The Pursuit To Eliminate National Sovereignty In Favor Of Internationalism

‎”We are at present working discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing w/ our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local national states of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or a publicist can be, perhaps not quite burned at the stake, but certainly ostracized and discredited.”

Arnold Toynbee
Spoken in a Toynbee Lecture from 1931

One can go as far back as the Congress of Vienna to find a movement to create a Global Order where national sovereignty would be a matter of the past. Of course, this movement gained steam in the 20th century with the “League of Nations” and later the United Nations. In our time the pressure is increasing to strip nations (especially of the West) of their sovereignty.

This article,

examines how Greece is on the cusp of losing its national sovereignty to the European Union.

Also, the international flow of both legal and illegal immigration is intended to strip nations of their sovereignty by turning all Western nations into universal nations, that is nations without a identifiable cultural core. A nation that has no cultural core is a nation ripe to be amalgamated into the New World order that is being pursued by the money interest.

A close look at United Nations projects like “Agenda 21” also reveal the Toynbee push towards the reduction of national sovereignty.

One great need of the time is for more people to turn off their college sports game, or their “American Idol,” and come to terms with the fact that there is a great push going on currently to destroy national sovereignty. This pursued destruction of national sovereignty implies the destruction of family units since nations cannot be destroyed without families being destroyed.

Neither A Borrower Nor A Lender Be … Or … Rabbi Bret Contra Darryl Gnostic Hart

Over at Old Life blog, Darryl Gnostic Hart inks a response to an earlier post of mine taking him to task over his inconsistencies. He titles his article,

Rabbi Bret Borrowing Capital from Those 2k Swiss Bank Accounts

One wonders if Darryl’s choice of Bank Accounts in Switzerland for his title was a Freudian slip as Switzerland is famous for its neutrality.

I really would prefer if Darryl would refer to me as, “Your Eminence,” but “Rabbi Bret,” will have to do until Darryl is cleansed from his Jewish inclinations.

In his article D. G. (“G” is for Gnostic) Hart writes,

On the one hand, I am touched that the good Rabbi would devote ten-plus paragraphs to refuting a minor question I raised about epistemological self-consciousness. On the other hand, I am hurt that Bret shows more charity to Ron Paul than to me. Despite the crusty and vinegary exterior, I am really a pussy cat in person, without claws — the effects perhaps of living with cats for more than two decades — and not to be missed I can cry with the best of them, being the son of a private first-class Marine who was a weeper. I try to console myself that Bret is only opposed to 2k as a set of ideas; he does not dislike (all about) me.

We learn from this paragraph that Darryl and I share life with cats in common. I always figured if cats were good enough for the Egyptians they were good enough for me. I don’t know what drives Darryl’s fondness.

In terms of my sentiments for Darryl on a personal level it is as Michael Corleone said to his Brother Sonny,

“It’s not personal, Darryl. It’s strictly business.

Darryl writes in his post,

Still, the tolerance that anti-2kers show to non-Reformed Protestants (e.g. Ron Paul) and even to non-Christian ideas (more below) is puzzling and suggests a level of personal antagonism that is unbecoming. In the case of Ron Paul, Bret tries to justify his intention to vote for the libertarian Republican as consistent with Christian faith because this proposed vote has received flak from a theonomist …

Here Darryl has a long quote from me lifted from a previous post of my own explaining my support for Congressman Ron Paul.

First, there seems to be some implication in what Darryl writes that a vote for Ron Paul is inconsistent with the Christian faith and yet Congressman Paul can write,

“I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God….”

I offer this quote to suggest that a vote for Ron Paul is not a vote for a pagan, and quite contrary to what Darryl writes above Rep. Paul’s background is of the Reformed stripe (Lutheran and Episcopalian). But let us press on to the heart of the matter.

Darryl writes at Old Life,

“First things first? Does not the first table of the law come before the second table? Does not doing what is right in God’s eyes take precedence over what may be beneficial to the survival of the United States? In which case, could it be that Bret is letting his own political convictions dictate what comes first? As I’ve said a guhzillion times, Covenanters would not construe first things this way. They refused to vote, run for office, or serve in the military because the first thing — Christ’s Lordship — was not part of the U.S. Constitution. I disagree that the Constitution must include such an affirmation. But I greatly admire the Covenanters’ consistency and wish Rabbi Bret would be as hard nosed in the political realm as he is with (all about) me in the theological arena.”

