biblical dispensationalism?
A dispensation is a way of ordering things—an administration, a system, or a management. In theology, a dispensation is the divine administration of a period of time; each dispensation is a divinely appointed age. Dispensationalism is a theological system that recognizes these ages ordained by God to order the affairs of the world. Dispensationalism has two primary distinctives: 1) a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy, and 2) a view of the uniqueness of Israel as separate from the Church in God’s program. Classical dispensationalism identifies seven dispensations in God’s plan for humanity.
Dispensationalists hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible as the best hermeneutic. The literal interpretation gives each word the meaning it would commonly have in everyday usage. Allowances are made for symbols, figures of speech, and types, of course. It is understood that even symbols and figurative sayings have literal meanings behind them. So, for example, when the Bible speaks of “a thousand years” in Revelation 20, dispensationalists interpret it as a literal period of 1,000 years (the dispensation of the Kingdom), since there is no compelling reason to interpret it otherwise.There are at least two reasons why literalism is the best way to view Scripture. First, philosophically, the purpose of language itself requires that we interpret words literally. Language was given by God for the purpose of being able to communicate. Words are vessels of meaning. The second reason is biblical. Every prophecy about Jesus Christ in the Old Testament was fulfilled literally. Jesus’ birth, ministry, death, and resurrection all occurred exactly as the Old Testament predicted. The prophecies were literal. There is no non-literal fulfillment of messianic prophecies in the New Testament. This argues strongly for the literal method. If a literal interpretation is not used in studying the Scriptures, there is no objective standard by which to understand the Bible. Each person would be able to interpret the Bible as he saw fit. Biblical interpretation would devolve into “what this passage says to me” instead of “the Bible says.” Sadly, this is already the case in much of what is called Bible study today.
Dispensational theology teaches that there are two distinct peoples of God: Israel and the Church. Dispensationalists believe that salvation has always been by grace through faith alone—in God in the Old Testament and specifically in God the Son in the New Testament. Dispensationalists hold that the Church has not replaced Israel in God’s program and that the Old Testament promises to Israel have not been transferred to the Church. Dispensationalism teaches that the promises God made to Israel in the Old Testament (for land, many descendants, and blessings) will be ultimately fulfilled in the 1000-year period spoken of in Revelation 20. Dispensationalists believe that, just as God is in this age focusing His attention on the Church, He will again in the future focus His attention on Israel (see Romans 9–11 and Daniel 9:24).
Dispensationalists understand the Bible to be organized into seven dispensations: Innocence (Genesis 1:1—3:7), Conscience (Genesis 3:8—8:22), Human Government (Genesis 9:1—11:32), Promise (Genesis 12:1—Exodus 19:25), Law (Exodus 20:1—Acts 2:4), Grace (Acts 2:4—Revelation 20:3), and the Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 20:4–6). Again, these dispensations are not paths to salvation, but manners in which God relates to man. Each dispensation includes a recognizable pattern of how God worked with people living in the dispensation. That pattern is 1) a responsibility, 2) a failure, 3) a judgment, and 4) grace to move on.
Dispensationalism, as a system, results in a premillennial interpretation of Christ’s second coming and usually a pretribulational interpretation of the rapture. To summarize, dispensationalism is a theological system that emphasizes the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy, recognizes a distinction between Israel and the Church, and organizes the Bible into different dispensations or administrations.
Wednesday, October 7, 2026
The Hidden Issues with the ESV Translation 👀
I do not agree with the idea there were ever any female Apostles as could be assumed based on one section of this video. However, I agree with all other concerns about the ESV and modern textual criticism in general.
Tuesday, October 6, 2026
Monday, October 5, 2026
Sunday, October 4, 2026
Saturday, October 3, 2026
Friday, October 2, 2026
Thursday, October 1, 2026
Right-Wing Populism By Murray N. Rothbard
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/02/murray-n-rothbard/program-right-wing-populism/
This was written in January 1992.
WHAT IS RIGHT-WING POPULISM?
