Other Opposing Worldview

Exposing Natural Law For the Cheat It Is (I)

^{John 1:4}In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. ⁵And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Jesus Himself said;

“I am the light of the world.” (John 9:5)

The Apostle John said that Jesus;

was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

Of course we know that there was no fault in He who was “the light of the world.” So, the fact that men did not and do not comprehend the light is found in the fact, as John’s Gospel reveals in chapter 3;

¹⁹And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

The practitioners of evil know the darkness and they know the light. They cannot hate the light and refuse to come to the light unless they know yet suppress what they know about the light. The lovers of darkness remain in the dark because they prefer the dark over the light and as they remain in the dark they chant, “there is no light, there is no light.” This is because such men remain dead in their sins and trespasses. Their intellect, will, and affections each and all experience the total effects of the fall. It is because they are sons of darkness that they hate the light.

These Scriptural truths by themselves ought to give the Natural Law fanboys pause before pushing their Aristotelian non-Scriptural position that teaches that fallen man’s intellect is not completely fallen and so can read “Nature” (however that might be defined) aright. But there is more. The Holy Spirit can say in I Corinthians 2:14

¹⁴But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Yet, despite this testimony of Scripture the Natural Law advocates now blanketing the church in the chemtrail “theology” of both the R2K Escondido crowd and the Dr. Stephen Wolfe Christian Nationalism crowd are poisoning the Church.

Over and over again the Scripture teaches that man, starting from himself and his own resources, runs from capital T truth. Scripture teaches also in Romans 8;

“… the carnal mind is enmity (warfare) against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.”

Fallen man, as Paul says earlier in Romans as the wrath of God upon Him;

¹⁸For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ¹⁹because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. ²⁰For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ²¹because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

When non-Christians consider anything that can be found in what people call “natural law” they invariably use what they find to further their sinful ends. So, for example, fallen man finds gender realities in Natural law and for a season fallen man may well conform to gender realities when living in a predominantly Christian shaped nation. But even in the times of “conforming” one does not find the non-Christian living out their gender to the glory of God. Instead, fallen men prioritize themselves and their needs above their spouses. Then, over the course of time, as we are seeing now in the West, natural man, using natural law and right reason insist that there are no gender realities to conform to. They insist that the idea that one man goes with one woman for life is antiquated and mistaken. They suppress even more overtly than their heathen fathers the idea of gender realities. They suppress the truth in unrighteousness. They prefer the darkness to light. They are at enmity with God. The idea that natural law is going to somehow be the means whereby men are going to give up their suppression, warfare, and preference for the dark is a Aristotelian fairytale – a fairytale that more and more of the Christian church is taking up.

At one time natural law theory taught that “Nature” was the objective, external, corporeal universe that was objectively out there and could be known by all men. There was no consensus on where these laws of nature came from. They just were … and these eternally existing natural laws which existed autonomously governed both the gods and men.

When the philosophical world was ruled by the empiricists the laws of nature along with the external, material, objective universe were just out there in the cosmos. But as the worldview of men shifted from empiricism to different forms of idealism this “out there-ness” view of natural law was eclipsed and in its place the idea of natural law shifted to being located to the internal, subjective, non-corporeal “mind” of man. Human reason itself became the locus of Natural Law. Autonomous man, starting with and from himself could name what the laws of nature were. In this evolution of natural law man even more clearly became his own god determining good from evil.

This has always been and remains the achilles heel of natural law theory. There is no stable definition of natural law. It varies from man to man depending on what philosophical matrix he is living in. It may be the case that the Romanticists/Transcendentalist, the logical positivist, the Deist, and the Utilitarians (to cite random examples) may all agree that Natural Law exists but given their differing philosophical pre-commitments they will never agree on just exactly what Natural Law is as it is concretely defined, and indeed will offer up contradictory definitions.

In the end there is no objective reality in the subjective construct that is Natural Law theory. To be sure God’s creation declares God’s truths. No one disagrees with that. The disagreement arises when the idea is advanced that men’s will and intellect is not so fallen that residual ability remains so that man can, starting with himself (as fallen), as his own beginning point, identify true truth. The objection arises that fallen man starting autonomously with himself will always identify as true truth a fallen “true truth.”