First, I am not a Covenanter, so why Darryl brings them up is unclear.

Second, yes the first table comes before the second table, but the Law is undivided. And as God’s undivided law requires me to show my love to God by showing my love to neighbor there is nothing inconsistent or unbiblical or extra-biblical in a vote for Congressman Paul. Indeed a vote for Paul has Biblical warrant.

If we could reduce this to the simplest illustration that even a Gnostic could understand we, as US citizens, are in a position of being beat up by the schoolyard bully (The State). Now, the law (Sixth word) requires me

That neither in thoughts, nor words, nor gestures, much less in deeds, I dishonor, hate, wound, or kill my neighbor, by myself or by another; but that I lay aside all desire of revenge: also, that I [c] hurt not myself, nor willfully expose myself to any danger. Wherefore also the magistrate is armed with the sword, to prevent murder. (Heidelberg Catechism, answer Lord’s Day 105

A vote for Rep. Paul is a vehicle by which I can stop the dishonoring, hating, wounding and killing of my neighbor that I am in doing by proxy (by another) through the Leviathan State. Ron Paul is not the ideal candidate and I am not looking for societal salvation by means of Ron Paul but I have Biblical warrant to support Ron Paul in order that the violation of the 6th commandment by the State may cease. So, per Darryl’s concern, I am doing what is right in God’s eyes, and this is beneficial to the survival of these united States at the same time. No conflict at all here between the two, and nothing inconsistent in my position, despite Darryl’s insistence to the contrary.

Darryl continues,

What seems to be operative here is that Rabbi Bret borrows selectively from 2k by using non-biblical standards for evaluating the United States’ political order. He says we must follow wisdom in the current election cycle. Well, what happened to the Bible as the standard for all of life? And just how do you get a license to practice such wisdom (when 2kers are the ones who issue them)?

Above I’ve clearly shown that the wisdom I am following is derivative of explicit Biblical sanction and has warrant from the Scripture. Hence, Darryl’s questions are meaningless and without punch. There is no use of R2K methodology on my part.

Darryl continues,

Additional evidence of the Rabbi’s appeal to wisdom and implicit use of 2k comes in a good post he wrote about the differences between “classical” conservatism and neo-conservatism. I’ll paste here only one of the piece’s five points (though the entire post is worthwhile for those who don’t know the differences among conservatism):

Neo-conservatives believe that America is responsible to expand American values and ideology at the point of a bayonet. This was the governing ideology of progressive Democrats like Woodrow Wilson who desired to make the world safe for Democracy. However, before the Wilsonian motto of making the world safe for Democracy (a motto largely taken up by the Bush II administration) Wilson understood the American instinct for a humble foreign policy by campaigning in 1916 with the slogan, “He kept us out of war.” Before American entry into W.W. II the classically conservative approach to involvement in international affairs was one of modesty, as seen in the previous mentioned Wilson approach to campaigning in 1916. Classical conservatism, as opposed to neo-conservatism embraced the dictum of John Quincy Adams who once noted that, “America is a well-wisher of liberty everywhere, but defender only of her own.”

However, today’s conservatism is internationally militantly adventurous. What is sold by those who have co-opted the title of “conservative,” is the exporting of American values but the dirty little secret is that the American values that are being exported in the name of Democracy is just a warmed over socialism combined with some form of Corporate consumerism.

Good point, but where exactly is the justification for this from Scripture or the Lordship of Christ or the antithesis? I’m betting that loads of Christian Reformed Church ministers and laity who invoke the antithesis every bit as much as the Rabbi does, would never countenance Bret’s understanding of U.S. foreign policy. In which case, either the Bible speaks with forked tongue about a nation’s military involvement or all neo-Calvinists are dictating to special revelation what their “wise” observations of the created order and contemporary circumstances require. Why then are 2kers guilty of doing something illegitimate if Rabbi Bret or liberals in the CRC do the very same thing?

