The Case Against McCain

First, McCain’s pro abortion credentials were clearly seen in his votes to confirm mega abortionists Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Beyer. No man who is pro life in any significant sense votes for judicial murderers.

Second, McCain’s culture of death credentials are clearly articulated by his support for stem cell research.

Third, abortion is crucial but in this campaign it is not the only issue worthy of consideration. McCain’s stance on granting amnesty (McCain-Kennedy) to illegal immigrants (a policy that will destroy whatever is left of the homogeneity of this country as well as whatever is left of Protestant Biblical Christian influence) should be enough to oppose McCain.

Fourth, McCain’s anti first amendment stance in McCain-Feingold should cause all thoughtful Christians to recoil by lending McCain their strength through their vote.

Fifth, McCain’s membership in the gang of 14 that stopped President Bush getting the conservative justices that Bush wanted is evidence against McCain’s sincerity on matters conservative.

Sixth, McCain’s horrid stance on the second amendment is perhaps only exceeded by B. Hussein Obama. Repeatedly, McCain’s advantage in this election is that he is the fascist leftist relative to the communist leftist Obama.

Seventh, McCain’s is a warmonger. If he will not get your children in the womb he will get them when they are old enough to tote a gun and die in a war. Remember also that McCain, like most modern presidents and politicians, accepts as normal and good that women are in the military and combat. This is an issue that is easily forgotten or dismissed by many Christians.

Eighth, McCain voted for the 700 billion dollar bailout indicating that he is every bit the socialist that he moans about Obama being. The difference between these two men is one of degree and not of kind.

Ninth, temperamentally McCain is a stick of dynamite just waiting to explode. His public anger outbursts are legendary. McCain is so unstable that having him in the oval office is playing catch with vials of nitro-glycerin.

Tenth, McCain has shown contempt for the class of people here, who, despite McCain’s past contempt, insist on voting for this man. Listen people, McCain does not like the Christian crowd though he is more than happy to use them (witness Palin). When you vote for McCain you are voting for a man who thinks your an intolerant lot.

Now, after saying all that, and realizing that either McCain or Obama will win I still prefer McCain. This is a true indication at how bad B. Hussein Obama really is. But my preference for McCain over the Black Nationalist Infanticidist Marxist Obama will not get me anywhere near yoking my strength to McCain with my vote. I will not willfully choose Hitler in order to stave off Stalin. My stance is a “pox upon both their houses.”

The mistake that Christians like Gary DeMar and Doug Wilson who support McCain are making is their premise that they think they can change the Republican party from the inside out. It is my estimation that if people like Gary and Doug really want to change the party then they will force the party to take them seriously by voting against the party when it strays to far from the positions that Gary and Doug fervently embrace. Gary and Doug constantly pulling Republican levers only communicates to the country club Republican power set that they can continue to hose the constituency that Gary and Doug represents.

I will vote Baldwin and be satisfied with knowing that I have not entered into league with a despicable man. Further, I will remain convinced that Christians who vote for McCain are not yet aware how they will justify to King Jesus someday why they voted the way they did.

Setting The Record Straight

Recently I came across a well known Ph.D. bearing false witness against classical Reformed Theology. I thought I would take on his response here.

Below is the question that kicked off his response.

Question,

Just curious: how come no one would personally and publicly debate Greg Bahnsen on theonomy, if theonomy was so obviously wrong that any covenant child could refute?

Answer,

This is an interesting question for a couple of reasons. I see theonomy as a sort of analogue to the FV. Both movements reflect a similar pathology in the Reformed corpus. Both reflect what call the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty.

First, far later in the answer this man admits that FV and theonomy are not synonyms. What he doesn’t mention is that it was a Theonomic denomination that first blew the whistle in official church courts on Federal vision. One must wonder that if a similar “pathology” exists why the Theonomists would bring the Federal Vision up on charges. What this man is trying to accomplish by innuendo is guilt by association.