The basic right-wing populist insight is that we live in a statist country and a statist world dominated by a ruling elite, consisting of a coalition of Big Government, Big Business, and various influential special interest groups. More specifically, the old America of individual liberty, private property, and minimal government has been replaced by a coalition of politicians and bureaucrats allied with, and even dominated by, powerful corporate and Old Money financial elites (e.g., the Rockefellers, the Trilateralists); and the New Class of technocrats and intellectuals, including Ivy League academics and media elites, who constitute the opinion-moulding class in society. In short, we are ruled by an updated, twentieth-century coalition of Throne and Altar, except that this Throne is various big business groups, and the Altar is secular, statist intellectuals, although mixed in with the secularists is a judicious infusion of Social Gospel, mainstream Christians. The ruling class in the State has always needed intellectuals to apologize for their rule and to sucker the masses into subservience, i.e., into paying the taxes and going along with State rule. In the old days, in most societies, a form of priestcraft or State Church constituted the opinion-moulders who apologized for that rule. Now, in a more secular age, we have technocrats, “social scientists,” and media intellectuals, who apologize for the State system and staff in the ranks of its bureaucracy.
Libertarians have often seen the problem plainly, but as strategists for social change they have badly missed the boat. In what we might call “the Hayek model,” they have called for spreading correct ideas, and thereby converting the intellectual elites to liberty, beginning with top philosophers and then slowly trickling on down through the decades to converting journalists and other media opinion-moulders. And of course, ideas are the key, and spreading correct doctrine is a necessary part of any libertarian strategy. It might be said that the process takes too long, but a long-range strategy is important, and contrasts to the tragic futility of official conservatism which is interested only in the lesser-of-two-evils for the current election and therefore loses in the medium, let along the long, run. But the real error is not so much the emphasis on the long run, but on ignoring the fundamental fact that the problem is not just intellectual error. The problem is that the intellectual elites benefit from the current system; in a crucial sense, they are part of the ruling class. The process of Hayekian conversion assumes that everyone, or at least all intellectuals, are interested solely in the truth, and that economic self-interest never gets in the way. Anyone at all acquainted with intellectuals or academics should be disabused of this notion, and fast. Any libertarian strategy must recognize that intellectuals and opinion-moulders are part of the fundamental problem, not just because of error, but because their own self-interest is tied into the ruling system.
Why then did communism implode? Because in the end the system was working so badly that even the nomenklatura got fed up and threw in the towel. The Marxists have correctly pointed out that a social system collapses when the ruling class becomes demoralized and loses its will to power; manifest failure of the communist system brought about that demoralization. But doing nothing, or relying only on educating the elites in correct ideas, will mean that our own statist system will not end until our entire society, like that of the Soviet Union, has been reduced to rubble. Surely, we must not sit still for that. A strategy for liberty must be far more active and aggressive.
Hence the importance, for libertarians or for minimal government conservatives, of having a one-two punch in their armor: not simply of spreading correct ideas, but also of exposing the corrupt ruling elites and how they benefit from the existing system, more specifically how they are ripping us off. Ripping the mask off elites is “negative campaigning” at its finest and most fundamental.
This two-pronged strategy is (a) to build up a cadre of our own libertarians, minimal-government opinion-moulders, based on correct ideas; and (b) to tap the masses directly, to short-circuit the dominant media and intellectual elites, to rouse the masses of people against the elites that are looting them, and confusing them, and oppressing them, both socially and economically. But this strategy must fuse the abstract and the concrete; it must not simply attack elites in the abstract, but must focus specifically on the existing statist system, on those who right now constitute the ruling classes.
Libertarians have long been puzzled about whom, about which groups, to reach out to. The simple answer: everyone, is not enough, because to be relevant politically, we must concentrate strategically on those groups who are most oppressed and who also have the most social leverage.
The reality of the current system is that it constitutes an unholy alliance of “corporate liberal” Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America. Therefore, the proper strategy of libertarians and paleos is a strategy of “right-wing populism,” that is: to expose and denounce this unholy alliance, and to call for getting this preppie-underclass-liberal media alliance off the backs of the rest of us: the middle and working classes.