Bret responds,

The Justification for this from Scripture comes from the Sixth Word again (see above blockquote of the Heidelberg Catechism). I also could likewise invoke the teaching of the Heidelberg Catechism on the 8th word to show how exporting unbiblical socialism is not a Biblical thing to do. So, I have justification from Scripture for my convictions, and those justifications honor the Lordship of Jesus Christ and they keep the antithesis in place and they do not at all borrow from R2K “thought” processes. As such all of Darryl’s criticisms are irrelevant.

Darryl Gnostic Hart continues,

Which leads me back to the deep emotional wound mentioned at the outset. In his response to my post on epistemological self-consciousness, Bret says that it all comes down to this:

I mean that is what this boils down to isn’t it? Van Til repeatedly emphasized the necessity of epistemological self-consciousness while Darryl is suggesting that each man must do what is right in his own unique epistemological self consciousness. One epistemologically self-conscious Christian likes Kant, another epistemologically self conscious Christian likes Hegel. Vive la différence!

This is an odd summary of the entire difference since at the beginning of the post Bret says that the notion of the Lordship of Christ was hardly a Dutch Reformed idea, and then he goes on to say that it all comes down to a point made (as he understands it) about the Lordship of Christ by a Dutch-American.

Bret responds,

I find it fascinating that Darryl gloms on to a reference to Van Til to try to reinforce his earlier point that all this “Christ as Lord” stuff was a Dutch Reformed phenomenon. This was a point I destroyed with the below quotes from Presbyterians that he completely ignored choosing to make a silly reference to Van Til somehow being unique in advocating for the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

“It is our duty, as far as lies in our power, immediately to organize human society and all its institutions and organs upon a distinctively Christian basis. Indifference or impartiality here between the law of the kingdom and the law of the world, or of its prince, the devil, is utter treason to the King of Righteousness. The Bible, the great statute-book of the Kingdom, explicitly lays down principles which, when candidly applied, will regulate the action of every human being in all relations. There can be no compromise. The King said, with regard to all descriptions of moral agents in all spheres of activity, “He that is not with me is against me.” If the national life in general is organized upon non-Christian principles, the churches which are embraced within the universal assimilating power of that nation will not long be able to preserve their integrity.

A. A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology, p. 283-84

And again from the son of the Charles Hodge,

If professing Christians are unfaithful to the authority of their Lord in their capacity as citizens of the State, they cannot expect to be blessed by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in their capacity as members of the Church. The kingdom of God is one, it cannot be divided.

Princeton President A. A. Hodge, Respected Presbyterian

Then there is Darryl’s favorite Presbyterian, J. Gresham Machen, who could write,

“Modern culture is a mighty force. It is either subservient to the Gospel or else it is the deadliest enemy of the Gospel. For making it subservient, religious emotion is not enough, intellectual labor is also necessary. And that labor is being neglected. The Church has turned to easier tasks. And now she is reaping the fruits of her indolence. Now she must battle for her life.”

J. Gresham Machen
1912 centennial commemorative lecture at Princeton Seminary

“Instead of obliterating the distinction between the Kingdom and the world, or on the other hand withdrawing from the world into a sort of modernized intellectual monasticism, let us go forth joyfully, enthusiastically to make the world subject to God.”

~J. Gresham Machen

Then there is the granddaddy of all Presbyterian John Calvin,

Calvin’s commentary on Luke 14:23 (in Volume 32, i.e. Harmony of the Gospels, Volume 2, at page 173):

Luke 14:23. Compel them to come in. This expression means, that the master of the house would give orders to make use, as it were, of violence for compelling the attendance of the poor, and to leave out none of the lowest dregs of the people. By these words Christ declares that he would rake together all the offscourings of the world, rather than he would ever admit such ungrateful persons to his table. The allusion appears to be to the manner in which the Gospel invites us; for the grace of God is not merely offered to us, but doctrine is accompanied by exhortations fitted to arouse our minds. This is a display of the astonishing goodness of God, who, after freely inviting us, and perceiving that we give ourselves up to sleep, addresses our slothfulness by earnest entreaties, and not only arouses us by exhortations, but even compels us by threatenings to draw near to him. At the same time, I do not disapprove of the use which Augustine frequently made of this passage against the Donatists, to prove that godly princes may lawfully issue edicts, for compelling obstinate and rebellious persons to worship the true God, and to maintain the unity of the faith; for, though faith is voluntary, yet we see that such methods are useful for subduing the obstinacy of those who will not yield until they are compelled.”

