God: A House Divided?

November 30, 2012

Let’s consider something for a moment that I believe doesn’t make any sense: There is a predominant interpretation of Romans 13:1 say that all governments, even our own, is ordained of God. Yet the same interpreters also declare that what the founders did to establish our government was a sinful act of rebellion and disobedience to Romans 13:2. So, was it then God’s will that His own law be broken??

Taken at face value, this interpretation would suggest that not only did God ordain a rebellious government to take the place of a righteous and justified one, but that God desired for the men who founded it to commit their sins in establishing it!

Moreover, due to the lust to dominate and the suggestion on the part of almost every government in the history of mankind that their power is absolute and everlasting, there is nearly no new government that is formed that does *not* usurp authority from a prior one, yet Romans 13:1 tells us that ALL government is ordained of God, which necessarily includes the ones which usurp authority from others! Under this given interpretation of this scripture, God has necessarily ordained a system under which His law will be continually broken and sin will be continually committed, and in every case the result is not death but God’s total approval of the outcome!

Now, let’s NOT hear this answered by saying that ‘all things work together for good’, as that doesn’t apply here. God is responsible for ordaining, that is to say, designing and approving this system. That is also to say, this isn’t a contraption or concoction of man that Christians must simply endure. No, this is the direct will and work of the Lord God Almighty. And every government that is formed is ordained of God as well; this is to say further, He intended for their creation to take place. This would have to mean that God intended and today still intends for sinful acts to be committed in the creation of many if not most new governments.

And even beyond this matter of God contradicting and opposing Himself, there is STILL the issue that vexes fledgling Christians from growing in their faith until this very day: IF God has ordained all government, good or bad, and ALL rulers rule at His behest, has God set up tyrants and murderers to our detriment? God can be seen as having CERTAINLY created a system under which, if all government is ordained of God irrespective of any other conditions, those who are willing to use force, commit murder, steal, lie, and every other crime kings and politicians OFTEN commit worldwide, more easily rise to power and dominate the peaceful and the righteous who believe they have no right to use force to affect their wishes in society or their desires concerning their neighbors. God would have to then be responsible, since this is the case, for the Third Reich, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Chey’s Cuba, Genghis Khan and Caligula, and pretty much every other murderer in a place of power that has ever lived.

And HOW then could God, knowing the hearts of men and who would be righteous rulers and who would be evil, ever stand justified to cause the downfall of a ruler for their wickedness? Certainly I don’t believe this is still taking place today, where God plays an active role in passing judgment on nations in the earth. But it VERY certainly DID happen in the first century, because God speaks harshly about the Roman Empire and the judgment, ultimately destruction, He would bring to pass upon them in the book of Revelation! The beast which opposed Heaven and God and the lamb in Revelation WAS the Roman Empire, very clearly. This was foretold in the book of Daniel as well. And the destruction God promised the beast in the book of Revelation did ultimately come to fruition. Now let us ask: If God had chosen better more righteous rulers, -Or arranged government such that righteous men would be more likely obtain rule than psychopaths, dictators and deceivers- say even a Christian, to rule Rome, would it have committed the unspeakable horrors that it would go on to commit against Christians and Jews throughout the hundreds of years following the life of Christ before it was completely destroyed? How then could God, having made the mess of the Empire by putting psychotic madmen in charge of it and sponsoring its authority with total approval, then turn and be angry about the consequences?

In all of these questions we have to ask ourselves: Is God double-minded? Can a house divided against itself stand? Has God authored confusion or salvation? Is a God that would make the world adopt a system that necessarily elevates the wickedness and devices of man worth worshiping?

I have a GREAT MANY ways to dispute these discrepancies, but I must tell everyone this: They can all be argued against from various interpretations of the scriptures. So I will let THOSE wrestle with their OWN interpretation of the scripture that have put this forward and answer me in all that I have said. I offer no solution. This God that they would portray… Is He a just and loving God?

My Letter To AccessNow.org

October 4, 2012

Look at this email I sent to AccessNow.org!:

“The thing I need to know about you guys is this: If what you want is freedom of speech and less censorship of the web, WHY are you in bed with organizations like Avaaz.org and MoveOn.org?

Avaaz is a well-known anti-western organization that, while lauding free speech, ironically attacks people for expressing their opinions on things like Islam, socialism and the global debt crisis. They’ve gone as far as to put people’s tweets up on their websites as name-and-shame tactics to this end. People who think like Avaaz would LIKE to see speech laws put in place to make it illegal to say what you want on these issues, for the sake of ‘fairness’.