In order for Thomistic Natural Law theory to work force must be used to re-create consensus as to what Natural Law “clearly teaches.” In our current situation this will have to be a force that moves Natural Law away from existing as within each individual to a Natural Law that is once again pretended to be objective. Existentialism and postmodernism, as well as variant forms of Idealism will have to be squashed in order for non-Christian Natural Law to work again. I have no opposition to those being squashed but I remain opposed to a Natural Law that pretends to be objective but really remains somebody’s subjective inflated to serve as a pretend societal objective.

Instead, what we as Christians should pray for is for the West to return to its Scriptural foundation for truth. We must once again embrace the idea that “in thy Light we see light.” We must understand that the axioms of Scripture and necessary consequences of those axioms form our epistemological foundation as a people. The God of the Bible once again must be our starting point when it comes to true truth. Only by having God has our starting point will we reason with a God honoring methodology that results in God honoring conclusions.

Away then with all Thomistic notions of Natural Law. It was bad when the Stoics owned it and it was bad when the Muslims Ibn Tufayl and Averroes embraced it and it remained bad when Aquinas pinched it from Averroes and “Christianized” it.

McAtee Contra Justice On His Rant Against Presuppositionalism/Biblicism/Theonomy I

“but to the extent that it (Presuppositionalism/Biblicism) has replaced or removed rational argument and empirical observations, to the extent that it has eviscerated the category and utility of common notions, to the extent that it has functionally displaced or even, for some, denigrated the place of nature and natural law and natural theology, and, to the extent that all of this is embraced by professing Christians as an unassailable bulwark of “biblical” intellectual potency, it is not to be commended but to be condemned as an utter usurper.”

Mr. Cody Justice
American Mantle.

You know I’ve tried to play nice with this Natural Law crowd but they keep digging at Presuppositionalism, Biblicism, and Theonomy and as a result there is nothing left to do but to continue to do what we have done here before and that is to repudiate their accusations. I will have to say though, that it was brave of them some time ago to have Rev. David Reece debate Dr. Stephen Wolfe on the issue of Natural Law vs. Presuppositionalism /Biblicism. I highly recommend this debate because, while collegial and congenial, frankly David Reece bested Dr. Wolfe in this debate. It wasn’t even close. I suspect that Reece or any other Theonomist will not be asked back again to debate Dr. Wolfe on this subject.

As to the above quote;

1.) Presuppositionalism/Biblicism (hereafter P/B) has never sought to replace or remove rational argument and empirical observations. A read of the small book by Thom Notaro, titled, “Van Til’s Use Of Evidence” puts such calumny to death and reveals a profound misunderstanding on Mr. Justice’s part on P/B. This accusation rests on the old canard, long disproven, that P/B = Fideism. The P/B advocate is no more or less Fideistic than Mr. Justice or any other Natural Law warrior. The only difference is that Mr. Justice has a fideistic faith that presupposes man as man’s own beginning point while P/B fideistic faith that presupposes God as man’s beginning point. Both then use rational argument and empirical observation that winds out of those beginning points.

2.) Now, quite to the chagrin of Mr. Justice, we have to ask by what standard do we arrive at his idea of “common notions?” Common notions by what standard? Already here in Michigan I can hear the wailing of Mr. Justice and his gnashing of teeth because in the article that this above snippet is from grinds against the question of “by what standard.” It stands to reason that Mr. Justice would grind over this because that question puts the end to the whole notion of Natural Law. Now, I am not denying that Natural Law exists but, unlike Mr. Justice, I believe that fallen man’s mind is at enmity with God. I also believe in the Reformed doctrine called “Total Depravity.” Finally, I believe because the mind of fallen man is at enmity with God, thus revealing the truth of a total depravity that affected the whole man (including his intellect – sans Aquinas) yielding the truth found in Scripture that fallen man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. In the face of all these long accepted Reformed doctrines (Total Depravity, Noetic effects of the fall, A suppressing of the truth in unrighteousness) Mr. Justice and the Natural Law fanboys continue to thump for Aristotelian Natural Law theories.