Darryl continues,

But aside from the intellectual hiccup,

Bret responds,

After those quotes who is the one can’t find a cure to his intellectual hiccups?

Darryl presses as one going where angels fear to tread,

“But aside from the intellectual hiccup, does Bret really not see that his own support for Ron Paul throws the antithesis to the wind. Paul doesn’t have to be a Reformed Christian affirming the Lordship of Christ to gain Bret’s support. Bret’s analysis of conservatism doesn’t need to follow the dictates of the antithesis in order for it to be wise. And yet, if I or other 2kers don’t follow the antithesis when recognizing a common realm of activity for believers and unbelievers, or when finding truths by which to negotiate this common terrain other than from Scripture (only because the Bible is silent, for instance, on basements or how to remove water from them), we are relativists and antinomians. (We don’t even get a little credit for putting the anti in antinomian.)”

1.) I’ve shown that my support for Ron Paul is consistent with the 6th commandment from God’s law therefore I have not thrown the antithesis to the wind.

2.) Paul doesn’t have to be a Reformed Christ affirming the Lordship of Christ to gain my vote but Paul does does have to and has shown himself to be a tool who can be used consistent with the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

3.) Bret’s analysis of conservatism does follow the dictates of the antithesis either by explicit word or by necessary consequence.

4.) R2K’ers are antinomians and cultural relativists because they insist that the Bible does not speak at all to the common realm and as such all that is left is a “every man does what is right in his own eyes approach” in the putative common realm. R2k’ers insist that there is no such thing as Christian culture thus leaving culture to be animated by the beliefs in false gods since culture is defined as theology animated.

And in terms of basements the Scriptures are clear that they are not to be dug in order to bury people in them and that shovels are not to be used as cudgels to beat people with while digging. Scripture does speak to digging basements.

Darryl finishes,

“Until the critics of 2k can possibly create a world in which the antithesis applies all the time, they will be indebted to 2k for borrowed capital. The reason is that it is impossible to live in a mixed society if the sort of antithesis that will ultimately result in the separation of the sheep from the wolves is going to be the norm. The antithesis requires not only withholding support from Ron Paul, but also opposition to a political order that would allow him on the ballot (not to mention that difficult matter of what to do with Mitt Romney’s Mormons or Rick Santorum’s Roman Catholics). Bret believes that the “Escondido” theology will one day pass away like the Mercersburg Theology did. I too believe it will, whenever God chooses to separate believers from unbelievers. But until then, as long as we live with unbelievers, guys like Bret will need and use 2k theology. I only wish he’d show a little gratitude and start to pay off the debt. He is well behind in payments and snarky about it.”

The critics of R2K readily admit the world isn’t as it should be. In fact the R2K critics can really only explain why. R2K is not and most certainly cannot be agitated about a world that is in rebellion to the Lordship of Christ. Whether it is possible or not to live in a “mixed” society is hardly the issue. The issue is whether or not the Christian should in fact apply the Law Word to every area of life, and judge good and bad based on the Word of God or our feelings. R2K emphatically says “no, we should not.” Biblical Christianity most certainly says “yes.”

In this response I have shown that I am not indebted to R2K for any of their capital and have not borrowed at all from their loony tune reasoning. I have no debt to pay to the fan boys of Dr. Meredith Kline and their completely innovative “theology.” All I can say Darryl regarding those arrears payments is, (insert snarky voice) “the check is in the mail.”

The antithesis, as I have shown, does not forswear me from supporting Ron Paul, and compels me to oppose a social order that is in rebellion to King Jesus. In point of fact, consistent with the antithesis, I support Ron Paul to oppose the current un-biblical social order.

I am sure Escondido theology will one day pass away the same day Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism passes away.

See you in the funny pages Darryl.