I don’t even need to explain to you how MoveOn.org stifles and attacks speech it doesn’t like. THIS Soros funded organization was founded to protect Clinton from his scandals. That was over 20 years ago, and yet they still feel they haven’t fulfilled their mission.

Just go to this page and look at all the ugly faux-stories they post to slam people they disagree with instead of actually taking them on intellectually: http://front.moveon.org/all/ This is NOT an enlightened freedom-minded organization. They are out there to assault, paralyze and silence anyone they disagree with.

And *no one* wants a global structure dictating people’s rights to them more than George Freaking Soros. This guy has caused and called for the collapse of several nations and they have become *less* free and able to use modern communication to fight their governments and tyrants as a result, not more so.

The man has actually made it fantastically easy to find this out as well. All you have to do is go to wikiquote and read what he says himself about Capitalism and free markets.

Evidence: (Check their sources, verifiable quotes)


Capitalism itself is the western way of life. It is the free exchange of goods and ideas that has made our progress as a free culture possible. Free markets are the way ideas are exchanged and nowhere does this take place more freely than the internet. Commerce itself lends to the increase and spreading of wealth as well as the freedom and opportunity to communicate. But look at the alternative Soros supports in his own words: Top down authoritarian non-free markets. He wants the UN, the EU, the World Bank, the IMF and all of his globalist buddies – The VERY people you’ve been fighting this whole time for internet freedom – to determine who is able to spend what and when. And, as they go, they rip apart the rights of anyone to speak out against them, making it illegal and putting them on watch lists in every nation they find them in order to intimidate them into silence.

No nation has Soros been more at work in during the last 10 or 15 year than the UK, and look at what it’s wrought. No place in the West has less freedom to speak publicly about the threats it’s people are facing. Despite the horrors of Sharia Law globally and the people calling for it in the streets of London, the people of England are not allowed to speak out against them or speak about their own beliefs in public without fearing being hauled off by the police. Islamists scream for world domination and have parades, but Christians and Atheists are kicked back indoors with the threats of arrest and legal action from their *own government*, under the auspices of “hate speech”.

Evidence: (Check Wikipedia’s Sources)


And the same laws apply to speech on the internet in the UK as they do for public speech because speech is considered public that takes place on the internet. They call it “hate speech”, but that itself ADMITS it’s speech! Nothing that is *said* can take the rights away from another person. When you use force on another person, THEN that person loses their rights. See this Huffington Post article.



Progressivism IS fascism. In the countries it is practiced in, it always leads to the state abridging the rights of the people for the sake of ‘fairness’. You cannot trust a government or any organization that uses force to protect the rights of individuals. Individuals have to put limits on governments and safeguard their rights themselves. Government isn’t the solution to the problem, as one man famously said: It *IS* the problem.

If you guys are trying to fight for freedom of speech, you are on the WRONG side. You can’t use progressivism to get from more government to less government. You need to get the support of *real* 1st Amendment organizations, and not the ACLU or the other bought and paid for Democrat surrogates. You need to get with the Libertarian organizations in the United States like Breitbart.com, reason.com and learnliberty.org. You need to get with Tea Party organizations and bloggers fighting for a return to free speech under Constitutional liberties and an end to surveillance of the people like the912-project.com and theblaze.com, Glenn Beck’s news blog. You need to connect with people who actually care, not about what government is going to do FOR them in the interest of fairness, because that’s fascism, but about what they can do to get government to do less TO them for exercising their rights and living their lives!

I’ve signed several of your petitions in the past because I believed you were sincere when you fought ACTA, SOPA and PIPA. Now I’m calling out to you to get you to connect with the people who are *actually on your side*. You don’t need progressives who praise and preach the loss of freedoms and rights for the sake of economic, fiscal and martial egalitarianism; Or more concisely, globalism. That’s what GOT us ACTA, SOPA and PIPA *in the first place*!!

You need the people who are willing to stand WITH you to get behind you and bring your protests to life and bring down these bastards for surveilling us all like criminals while acting criminally themselves to take over our private property and the channels of communication we use!

It is time for Access Now to throw off the Soros influence and the progressive movement and become a Liberty movement, a Libertarian organization. You can be a brave organization that takes a stand against the power of government that keeps bringing us to the brink of slavery and subjugation. We don’t have to keep fighting this battle by pandering to the people who are holding our face in the dirt. We can have this debate out in the open and win.