In pursuit of clarity, I do not deny that all ground is common ground but I do deny that any ground is neutral ground. All ground is common ground because it is God’s ground and that never changes. However, all ground is not neutral ground because fallen man denies the fact that the ground is common ground because it belongs to God. The fallen man is seeking to usurp God’s claim and so suppresses the truth of what he can’t evade knowing. Hence, the idea of common notions is turkey offal.

3.) In light of all this we must ask Mr. Justice… “Who is the usurper?” It is true that the P/B has long usurped the Aristotle / Aquinas tradition but it is they who usurped Scripture. So, despite Mr. Justice’s cavailing we will continue to be glad to play the usurpers, to his tradition of usurping. I am glad to match Mr. Justice’s condemning of P/B by consigning to the depths of utter hell the whole idea of Natural Law/ Natural theology as it comes to us from the hand of Aquinas and Aristotle. It was one of those areas where the Reformation still had Reforming to do once it picked it up to “advance” the cause of Reformation.

4.) Just to be clear here … I do, as a advocate of P/B denigrate the place of nature and natural law and natural theology. I do so proudly and with all the cheekiness I can generate. It is an abomination. It is a blemish on the Reformed tradition and you can imagine the delight that I find in the fact that both R2k and this Wolfe Natural Law school both appeal to this same Natural Law to come to conclusions that are 180 degrees different. Where now your Natural Law Mr. Justice that is so obvious to be understood that we find Christian Ph.D’s at each other’s throats regarding how it should be interpreted?

5.) Mr. Justice assails P/B but, alas, his assailing is like so many BB’s off a battleship. Both Van Til and Gordon H. Clark refuted over and over again this whole Natural Law stand up comic routine. Their arguments remain as valid and cogent now as they were when they first made them. If people want to read a quick rebuttal I would recommend, Dr. Robert A. Morey’s book, “The Bible, Natural Theology, And Natural Law; Conflict or Compromise?”

The Difference Between Andrew Fraser’s “Ethnoreligious” Vision & McAtee’s Ethno-Christian Vision

Over at the link provided at the bottom of this page Andrew Fraser published an article that spilled some ink mentioning myself and Iron Ink. Upon reading the article my first thought was, “Given Andrew’s concerns in this article, I’m not sure why my name and my article dealing with dismissing the accusation that the Dissident Right is really ‘WOKE Right,’ even got into Mr. Fraser’s sites.” Most of his article dealt with the way he was dismissed and ignored by the “Right Response” chaps at a recent conference the Right Response guys held. It seems they refused Mr. Fraser the opportunity to set up a book table at the conference.

I should say at the outset that I am a wee bit familiar with Mr. Fraser’s works. Several years ago, I read, with great delight, his “Dissident Dispatches.” There was very little in that book with which I found myself disagreeing. As such, it was quite the surprise when Mr. Fraser should find himself disagreeing with me so strenuously.

It seems that Mr. Fraser thinks that the chaps at Right Response (Joel Webbon, Wesley Todd, and Michael Belch,) are somehow intellectually linked with myself. I would like to say here to Mr. Fraser that I’m pretty confident that’s not true, especially given the fact that they would move heaven and earth to avoid being labeled as “Kinists” while Rev. Andy Webb has called me “The Godfather of Kinism.”

Mr. Fraser, on the other hand, seems to embrace the idea of Kinism given what he writes in one of his analysis pieces explaining his recent book;

“Accordingly, in the Anglosphere at least, the postmodern restoration of Christian nationhood should be inspired by a neo-Angelcynn theopolitics best organized around four “orienting concepts”: process theism, preterism, kinism, and royalism.”

And he complains in that same analysis piece that;

Even Stephen Wolfe, the most prominent American Christian nationalist, downplays, when not outright denying, the intractably biocultural dimension of Anglo-Saxon identity. He has suggested, for example, that even black men such as Booker T. Washington and Justice Clarence Thomas (who happens to be a devout Catholic) have been assimilated into the Anglo-Protestant ethnonation.