Socialism Bromides #3 — Obama Quotes Lincoln (State of the Union)

“I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.”

President Barack Hussein Obama
2012 State of the Union Speech

Often this statement is sold as a compromise between political anarchism and hard core socialism. The thinking goes that such a position of, “the government should only do for the people what the people are unable to do for themselves,” is a statement that is some kind of middle ground between socialism and anarchism but instead it allows for all kinds of Statist intervention since this bromide leaves as an open question as to who decides what the people are unable to do for themselves.

The US Constitution already enumerates and delegates to the Federal Government precisely what it can and cannot do. When Politicians like Obama or Lincoln (Both Presidents who vastly expanded the size of the State) invoke this cliche you can be sure that the Statist Politician in question already has in mind exceeding the authority of the Constitution by doing things that they want to do that they believe the people cannot do and they believe in this extra constitutional activism without considering that what they are saying the people cannot do are things that the people do not want to do. And, even if the people wanted to do those things they really are not able to do, the Constitution requires them to amend the Constitution before those things are done.

So, this bromide does not go far enough. It has a loophole, a “leak,” through which an Statist tyrant can wiggle for what they [citizens] will not do and, therefore, “cannot” do for themselves is to implement all the utopian schemes that enter the minds of tyrants, things that such schemers think the citizens ought to do but which the citizens do not want to do.

So, the correct way to phrase this bromide would be to say, “government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more, as long as whatever it is that the government does is in keeping with the enumerated and delegated powers of the Constitution.”

Honestly, every boneheaded Utopian scheme promoted and passed by the Federal Government is always done under the rubric of this proverb. The Statists are forever saying, “Well, we are only doing this because the people cannot do it for themselves.” Whether it was the passage of Social Security, or the Tennessee Valley Authority, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or Seniors Prescription Drug laws, in all cases these extra-constitutional Socialist actions are pursued because it is a good thing that the people can not do themselves.

As Leonard Read could write,

“The formula for governmental action implies that the people lack the resources to preform such services for themselves. But Government has no magic purchasing power — no resources other than those drawn from private purchasing power. What we have here is a rejection of the market, a substitution of pressure group political power for the voluntary choices of the individuals who vote with their dollars. This criterion for the scope of the state leads away from private enterprise toward the omnipotent state, which is socialism.

The enormity of a project (i.e. — Space Exploration, Coast to coast mail delivery, Government schools, etc.) is no excuse for governmental interventionism. When the market votes ‘yes,’ capital is attracted, regardless of the amount required to do the job….

Government has no right to use force or coercion for any purpose whatsoever that does not pre-exist as the moral right of each individual from whom the government derives its power and authority.”

I John 5:9-10 … God’s Testimony & Man’s Response

Subject — God
Theme — God’s Testimony of Christ
Proposition — God’s Testimony of Christ reveals that men have no reason not to believe upon Christ.
Purpose — Therefore having seen God’s testimony of Christ let us challenge all men everywhere to believe Christ.


Re-cap from previous weeks.


In 5:9-13 John Comes to some concluding thoughts on what he has been saying regarding the “Son of God.”

In 5:1-4 the emphasis was on Faith in God’s Son
In 5:5-12 the discussion has been on the necessity to accept God’s testimony regarding the Son

In his concluding thoughts in this section regarding the Son of God John specifically states the content of God’s testimony concerning His Son, thus eliminating any misunderstanding concerning the Son.

I.) God Has Given Testimony Concerning His Son (9)

Note the continued emphasis on objective evidence. The greek word for “Testify” is used 10 times in verses 6-11 teaching us that John is concerned with the validity of the divine testimony to Christ.

This necessity for Testimony was essential in God’s economy. Jesus himself lays claim to it.

17 In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. 18 I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.”

In vs. 9 the testimony of man that is being referred to is likely John the Baptist’ testimony.

John 5:31 If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true. 32 There is another who bears witness about me, and I know that the testimony that he bears about me is true. 33 You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth.

But John, noting that Jesus has Man’s testimony, insists that God’s testimony is greater. And this line of thought is consistent with the words of Jesus in John’s Gospel.