Second, this man decries religious certainty, which would seem to mean that he doesn’t have religious certainty. I mean how can one fault the quest for religious certainty and embrace religious certainty for oneself? So the objection here is that people should not have the religious certainty that theonomists have. Presumably our objector is certain of that.

The FV is making the doctrine of justification a little more “reasonable,” by reducing the scandal of the cross and the offense of the gospel. As it turns out, we do have a small part in justification! That’s just a little more reasonable than the confessional Protestant alternative. Theonomy represents another side of the same quest. It offers a kind of ethical precision and a kind of ethical authority that reduces ambiguities to certainties and, on its premises, makes Christian ethics a little more “reasonable.” Put the quarter in the slot, pull the handle and out comes the correct ethical answer to one’s particular question. The same spirit that produced the Talmud produced Rush’s Institutes. The same devotion to the rabbis gives us the fascination with Rabbi Rousas, Rabbi Gary, and Rabbi Greg.

Now, I must admit that I don’t see the linkage between religious certainty of Federal Vision that ends up denying the clear teaching of scripture on the sufficiency of Christ and the religious certainty of Theonomy that affirms the clear teaching of scripture on the certainty of Christian ethics. I think our Ph.D. is confused on this point.

Second, this man is disingenuous in the section I have put in bold. I have just finished Bahnsen’s chapter in “God and Politics” and in that chapter Bahnsen admits that determining God’s mind in the application of His Law-Word is hard work that will find disagreement among those who are doing the work. So the idea that it is all as easy as a vending machine is just plain false witness.

Third, note that this man has religious certainty that Theonomists dare not have religious certainty on ethical issues. He is ethically certain that biblical ethics shouldn’t communicate ethical certainty. Irony anyone?

Also, keep in mind that without ethical certainty in Biblical ethics we are inevitably going to be left with a church that is filled with each man doing what is right in his own eyes since uncertainty leaves each man to determine ethics for himself.

Fourth, this man doesn’t like the idea of Biblical Christians coming to determined conclusions regarding Biblical ethics (derisively referring to such men as “rabbis”) and yet, if Biblical Christians don’t arrive at determined conclusions regarding Biblical ethics then somebody else will have to determine the ethics by which the church and christians in the culture live by. I suspect for this man he would prefer Natural Law rabbis such as Rabbi John Dewey, Rabbi Jaques Derrida, and Rabbi Peter Singer as opposed to Rabbi Gary North, Rabbi Greg Bahnsen, and Rabbi R. J. Rushdoony. The point here is that someone is going to have to do the work on determining ethics. Would we prefer that work to be done by God’s men or the men of Natural Law?

Finally, it is despicable in the highest degree for this man to say that the same anti-Christ spirit that produced the talmud is the spirit that energized Rushdoony when he wrote the Institutes. That is a meanness that is beyond mere uncharitableness. That comment is hatred exemplified.

Second, let me question a premise of your question. I’ve been thinking about and dealing with theonomy since you were (probably) a child. I don’t know anyone, even one ardently opposed to theonomy, who thinks that it’s childplay. I am convinced that it’s profoundly wrong, but I’ve never thought it was “easy.” Like the FV, theonomy has to be unravelled and that’s hard work. Further, just as there are varieties of the FV, there are varieties of theonomy. Just as the FV is a moving target, so theonomy was a moving target. Today hardly anyone wants to admit being a theonomist. I half expect someone to deny that Greg was really a theonomist!

Allow me to proffer that the reason that theonomy can’t be unravelled is because it is Biblical Christianity.

Second, it is the case that there are varieties of theonomy, just as there are varieties of R2Kt virus proponents. I mean not even this man is as extreme as Lee and Misty Irons. Diversity in a movement is no proof of it being specious.

Personally though, I don’t think it is difficult at all to unravel R2Kt virus theology — or Natural Law for that matter.

Third, both movements have in common a deep concern for the collapse of the culture and our place in it. Some versions of theonomy/reconstructionism have culture being gradually regenerated through Christian influence and some expect a cataclysm out of which arises a Reconstructionist phoenix. FV wants to regenerate the culture through sacerdotalism (baptismal union). Both are visions of Christendom restored.