So, on the narrow points of esteeming Kinism and thinking Stephen Wolfe is in error when Wolfe downplays the biocultural dimension of Anglo-Saxon identity Fraser and I are in league. If the blokes in charge of the Right Response conference knew of this conviction of Mr. Fraser regarding Kinism that would have been, by itself, reason enough for them to block Mr. Fraser from setting up a book table. For reasons that continue to completely mystify me, the Christian Nationalist movement remains scared out of their skin at the idea of Kinism. Alternately, they have no problem with the idea but the word itself makes them wet their pants with fear. They would, it seems, rather be flayed alive then to be associated with Kinism. Go figure.

In terms of the other three pillars that Mr. Fraser is building advocacy for his position upon (Royalism, Preterism, and Process Theism) I am personally indifferent to the first one (Royalism) am cautious about the second (Preterism) and am radically opposed to the third one (Process Theism).

I could easily live within a Monarchical system though I would prefer it to be a Constitutional Monarchy with the King hemmed in by the parameters of God’s Law. I have no problem with a healthy Partial Preterism though I remain convinced that Full Preterism is unabashed heresy. The Scriptures are unmistakable about the literal resurrection of the persons and physical bodies of those who have died — some to eternal misery, with the vast majority resurrected to eternal life in the renewed heavens and earth. The problems with Process of Theism are so vast that anybody who embraces it can no longer be considered a Christian. Process theism holds to a god that is a stranger to the God of the Bible. The God revealed in the Bible is immutable, eternal, impassible, and is taught to have aseity. The God of process theism to the contrary is a God who is affected by temporal processes and so therefore is mutable, time-bound, passable, and lacks aseity. This is the god of Hegel who is constantly becoming as he responds to mankind in history.

Of course by embracing Process Theism one can’t help but wonder if Fraser is a Christian in any traditional, orthodox, or historical sense. If the chaps at Right Response Ministries understood all this about Mr. Fraser it stands to reason they wouldn’t give him a book table to hawk his books. I wouldn’t either. Christians don’t promote non-Christianity at their conferences.

The somewhat ironic thing about this is that I agree with Mr. Fraser that what is needed is the Christ who is not only Universal but who is also particular. Christ is indeed a global Christ but He is a global Christ who rules over a confederated church that is represented by and comprised of many national churches. The New Jerusalem, we are taught, is populated by people from every tribe, tongue, and nation, in their tribes, tongues, and nations. When Revelation 21 teaches that it is nation by nation that enter into the New Jerusalem we learn that Christianity is a faith that does not champion the Universal Jesus to the neglect of the particular Jesus. Because of this teaching there is no threat in my theology, as Mr. Fraser writes;

“Of an exclusive ecclesiastical allegiance to a generic cosmic Christ reducing the distinctive character of every earthly ethnoreligious identity to mere adiaphora (i.e., things inessential in the eyes of the church).”

And so I have no problem with what Mr. Fraser writes that “the rebirth of Anglo-Protestantism demands an ethnoreligious foundation.” However, I would war against any ethno-Christian foundation that included process theism or full Preterism. Further, I would vigorously argue that one doesn’t need either full Preterism, or process theism, in order to have the rebirth of a folk Christianity that is Anglo-Protestant. Indeed, I would argue that any Christianity that is characterized by full Preterism and/or process theism would be anti-Christ and so anti-Christianity.

Mr. Fraser complains about a lack of particularity in current versions of Christian Nationalism and yet that complaint is what one would expect from a man who has the lack of the Universal in his theology. For Mr. Fraser there is no Universal to hold his particulars together into a cohesive whole. Without a Universal the particulars are not possible, just as without a “Uni” in University, there can be no “(di)versity.”

Mr. Fraser did me the courtesy of correctly stating my position when he disagreed with it. I do believe that;

“Biblical Christianity … believes in a universal ‘history directed towards the postmillennial end of God’s Kingdom being built up on planet earth’ in fulfillment of God’s plan ‘to have the Kingdoms of this earth become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ.’”

And in that statement we find the presence of the Universal and the particulars. There is one Kingdom of God (Universal) that is occupied by the “Kingdoms of this earth” becoming “the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ.” Further, as mentioned earlier, these sundry and varied Kingdoms all come into the New Jerusalem on that final day in all their particular nationalistic glory.

^{Revelation 21:22}I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. ²³The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. ²⁴The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it.

In the end, I quite agree with Mr. Fraser that “the rebirth of Anglo-Protestantism demands an ethnoreligious foundation,” though I would prefer the phrase “ethno-Christian.”