37 And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen,

This greater Testimony was given, as John says, with “The Spirit, water, and the blood.”

But this Testimony of God would also include

God’s voice speaking from heaven sanctioning the Work of His Son.


“and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

Entry into Jerusalem

John 12:18 Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven: “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.”

Mt. Transfiguration

5 He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son,[a] with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.”

So, John seeks to establish the validity of Jesus and His ministry by appealing to the very requirement that God’s word gives us for seeking to establish truth. All of this reminds us that our faith appeals to objective evidence and not merely subjective inclination. We do not have faith in faith (existentialism), rather the faith we have rests in the Testimony of God.

Illustration — The Faith that will walk off a 50 story bldg. vs. the Faith the Scripture advocates. Not faith in faith.

Now, this evidence is true, but the evidence itself does not convert. Remember the story of the Rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16

He said, ‘I ask you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house; for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, so they won’t also come into this place of torment.’

“But Abraham said to him,
‘They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.’

“He said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’

“He said to him, ‘If they don’t listen to Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead.’

The Rich man want’s Lazarus to go back and Testify to his brothers, but Father Abraham says not even that testimony or the testimony of line rising from the dead would by itself lead to persuasion.

The point here is that Divine testimony to the truth of Christ does not guarantee that people will believe in Christ. The proof of something does not always lead to persuasion. God’s testimony is valid but that testimony and that evidence does not by itself convert because before the testimony and evidence can be seen for what it is men must be given eyes to see and ears to hear.

So, when we are dealing with those who know not Christ, our role is to do what John has done and to lay out the testimony… the evidence … the proof, but the persuasion belongs to the Holy Spirit.

And as John says in the next verse, some will not receive the wittness of either man or God.

II.) The God Given Testimony Has Been Accepted By Some And Rejected By Others (10)

A.) Accepted by Some

What John writes in 5:10 harmonizes nicely with what Paul writes in

Romans 8:16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

Once we look to Christ, once we are born of God, the witness — the testimony is not merely external to us but we have the Testimony of God in us. Sooner could we deny our own Mothers than we could deny Christ or the Christian faith.

By way of application we might say that in having this testimony in us becomes the great animating engine for our whole lives and all that we do. This testimony is a restless passion that desires all to bow the knee to the glorious Lord Christ. This testimony fills us with the longing to Know him ever more that we might make Him known. This testimony in us works in us to love God’s law and to desire to set forth the beauty of God’s grace in reconciling Himself to sinners. The Testimony of God in us, makes we ourselves the Testimony of God to others regarding the person and work of Christ.

Note also in vs. 10 that for John that Faith is the constant bond between the believer and Christ.

Here we have the doctrine of faith alone emphasized. This idea of faith alone is central to Biblical Christianity.

B.) Not Accepted by Others

John says of those who refuse to believe God have made God out to be a Liar.

Liar is another one of those words that John likes

I John 1:10, 2:4, 2:22, 4:20, 5:10

Sometimes he applies the “Liar” label to men (i.e. — men are liars), and other times he says that men who act a certain way are calling God a “Liar.”

1:10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

5:10 Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son.

Now to make God a “Liar,” is to attribute to Him a cornerstone attribute of Satan.

John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

So, those who make God out to be a “liar” have inverted reality. They have become those who call evil, “good,” and “good,” evil.

We see hear a foundation premise on the part of the unbeliever that colors their view of all the rest of their reality. If they have made God out to be a liar then all of reality for them, in principle, is a tissue of lies. One cannot make God out to be a Liar and discern the true truth about anything else.

Note that when they make God out to be a liar they have attributed to God the foundational characteristic of Satan who our Lord said was “a liar from the beginning.” With this characterization of John of unbelievers in Christ “making God out to be a liar,” we see both the tendency for the unbeliever to call “evil,” “good,” and “good,” “evil” and we see the antithesis in action. Either a person accepts God’s testimony of Christ and so is epistemologically whole in their ascertaining of the rest of reality or they don’t accept that testimony of Christ and so have taken up league against God. In making God out to be a liar, they have made themselves walking incarnations of lying and liars. They are indeed, children of their Father the Devil, who was a murderer from the beginning.