All this section is, is a complaint about post-millennialism.

Yes, it’s true that postmillennialists like B.B. Warfield, Jonathon Edwards, and Athanasius thought culture would be gradually influenced through Christian influence. Should they be run out of the Church as well?

Many Reformed men throughout Church history anticipated Christendom (Christ’s Kingdom) being restored. Do a-millennialists, like this man, believe that the notion of Christendom is a notion that should be repented of (yes, he once said that)? Does he mean to suggest that all post-millennialists throughout history need to repent?

These factors help explain why so many theonomists have been attracted to the FV and vice-versa. I realize that not all theonomists are FVists nor are all FVists theonomists and I realize that some theonomic groups have been justly critical of the FV, nevertheless, I regard those arguments as a family fight.

I realize that not all R2Kt advocates are followers of Lee and Misty Irons. I realize some R2Kt advocates have been critical of Lee and Misty Irons, nevertheless, I regard those arguments as a family fight.

The reluctance to debate Greg was grounded in some of the same concerns that folk have about the FV. At first it was regarded as a weird novelty, to which the critics didn’t want to give credibility, and then it was viewed as a threat. The perception of the FV has gone through the same process. At first, no one wanted to take it seriously. It was only after the Kinnaird case that people really began to pay attention (and Kinnaird denies holding the FV, but his relations to the FV weren’t clear a couple of years ago). Now churches are acting to protect themselves against the FV.

The reason people didn’t want to debate Dr. Greg Bahnsen is that he would have kicked their R2Kt virus butts up and down the Debate hall. Don’t let this guy kid you.

Second, a debate of sorts did take place in the literature. Compare the “Theonomy — A Reformed Critique” with “Theonomy an Informed Response” and it becomes dreadfully obvious who won the debate. Read Dr. Ken Gentry’s “Covenantal Theonomy” which was a response to Dr. T. David Gordon’s R2Kt virus writings and it becomes dreadfully obvious who won the debate. Read Dr. Greg Bahnsen as he dissected and dessicated Dr. Meredith Kline’s work on theonomy and it becomes dreadfully obvious who won the debate. Indeed, wherever and whenever the debate has been entered into the Klinean school has been sorely bruised.

Theonomy may be patently wrong, but that doesn’t mean that it’s an easy case to make. Like the FV, theonomy is a huge ball of twine that has to be unwound in multiple directions.

And Theonomists are still waiting for someone to make a dent.

Like theonomy/reconstructionism, FV has strong, colorful leaders.

Is this a fault, an argument for boring leadership, or an admission that the virus types are bland, vanilla, and flat?

Like Doug Wilson, Greg was fast on his feet and a good debater. Greg was a trained philosopher and could be intimidating. That also probably contributed to reluctance to debate him.

LOL… What contributed to reluctance to debate Bahnsen was fear.

Non-theonomic students at WSC, when I was a student, who wanted to enter this presbytery of the OPC lived in mortal terror of being grilled by Greg. He was said to question non-theonomic students ruthlessly on the floor of presbytery unless they had taken private tuition from him! I’m not saying that this is fact, it’s just my recollection of what happened c. 1984-7. I guess theonomists will deny it ever happened. “St Greg could never have done such a thing.”

The R2Kt virus house can only be built by tearing down Bahnsen. This is pettiness to the max.

I also remember Rabbi Gary saying once that if anyone criticized theonomy that he would “bury” them (ala Khrushchev). I got some pretty heated correspondence for daring to offer some mild criticisms of theonomy/reconstructionism in a short dictionary article! Imagine what would happen to one who dared to question one of the Rabbis directly?

If you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

As Bahnsen believed that Theonomy and Biblical Christianity were synonymous I can no more fault him for defending the faith then I can fault the Apostle Paul for defending the faith against Judaic versions of Christianity.