Much more might be said but I think this covers both my agreements and disagreements with Mr. Fraser. Given his embrace of Process Theism with its implicit Hegelianism I would lack kindness if I did not end with politely asking Mr. Fraser to consider repenting of such non-Biblical axioms.

Those wanting to read a more exhaustive explanation of Mr. Fraser’s position should read here;

Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus: Projects of Peoplehood from Biblical Israel to the Collapse of British Patriotism

If more questions by the readers arise from reading Mr. Fraser’s article I would be more than glad to answer them.

Baptist & Amillennial Blunders

“While it is true that the gospel does have ripple effects on society, it is wrong to equate the kingdom with those ripple effects.”

-Sam Waldron
Baptist Amillennialist

Waldron, along with Baptist Amillennialist Tom Hicks has written a book inveighing against Theonomy and postmillennialism. One position they take as Amillennialists is that the Kingdom of God is only identified with the visible church. Now, keep in mind that if it is true that there is no such thing as neutrality this Amillennial position means that all other Institutions of men that are not the visible church are, by necessity, outposts of the Kingdom of Satan. That which cannot be part of the Kingdom of God is always a part of the Kingdom of Satan and is always opposed to the Kingdom of God. This means, families, education, arts, politics, courts, medicine, and all the institutions that wherein these are contained all belong to Satan’s rule because according the Waldron, Hicks and countless number of Amillennialists the Kingdom of God is only identified with the visible church.

This is despite the fact that we are taught to take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ. This position is held despite the fact that we are to pray that God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven. This position is held despite the fact that all authority in heaven and on earth was given to Christ who then instructed us to disciple the nations. This stupid Amillennial position is held despite the fact that the gates of hell would not prevail in the Church’s work of extending the Kingdom.

The Amillennialist position is fine with Jesus being King over the Church. They are fine with Jesus being King over our individual personal lives. However, these poor chaps get stuck on the idea that the Lordship of Jesus Christ over the Church and personal individual lives, as that is multiplied by God’s faithfulness to build his Church, will necessarily mean that all the various institutions that are built up by converted men and women will thus become expressions of the Kingdom of God.

Waldron, instead wants to refer to all that as “ripple effects on society.” Apparently “Kingdom ripples,” are acceptable but actually being part of the Kingdom of God is verboten. One wonders where an acceptable Kingdom ripple ends and where an unacceptable Kingdom identity begins. Maybe we should begin a “Kingdom ripple police.” These Kingdom ripple police would make sure that ripples never became more than ripples.

Waldron needs to be reminded that Jesus was crucified for being the kind of King that the Romans found threatening. Rome would not have found Jesus being King to be threatening to their rule if they had believed that the Kingship that Jesus brought was only to be over a private religious organization (Church) or over people’s “hearts.” Pilate would never of hoisted Jesus up on the Cross if Jesus had been only some kind of private sphere King.

“If these arguments that I am making are correct then Christian Nationalism is actually Satanic. It is, in truth, Satanic Nationalism because it is a usurpation of Christ’s authority… The book of Revelation teaches that their is an unholy alliance between state religion and and overpowered civil government. Any government that claims authority over the Church’s orthodoxy and fills the church with reprobates is under the influence of the dragon and is speaking with the voice of the dragon.”

Tom Hicks
Anabaptist Amillennialist

1.) Hicks great presupposition here is that a nation’s government should allow for all the gods into the public square. Being Baptist, Hicks, by definition, believes in pluralism, which means he believes in polytheistic Nationalism. Since religion is an inescapable category all nations practice a nationalism as animated by some religion.

2.) Notice when one gives up Biblical Christianity the categories of good and evil end up being inverted. Once Hicks calls genuine Christian Nationalism, “Satanic Nationalism,” he now has embraced “Satanic Nationalism” as being Christian.

3.) Hicks is correct about the book of Revelation but all because a godless union of church and state persecuted the Church in the book of Revelation (something we would expect) that doesn’t mean all cooperative work between a Christian church and Christian State is evil.

4.) A Christian government correcting a Christian church that is giving up doctrines of the true Christian faith is a blessing. Obviously a government filling up the Church with reprobates would not be a Christian government and would, as such, have to be resisted. Hicks makes no sense.