The people of the West and I suspect most of the people living in scary totalitarian states around the world, are sick of tyranny. We live in a soft tyranny here in America. We have rights but when we express them, much like in the UK, the state comes down on us. This is the real issue. This is what Soros and his buddies want for the entire world: To hold people down and use their productivity and their income to further their own Utopian BS ideas. We’ve had *enough*.

Join us. Join our fight. Reach out to the Liberty movement and the freedom fighters. You are worthy. You are chosen. You will be our ally.

Bless you and stay safe!

In neighborly love,

Justice of God

April 27, 2012

Friends, God is not mocked: What a man sows, that shall he also reap. What Christians seek to reap in their obedience to the will of God is mercy for their sins and eternal rest for their weariness from life. What Islamists seek to reap from their obedience to Jihad is to force their point of view and way of life on the rest of the world. It is the ultimate xenophobia: To force their opinion and ideology on the rest of the world. To recap: Our reward is in the next life and their reward is in the first earthly life. To this end, they are allowed to lie and steal. They openly profit from all of their actions. And most of all: They celebrate the deaths of those that they deal justice to. Consider in the Old Testament, when God killed Nadab and Abihu. God told the people *not* to mourn them. When God told the people of Israel to destroy the Amalekites, He told them specifically *not* to take spoils and *not* to profit from their destruction. Thereby they would have nothing to celebrate. In both cases, God demanded the people neither bewail nor rejoice in His punishment of those who were actively antagonizing Him and His law. Peter explained it best when he said that he perceived God is no respecter of persons, but anyone of any nation that does what is right is accepted of Him. Again, to recap: While we believe God’s justice is righteous, indifferent, unfortunate and not to be enjoyed, Islamists believe theirs is partial, enjoyable and even to be profited from. Finally, I draw your attention to Matthew 6, Galatians 6 and John 18. In the first, Christ teaches that we should not be righteous or do what is right to have the praise of men. In the second, we learn that the ultimate reward of our faith, while it may be profitable in this life, is for the next. Last, in John 18 Christ says plainly that His kingdom is not of this world. This brings me to my final serious point: We very often say that God protects us, our country and our way of life. Friends and brethren, these things are *not* so. We have won and been successful because we have done what is right, that much is true; But to say that God has actively promoted our success is simply not true. God does not love us any more than He loves any other person and would not side with man on either side of a conflict, EVEN IF one side of the men in that war were just. God punished the children of Israel as much or more than He punished their enemies for disobeying His law. David and others only called God their defender in the Old Testament because God foreshadowed the reward of mercy in Christ by giving them mercy and some protection as they needed it according to His covenant when they were obedient. The Islamists only attack us because they believe their religion says God is on their side, that He will make them rulers of this earth and that the evil that comes upon others for getting in God’s way is to be lauded. If we say our God favors and protects us, we are as bad as they because we violate Matthew 6, having the reward of our faith given to us by God in this life. If this life could be perfect, we would have no need for eternity. If God would give us His mercy and vindication in this life, He would give it once and finally so that faith and obedience would no longer be necessary. Further, there would be no doubt and God would not give to some and overlook others: It would be absolute and without favoritism. God is very clear that this is not His plan. Man has been given a time and a place to choose in this life whether he will spend eternity with God in the next. That has been God’s plan from the beginning. I have said all that to say this: We must not suppose we win wars and have prosperity because God is on our side. In this we would make God a liar and a respecter of persons. We would also receive the rewards of our faith in this life instead of the next. We would also make our God a God of profit rather than of justice. We would not then follow God because He is right or loving, but because He is willing to give us something in this life that we want in exchange for doing what He has asked us to do. The truth is that we prosper because enough of us doing what is right is good for mankind. We win wars because a great enough number of us have hope that man can, for however long it lasts, live in peace and order on the earth. In other words, our obedience to the principles of God rewards us some good things in this life, if we choose them. But friends, that can very well change. If a just man is killed by an evil man, it does not mean the just man was evil. Neither is a military loss by an upright group of people a sign of their corruption or injustice. Win or lose, we must not lose faith that the wisdom God has delivered to us is good and that loving our neighbors and our enemies as ourselves is universally correct, even if we must fight them at times to restore peace and end bloodshed. We will reap in due season, but that due season may not be in this world. We must keep the faith here as well as hope for the next. To recap one final time: Islamists worship a God who will reward them on the earth while our God has reserved our reward in heaven. Matthew 6 tells us not to lay up treasures on earth but treasures in heaven. The father of lies, by which they are permitted to lie, and the prince of this world, by whom they receive their earthly rewards, is Satan. We are not here to conquer Satan in this life, but in the next when we receive God’s mercy. I will conclude by offering you Matthew 10:28: “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” May God bless you with the peace that passes all understanding and keep your heart and mind, (Not your body) through Christ, Jesus, our Lord. Amen.