Obama Infomercial

1.) The first 10 minutes was dedicated to offsetting the damage of the Joe Plumber. A great number of “average Americans” who love B. Hussein Obama. Joe the Plumber really hurt Obama.

2.) The whole thing masked Obama’s big government creed as he sought to come across as moderate to conservative. However, if one could get past the sentimental malarkey it was clear he was big government. More on this later.

3.) Fairness was a big issue in the commercial. The whole system is unfair. Subtext is that Barack is going to make it all fair. The Messiah Obama is going to come to the rescue and settle all the unfairness that people contend against.

4.) B. Hussein Obama insisted that this is the worst economy since the great depression. This is the same thing that Clinton said in 1992 when he ran for President. The fact of the matter is that this economy is the worst since the Jimmy Carter years.

5.) B. Hussein Obama promised that he would solve our energy problem. Said he would give money to Car manufacturers in order to make cars that conserve and give money to those who buy those cars. This point, once cleared of the sentimental smoke, made it clear that Obama believes the government, quite contrary to the parameters of the constitution, is responsible to involve itself in the free market.

6.) B. Hussein Obama said that he is going to shrink government. What a liar. How can he shrink government when he promises that he is going to get involved with the auto industry, be responsible to make sure everybody can get a college education, and socialize the health care industry.

7.) B. Hussein Obama promised to get out of Iraq. This is easier said than done. How is he going to get out of Iraq without creating a vacuum that Iran will fill — to the point that Iran becomes a regional hegemon? Going into Iraq was a idiotic mistake but leaving Iraq in a way that Iran forms a new caliphate that stretches across the Arab world is not particularly wise.

8.) My sense is that this informerical was designed to help Democrats down ticket on the ballot. He had a great number of Democrat politicians in his infomercial.

9.) His commercial was heavily weighted with white people. This was not accidental. Obama must win enough of the white vote to put him over the top. Obama can’t win with minority votes. Obama has to convince white people that his close and intimate alliances with Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayers, and Tony Rezko aren’t characteristic of who he is.

10.) He kept focusing on families that were having a hard go of it. The message that was communicated by both the families zeroed in on and by the B. Hussein infomerical is that the Federal government is responsible to bail out these families of their problems. Of course sane people know that the Federal Government can’t be the one to save people from their problems. Historically all government has ever known is to screw up whatever it puts its hands to.

11.) Obama went out of his way to say that his Mother used to say, “my son is an American.” This was not accidental as Obama’s citzenship is seriously in question. The reference was made quickly and quite subtly. Mentioned to make the point, but not dwelt upon to communicate insecurity. I honestly believe that B. Hussein Obama’s recent trip to Hawaii was concerned with the citizenship issue.

12.) Obama promised that the government would pay for their education if students would serve as slaves to the country for a set amount of time. Obama is going to be a great friend to the National Education Teachers Association. He is going to force children to stay in government schools. That is his record.

13.) Obama promised universal health care.

14.) Obama is angry at insurance companies that hurt his mom while she was ill.

15.) Obama read all the Harry Potter books to his daughter.

16.) Obama was sold as a real family man. Another appeal to white people that he is not a wild eyed radical.

17.) Obama say’s, “I am my brother’s keeper.” When the government says that they are endorsing socialism. It is not the job of the US Government to be the keeper of their brother. The State is not the Father of the people. If the US Government’s powers are enumerated and delegated then the US government, constitutionally has no place being “their brother’s keeper.” This idea that “the government is my brother’s keeper,” can be so blithely sold is indicative how thick the American people are regarding the role of the US government according to the constitution.

18.) Democratic Senate colleagues lied through their teeth in order to try and suggest that Obama had an incredible influence on the US Senate. This is recorded as abundantly not true.

19.) B. Hussein Obama tried to sell himself as a tough guy who can handle the job of commander in chief.

20.) Infomercial ended with people testifying on what a great guy Obama is. Tearjerker moment. Obama is the post-racial candidate. He will bring people together.