5.) Hicks is speaking with the voice of the Dragon.

Hicks is speaking with the voice of the radical reformation (AnaBaptists). Below is a Puritan voice of the second Reformation – John Owen. It provides a correction to Hicks Baptist ramblings.

“Protestants teach unanimously that is it incumbent on kings to find out, receive, embrace, and promote the truth of the gospel, and the worship of God appointed therein, confirming, protecting, and defending of it by their regal power and authority; as also, that in their so doing they are to use the liberty of their own judgments, informed by the ways that God hat appointed for that end, independently of the dictates, determinations, and orders of any other person or persons in the world, unto whose authority they should be obnoxious.”

John Owen
Puritan

Hicks and Waldron are classic examples of problems one finds with amillennial, baptist, theology. These guys think they are claimants to the doctrines of the Reformation and claimants of covenant theology. However, when it comes down to it, all you are left with when one embraces Baptist Amillennialism is discontinuity, dualism, and dispensationalism.

Is Theonomy Naturally Libertarian? Rushdoony Weighs In

Recently, I’ve noticed the Thomists insisting that Theonomists are by definition Libertarian. The most recent one mouthing that is Thomas Achord. I’ve seen Wolfe regurgitate this in the past. It is so frequent that I think they are trying to make it a ear worm of sort. Repeat it enough and the normies will just spew it out. Here is the latest statement as coming from Achord;

“Has anyone explained why theonomy, seemingly naturally, took on a libertarian framework?”

There can be no doubt that many theonomists have a libertarian framework. However, the idea that theonomy took this on “naturally” is just bogus.So, we see that like all good lies there is some truth to the statement above from Achord. There were those in the Theonomic movement who read their theonomy through the prism of Libertarianism instead of reading Libertarianism through the prism of God’s Law-Word (theonomy). The biggest offender here was Gary North and Rush made a mistake not squashing his son-in-law on this score. But there have been others in North’s wake. Guys like Joel McDurmon, Andrew Sandlin, and Doug Wilson have strong libertarian tendencies.

But is it really the case that Theonomy is naturally Libertarian or is this just a way to discredit original theonomy? Well, R. J. Rushdoony is someone who knows a little about Theonomy as he can legitimately be said to be the grand-daddy of theonomy. Listen to Rushdoony inveigh against Libertarianism;

“Libertarianism today which passes for conservatism is really a radical relativism with regard to everything except man. It talks about free market economics, but it does not believe in economic law. There are libertarians for example in the Los Angeles area and most of you could think of several who conduct seminars in this area, in Orange County and here. They claim to be teaching a free market economy. They will use free market economists… but in effect what they are teaching is a free market for all ideas and practices.

So that, when you push these people they say that I do believe it, since I believe in this total free market, in the right of marxism to practice marxism, I believe in the right of homosexualism to practice homosexuality (and Hess is in favor of this), I believe in the right of cannibals to be cannibals, I believe in the free market of all the ideas and practices. In other words, everything is equally false and equally true. In such a philosophy there is no truth to free market economics because there is no truth outside of man. As a result his position is an absolutism with regard to man. Man is his own God and there is no truth outside of man, therefore no system of economics, no system of religion, no philosophy can be true, only man as he is whatever he is is the truth.”

https://pocketcollege.com/full.html
IBL06: Sixth Commandment
Coercion

The only Libertarian impulse that was characteristic of Rushdoony was his hatred of centralized and leviathan Government. Rushdoony, following Scripture, believed that Government should be diffused and variegated between self, family, church, local, state, and finally federal. What we are getting today from many Thomists is advocacy for a kind of Nationalism that is top down that would make Abraham Lincoln proud. There is a good deal of Leviathan impulse with some people who are advocating for a “Christian” Franco or a “Christian” Pinochet or even a “Christian” Mussolini. There is plenty of Statists right now running around under the banner of “Nationalism” who need to be hooked up to a paleo-libertarian IV drip.

So the next time the Thomists try to suggest that theonomy is automatically Libertarian tell them that they don’t know what they are talking about. If they were honest that truth wouldn’t be news to them.