On The Founding

April 19, 2012

I have some very specific words for people who feel our founders were rich entitled elitist bourgeoisie fat white people:

I cannot understand how anyone can believe our founders were big time racist pro-slavery oppressors when people like Fredrick Douglas and others attribute their eventual liberties to the actions taken by black and white men that fought in our revolution and established our form of law and government.

They’re ignoring the fact that Thomas Paine said that native Americans were more legitimate civil people than the kings of England. They ignore that European Protestants were opposed to slavery and freed the first slaves to be brought here. That many free black men were instrumental in our revolution. That black and white men that laid dead together after the first battle. That one of the richest men to ever hold the office of the presidency, and the first, George Washington, freed his slaves in his final will and testament. That Jefferson preached Christ to the native American. They ignore the congress’ legal ban of the slave trade in 1805, to be overturned at the time only by direct defiance. They ignore the sermon that was given on the very floor of congress by a black preacher that day in 1805. They ignore so great a host of facts that I cannot understand how, in defiance of the goodness and encouragement of the truth, they would want to believe lies and that we started out a bad mean system geared towards destroying the rights of those we fought and died together with to gain our liberties. The founding men and women were the very hope of an end to slavery in the colonies and then the states given the circumstances and the isolation the southern colonies / states felt from the progress of the rest of the British territories, including their northern counterparts. It defies all reason. It flies in the very face of the thing it is suggested it supports: Hope for equality. Our hope for equality is the very pattern we were given by the founders: An unwillingness to compromise on slavery and indeed any other control one might seek to take over the individual! Fredrick Douglas, after years of being misled, read the document himself and declared that no document such as the one this country was founded upon could coexist happily with slavery. We *must* return to understanding these men and these events as they actually were, good and bad, and determine that they were meant for the ultimate good, despite whatever set backs and misfortunes they may have faced. We must or mark my words: we will be forever resigned to lose their consequences and thereby suffer the governments and the ideas of worse men; There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. I’ve said my peace. God save the Constitution and God save this republic.
Love and prayers,


April 15, 2012

Let’s actually delve into the question of why God’s plan has been what it has been since the beginning of the world. He has made this pretty clear, but it is easy to miss the forest for the trees sometimes.

The first thing we learn about God is that He is a necessity of the universe. Genesis 1 describes God as being the cause of the universe. There’s a few things to consider when we dive into this:

-The Kalam Argument says that the universe, like all things, had to have been caused, which necessitates a cause of the universe.

-A mechanism by which a universe can be caused which is observable, contains intelligence and is stable such that principles and edicts govern it’s operation must therefore be for the universe to be.

-The most obvious and defensible such mechanism is God, for many reasons we’re not going to take the time to get into here.

The next thing we arrive at is that God is self-justified. God is for the reasons that God is, not needing a cause. Exodus 3:14 says “And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.”

Necessarily, anything that is self justified must be justified in everything that is a consequence of it. Otherwise it cannot truly said to be justified.

Next, God’s single desire in this universe is to have a free moral agent have a relationship with Him. We refer to this as ‘worship’ because of the type of relationship it is.

Further, if there is a free moral agent in the universe, it must not truly be free unless it has the option to choose to violate the principles of God.

God, being completely justified, the creator and owner of the universe, and therefore the absolute moral authority of the universe, cannot allow His principles to be violated without consequences. God, therefore, is of moral consequence to mankind.

God, being a moral consequence upon mankind, could not justifiably create man knowing He would only destroy them for inevitably violating His principles. Therefore, if God wished to fulfill His desire, He would have to be a merciful God in some capacity.

God, unable to compromise His principles, would have to be merciful without compromising His principles.

Consequences of actions can be offset by other actions, as a principle of reason.

The consequences of God’s principles can be offset by the actions of God, so long as those actions, by earlier statements, do not violate or alter the principles of God.

God, therefore, could offer a reasonable counterbalance to the violation of His principles incurred by another free moral agent.

This counterbalance would not violate the free moral agency of said free moral agent *if* the action of the counterbalance was initiated to act on behalf of each individual agent by each individual agent.