21.) Final scene was live. Obama speaking about change. Big themes about how he is going to help the middle class. Hope over fear. Unity over division. We can choose our better history. This is such claptrap. Politics is the art of lying well.

22.) Obama said he wouldn’t be a perfect President but that he would always tell people the truth. This is itself a lie. He hasn’t been truthful at all thus far. A liar doesn’t suddenly become someone who tells the truth. The emphasis on truth telling in the infomerical was likely because that is an issue with focus groups.

Background had about 10 white people and two black people. This is not accidental.

We will change the country and change the world. I’m sure he will if he gets the chance.

Impressions.

I’m kind of surprised. I expected more set scenes. I expected more of a context where Obama was set in a Presidential setting. I’m sure this will convince those already in the tank for B. Hussein Obama, but I have serious doubts that this infomercial will move the undecideds. The attempt of the infomercial was to show Obama as just an average American, fighting for the little guy. Little guys like Jeremiah Wrigyht, Bill Ayers, Father Pfleger, Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko, Frank Marshall Davis, and who knows how many other radical terrorist leftists.

Theocracy & The Pagan Left

There is always a great deal of talk about the terrible theocracy that some Christians allegedly conspire to form on the dead carcass of our present form of government. As such a great deal of energy is spent by Christians on the defensive, providing an apologetic against such trifle. Perhaps it is time to go on the offensive and locate and expose the terrible theocracy that is about to form on the dead carcass of our present form of government.

Theocracy is defined as government by the rule of God as mediated by priest-craft. Typically when we think of modern day Theocracies we think of countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Qatar. Would we ever think of the federalized United States being a Theocracy?

We are currently on the cusp of turning this country into an explicit theocracy where the God is the State with the priest-craft being those who are the representatives of the State. As proof for this I offer the reality that in classical theology it is always the right of a God to own everything (The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof) and His prerogative to distribute what He owns as He pleases (God gives them their food in due season). Clearly, we are about to empower legislators and an executive that believes that the State owns everything and as such has the prerogative to re-distribute what the State (god) owns as it (he) pleases. It is the pagan left that is turning this country into an explicit theocracy.

Also in classical theology children belong to the god. This is why in pagan theology it was not uncommon to see people render up their children to god by way of sacrifice. There can be little doubt that the State (god) has for decades believed that children belong to the State. The State, as god, has so much believed this that it has taken it upon itself to insist that its priest-craft (representatives) alone are qualified to teach the state’s children. If the pagan left is re-empowered in this election cycle we can be sure that it will pursue further legislation to force all people to bring the state’s children to the State temples in order that they may be catechized into the state religion that teaches that “in the state they live and move and have their being.” It is the pagan left that is turning this country into an explicit theocracy.

One more piece of evidence is seen in the fact that in ancient theology there were blasphemy laws prohibiting certain speech — sometimes on penalty of death. If the pagan left is re-empowered in this election cycle we already know that the priest-craft of the State is going to pursue legislation that prohibits certain kind of speech (think “fairness doctrine” and newly empowered “hate speech” legislation). The State as god through its pagan priest-craft is going to make sure that neither the god (state) or its priest-craft is spoken against. It is the pagan left that is turning this country into an explicit theocracy.

For our purposes here one thing that is true of the God in classical theology is His desire for justice. In classical theology God defines what justice is and is wrathful against injustice. Once again with the empowerment of the pagan left we are going to see a state that is taking the place of god. It will be the State that defines what justice is, with its mad pursuit of egalitarian notions of social justice, and further it will be the state, as god, through its priest-craft, who will be wrathful against injustice as it defines injustice. It is the pagan left that is turning this country into a explicit theocracy.

The pagan left, which so earnestly desires its own form of theocracy, screams against the bogey man of Christian theocracy, but only so that it may more artfully pursue its own pagan theocratic plans. Pagan theocracy advances its theocratic aspirations by offering themselves as those who desire to deliver America from the clutches of evil Christian theocracy.

Should American voters really desire to escape Theocracy they need to realize that the pagan left is the greatest threat to explicit theocracy that they are currently facing.