A RIGHT-WING POPULIST PROGRAM
A right-wing populist program, then, must concentrate on dismantling the crucial existing areas of State and elite rule, and on liberating the average American from the most flagrant and oppressive features of that rule. In short:
l. Slash Taxes. All taxes, sales, business, property, etc., but especially the most oppressive politically and personally: the income tax. We must work toward repeal of the income tax and abolition of the IRS.
2. Slash Welfare. Get rid of underclass rule by abolishing the welfare system, or, short of abolition, severely cutting and restricting it.
3. Abolish Racial or Group Privileges. Abolish affirmative action, set aside racial quotas, etc., and point out that the root of such quotas is the entire “civil rights” structure, which tramples on the property rights of every American.
4. Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not “white collar criminals” or “inside traders” but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.
5. Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.
6. Abolish the Fed; Attack the Banksters. Money and banking are recondite issues. But the realities can be made vivid: the Fed is an organized cartel of banksters, who are creating inflation, ripping off the public, destroying the savings of the average American. The hundreds of billions of taxpayer handouts to S&L banksters will be chicken-feed compared to the coming collapse of the commercial banks.
7. America First. A key point, and not meant to be seventh in priority. The American economy is not only in recession; it is stagnating. The average family is worse off now than it was two decades ago. Come home America. Stop supporting bums abroad. Stop all foreign aid, which is aid to banksters and their bonds and their export industries. Stop gloabaloney, and let’s solve our problems at home.
8. Defend Family Values. Which means, get the State out of the family, and replace State control with parental control. In the long run, this means ending public schools, and replacing them with private schools. But we must realize that voucher and even tax credit schemes are not, despite Milton Friedman, transitional demands on the path to privatized education; instead, they will make matters worse by fastening government control more totally upon the private schools. Within the sound alternative is decentralization, and back to local, community neighborhood control of the schools.
Further: We must reject once and for all the left-libertarian view that all government-operated resources must be cesspools. We must try, short of ultimate privatization, to operate government facilities in a manner most conducive to a business, or to neighborhood control. But that means: that the public schools must allow prayer, and we must abandon the absurd left-atheist interpretation of the First Amendment that “establishment of religion” means not allowing prayer in public schools, or a creche in a schoolyard or a public square at Christmas. We must return to common sense, and original intent, in constitutional interpretation.
So far: every one of these right-wing populist programs is totally consistent with a hard-core libertarian position. But all real-world politics is coalition politics, and there are other areas where libertarians might well compromise with their paleo or traditionalist or other partners in a populist coalition. For example, on family values, take such vexed problems as pornography, drugs or prostitution . Here, pro-legalization and pro-choice libertarians should be willing to compromise on a decentralist stance; that is, to end the tyranny of the federal courts, and to leave these problems up to states and better yet, localities and neighborhoods, that is, to “community standards.”
In Defense of National Borders by Wanjiru Njoya
https://mises.org/mises-wire/defense-national-border
In his essay on “Right Wing Populism” Murray Rothbard proposed to build a political coalition to overcome one of the main obstacles faced by liberty movements at election time, namely, the problem that “the numbers simply weren’t there.” Building a popular coalition would address the numbers problem by uniting those who share political goals in common, even though they have different philosophical and ideological beliefs. If the goal of “individual liberty, private property, and minimal government” is important, then building coalitions with those who also pursue that goal also becomes paramount.
To that end, Rothbard “sought to fuse libertarian principles with a conservative social outlook” through the paleo-libertarian movement. This movement appealed to the “average American,” whom he described as everyone who is not part of the ruling elite—“the rest of us: the middle and working classes.” His goal was “to build a broader political coalition against state overreach.”