The necessity of this initiating action also satisfies God’s need not to violate His principles by giving an option to those free moral agents to be justified that does not involve them remaining inactive towards their violation of His principles.

God would then be justified to create man, because man could then be created without thereby necessarily being damned. Man’s fate could be effectively placed in man’s hands, not God’s.

And this is the course of reasoning and actions we find God taking from the beginning of the Bible to the end, completing His intended work of justification and love for man with the death of Christ and the establishment of the Church. This is why, although many things about the nature of our relationship with God has changed over the ages, God is still the same God today as He was at the beginning: The just, upright and merciful God.

According to His Promises

April 13, 2012

As a consequence of my previous article, I must also answer the concerns that some Christians have with regard to God’s unchanging nature. Some call God into question for changing His law over the period of time since the beginning of the world, as I mentioned in my last article. Others claim that God has not suspended His miracles or direct intervention into the lives of man. Both of these things are very simple to explain but they do *not* involve God somehow changing His moral values or His reasoning.

First is the fact that God’s law, that is, what God has asked mankind to do over the ages, has changed since the beginning of time until the new covenant in Christ. This is not because God has somehow changed His mind about what He ought to expect from mankind or what is reasonable to ask mankind to do. Rather, God has been revealing His plan and His intentions to an imperfect people part by part over the ages of history as recorded by the Bible. I do not purport to understand the reason for which it has taken God as long as it has to do so; But in regards to this, the Bible does say that God works in His time, Ecclesiastes 3:11. The Bible teaches us that God has done everything He has done to fulfill the process of bringing us to the redemption and mercy of Christ in 2nd Timothy 1:9, “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began”. And in Galatians 3:24, “Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” Therefore, to say that God has changed His purposes because He has changed His law is to miss the point of God’s promises to Abraham, God’s law given to Israel, Christ fulfilling the purpose of the law and God’s plan entirely.

Second, some say that God continues to intervene and work miracles in the lives of people because God has always done so. Yet, this is no longer a verifiable occurrence that can be put to the test and confirmed each time that it has occurred. The Bible says in 1st John 5:14 “Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.” As we know from several scriptures I mentioned in my last article, God is also no respecter of persons. That means that anything that someone has the faith to ask God for, God ought to give it to them. Now the answer most people give for this is that, well, God doesn’t give to people that don’t honestly believe they will receive what they ask for. This comes from James 1:6. Yet, if someone expects God to answer their prayer to the point that they are disappointed with God after they determine what they asked for has not been given to them, how can anyone say that the person did not ask earnestly for the thing that they prayed for? How can a mother not believe God will save her child from death and then, receiving nothing and expecting nothing, weep bitterly and blame God for not acting to save the child? This remorse is undeniable evidence that what the person asked for, they believed they would receive. James 1:6 therefore does *not* apply.

The answer then becomes, ” Well God says no sometimes. He told Paul no.” And therein do those who purport that God continues to intervene in the lives and affairs of men today admit to understand and distort the truth. 1st John 5:14 tells us that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. Yet, they assume that it is according to God’s will to heal the sick and the suffering and save people from death. And if someone isn’t able to access this benefit of faith, they report that it was not according to God’s will to give that person what they asked. However, that would contradict both James 1:6, putting conditions upon the asking party other than asking in faith, and Acts 10:34, that says God is no respecter of persons, saying that God would respect something about a person asking Him for something or their situation other than their ability to meet the conditions He had placed upon His operation such that it would cause Him to decide not to act whereas He would have otherwise. Yet it cannot be the case that God is so temperamental as to choose to do for one person who met His requirements what He would not do for someone else who met His requirements. Were this the case, we could not fully expect to receive mercy from God for our obedience, as some other information might deter the Lord from giving His mercy in exchange for obedience, as He has communicated to us through Christ and the apostles. Does that sound like a just or loving God’s ways? Certainly not!