Such a sin as “Making God out to be a liar,” is the sin of the Garden and is the sin that all those outside Christ are chiefly guilty of. For man to “make God out to be a Liar,” means that such men have claimed for themselves the position of Deity because in making God a Liar they are accepting their Word over God’s word on who God is.

This is the Reformed Anti-thesis once again. Those outside of Christ who do not believe the God of the Bible have made God out to be what Satan is… a Liar. The contrast between belief and unbelief could not be made more stark.

Calvin offers here,

“John makes the ungodly to be guilty of extreme blasphemy, because they charge God w/ Falsehood. Doubtless nothing is more valued by God than His own truth, therefore no more atrocious wrong can be done to Him, that to rob Him of this honor.”

The truthfulness of God is not a take it or leave it proposition. If God’s testimony is rejected man will become twisted and distorted much like old Gollum living in the roots of the Misty Mountains. If God’s Testimony is accepted then man will become increasingly human.

We conclude then this section by noting with John Stott that

“Unbelief is not a misfortune to be pitied; it is a sin to be deplored.”



Socialism Bromides #2 — Without Entitlement Programs Some People Will Starve

A principle that is consistently trustworthy is that if the State takes upon itself some particular responsibility many people will not take it upon themselves to be concerned about their responsibility to provide for themselves whatever it is the government is providing for and further will come to the point that they can no longer imagine people being able to function without the State being responsible for whatever responsibility they have seized from the citizenry.

So, for example, if the State promises to provide a retirement pension (i.e. — Social Security) there will be people who are no longer concerned about their responsibility to save for their own retirement, and there will be many people who begin to believe that without Social Security retirees will starve to death. People, then who are against Socialist programs like Social Security are then believed, quite wrongly, to be for retirees starving to death.

This is a theme that has been played up quite recently, as applied to Medicare. Any thought of initiating a program to privatize Medicare to some degree was linked to the conviction that people would be thrown off cliffs if the Government was not completely responsible to provide for elderly health insurance.

The premise is that if anybody wants to do anything to put an end to entitlement programs that clearly are not working that person is for letting or even helping people die. The idea hawked by Socialists and by those who support socialist programs is that people who are against Socialistic programs and wealth redistribution schemes are cruel-hearted monsters who don’t like people.

This is ironic when in point of fact it is the Socialists who are the cruel-hearted monsters. Socialists who devise these schemes are subsidizing (giving money to, and rewarding) outcomes that we should all want to see eliminated. It is the very definition of cruel-hearted to devise a program that will increase the number of people who will need that program because of the attraction of free money. When Socialists create a Social Security program they create more people dependent upon the State for their retirement since people believe that the State will provide for them in their old age. Socialists and Socialist entitlement programs, like Social Security, are the non-compassionate cruel-hearted ones because by their creation of entitlement programs they enlarge the pool of people who will become dependents upon the State.

The idea that people will starve to death without these entitlement programs is myth and such an idea is only used in order to demonize those who are opposed to creating a class of people who are dependent upon the state and to scare people into voting against those who desire to return freedom and responsibility to the electorate.

The lie that without entitlement programs people will starve to death (or be thrown off cliffs) is seen in the reality that before these entitlement programs came into existence people did not starve to death and were not thrown off cliffs. Social Security was made law in 1933. People prior to 1933 were not dropping like flies in this country from starvation prior to 1933. No, the creation of Social Security (and other like entitlement programs) is never because of the impoverished people it is putatively designed to help. The creation of Social Security (and other like entitlement programs) is done out of the desire to make people dependent upon the State, thus creating a constituency of voters who will consistently vote for people who promise to keep the entitlement subsidies flowing.

The irony is that if anyone is guilty of wanting to starve people to death it is those who create entitlement programs. I worked for my first seven years of the ministry with people who were dependent upon entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare and what I saw were people who were given just enough money to remain dependent upon the State but not enough money to actually flourish.

America existed for its first 150 years without entitlement programs. Families and Churches took upon themselves the responsibility to take care of one another without the State’s interference. If we ever return to a time when entitlement programs end we will return to a time when Families and Churches once again are strengthened to do what the State currently does.