One theme around which right wing populism has coalesced, in recent years, is the defense of national borders. Many liberals believe that the defense of national borders is incompatible with individual liberties such as freedom of movement. However, as Lew Rockwell explains, open borders cannot be justified by reference to “freedom of movement”:
As with “freedom of speech,” private property is the relevant factor here. I can move onto any property I myself own or whose owner wishes to have me. I cannot simply go wherever I like.
In the case of nation-states, where the state controls territorial borders, Rothbard argued in “Nations by Consent” that a state inviting the world’s poor to migrate to their wealthier country “does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.” It would be akin to the guards of an ancient citadel opening the city gates against the wishes of the citizens. He argued:
The question of open borders, or free immigration, has become an accelerating problem for classical liberals. This is first, because the welfare state increasingly subsidizes immigrants to enter and receive permanent assistance, and second, because cultural boundaries have become increasingly swamped.
To understand why many people are against such culture-swamping, it is necessary to consider the reality of human nature. As Rothbard observed, “everyone is necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture. Every person is born into one or several overlapping communities, usually including an ethnic group, with specific values, cultures, religious beliefs, and traditions.”
Ludwig von Mises also observed that man “lives not simply as man in abstracto; he lives as a son of his family, his race, his people, and his age; as a citizen of his country; as a member of a definite social group; as a practitioner of a certain vocation; as a follower of definite religious, metaphysical, philosophical, and political ideas; as a partisan in many feuds and controversies.” This is the reality of human nature.
Belonging to a community is important to many people, and liberalism does not tell them what importance to attach to that sense of belonging. Mises observed that liberalism is a doctrine of peaceful coexistence and prosperity, “a doctrine directed entirely towards the conduct of men in this world. In the last analysis, it has nothing else in view than the advancement of their outward, material welfare and does not concern itself directly with their inner, spiritual and metaphysical needs.”
Among such metaphysical needs is the sense of belonging to a people, a place, and a culture.
This sense of belonging cannot be derived from the doctrine of liberalism. The converse is also true—liberalism cannot be used as a justification to denigrate people’s sense of belonging. To blame liberalism because “it has nothing to offer man’s deeper and nobler aspirations” is to gravely misunderstand the nature of liberalism, which “concerns itself exclusively with man’s material well-being.”
This does not, of course, mean that in order to be a “true liberal” one must be concerned purely with his own material well-being and should not be troubled by cultural destructionism. That may well be the worldview of many liberals, but it cannot be blamed on the doctrine of liberalism. Materialism, and a disdain for national culture, simply happens to be their personal political ideology.
Similarly, the policy of open borders, when it goes against the express wishes of a nation’s people, cannot be justified by reference to the promotion of free markets—as Rockwell explains, “the result [of open borders] is artificial demographic shifts that would not occur in a free market.”
Free markets do not require the destruction of national culture and the subjugation of people against their will. On the contrary, as Rockwell argues, “a transaction between two people should not occur unless both of those people want it to. This is the very core of libertarian principle.” The “true owners” of territory encompassed within the borders of a nation state are the taxpayers, so the opinion of taxpayers on the destruction of their own culture becomes relevant. He asks:
Should we also have to pay for the privilege of cultural destructionism, an outcome the vast majority of the state’s taxpaying subjects do not want and would actively prevent if they lived in a free society and were allowed to do so?
He also cites Ralph Raico’s argument that “free immigration would appear to be in a different category from other policy decisions, in that its consequences permanently and radically alter the very composition of the democratic political body that makes those decisions.”
It must always be remembered that economics is a science of means, and not ends, and does not dictate the ends to which man should devote his life or the values which he should uphold. As Mises puts it, “To live is for man the outcome of a choice, of a judgment of value.” He chooses how to live, and what values are important to his own life. This is not dictated by economic science.
Defenders of free markets are sometimes seen on social media preaching that people should not attach any value to their own nations because open borders would help to advance free market capitalism. To override the value placed by many people on their own culture, by insisting that they must sacrifice their culture in order to promote “the free market,” is to misunderstand the relationship between individual liberty and economic science. That is a form of scientism, in that it claims for experts in the science of economics the right to dictate people’s values and choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)