What the truth is about God’s intervening acts of miracles and healing is that God did these things in order to fulfill prophecy and verify to mankind that the things being delivered to them by the apostles and prophets throughout history were approved by God. We know that every spiritual gift, including the ability to heal the sick, were given to Christ and the apostles to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament, as Matthew 8:16-17 explains, “When evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick,  that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: “He Himself took our infirmities And bore our sicknesses.”” Peter also quotes Joel 2 in Acts 2 when he gives his sermon after the day of Pentecost and says “And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams.” The apostle Peter fulfilled the prophecy of Joel both in quoting and making this come to pass in the events to follow. These gifts were for a period as God’s will was not completely revealed to man, so men had no way to verify what was said to them was from God or from men. They also served as signs that God had made a decision about a thing, in the cases where God was working directly in our history. Taking what we discussed earlier about the purpose of the scriptures of the Old Testament and the laws previous to Christ being to tutor us and to lead us to the new covenant in Christ, if we add 1st Corinthians 13:8-10, we learn that the completion of that purpose marks the point at which God’s miraculous intervention would end. 1st Corinthians 13:8-10 says, “Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.” So as the Gospel of Christ was completed in approximately 120 short years after His birth, for all the world to see and read and be aware of, so then did the purpose of healing the sick and God’s intervention end, as described in 1st Corinthians. Further, this is why Paul was not healed by God; Exalting Paul by healing him would not have served as a sign to the people he was preaching to, as it was Paul himself that was claiming to be the messenger of God. This could have produced a sense of entitlement in the people who learned of it or witnessed it to be healed since Paul, self proclaimed chief of sinners and a latecomer to the faith, would have received what he asked of God not as a sign to verify God’s message through him, but as a benefit of having faith after having accepted God’s message. Not only this, but God told Paul that his humility in suffering made Paul a better example and a man of stronger faith in 2nd Corinthians 12:9, so God had blessed Paul with the things that he needed to carry on and overcome already. God said ‘no’ to Paul not out of personal preference or some other criteria, but the fact that what Paul was asking did not meet God’s purposes for His healing sufficient to heal Paul, as well as on the grounds that God had already done what Paul genuinely needed, having given him wisdom and guidance, so that Paul could carry out God’s will. And what God did for Paul, God does for us today who are under Christ’s law through His inspired scriptures, as it says in James 1:5, “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.”

This is why I submit to anyone that brings up these two topics that God has and is operating as He always has: According to His principles and His promises. And He still provides wisdom and the offer of mercy today; His promises are still alive and well and working in our lives through our understanding and adherence to the scriptures.

I hope that we Christians will do our best to study what the scriptures actually teach us and make the arguments that God would have us make for what we believe. It is too great a blessing to have God’s help and God’s mercy not to share these messages accurately and effectively with our friends and families.

Thank you and God bless,


Does God Change His Mind?

April 12, 2012

Recently it was suggested to me by some well-meaning Christians that they believe that God can change His mind about things. I attempted to discuss what I felt and still feel was this misunderstanding of the nature and operation of God, which is itself far beyond the simplicity of what will be this discussion entirely, but was not allowed to give my thoughts according to reason and have them be heard. So, in order to revisit this, I will outline the simple reasons for which, unlike men who are “tossed to and fro”, God is resolute, does not compromise His principles, and does not alter His course from His plan.

First of all, why is it important to have this conversation? I’ll tell you: God must be just in order to have moral authority over man. Isaiah 55:9 says “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Being just means God must be an objective giver of judgment. In order to be objective, God must be subordinate to His nature and principles. He must then, as consequence, apply His principles to the same end He would render in a given set of circumstances every time He was called to do so. That is to say, His decision would be based upon His principles alone; not on any subjective information such as the persons concerned, His preference of outcome apart from His principles, or any other temptation that would cause a mortal man to falter or to compromise. Given that His principles would not change and the circumstances would not change, God would then have to deliver the consistent and correct judgment, the same each time it is tested.

Why else is it important that God be just in this manner? Because God can be called into question if He is *not* just in this manner. Suppose that the only condition of God’s decisions to be justified, which is the same as to say ‘just’, were that they were God’s decisions. If God could, given any set of circumstances, make any decision and it be the correct decision, God could not be said to have any principles. If God is genuinely un-tethered from any edict of right and wrong according to His nature, then God is obligated to no decision. God would necessarily not be acting according to His purposes when He lets man sin and provoke Him to wrath. Why He would not simply purify all of mankind from sin with no concern for whether or not they find it in their hearts to submit to and obey His commandments is indefensible. There is nothing to point to as the reason for why God *cannot* choose to do so. If He is simply unwilling to do so for no other reason that it does not appeal to Him personally, then God is an unloving and unmoving God. Further, man would also be much happier without free will. If our lives were perfect and we made the correct decision in every situation, there would be no war, no hate, no rage, no murder and no rape. If it made literally no difference to God whether or not mankind has free will according to any principle of His, then God has by personal preference chosen the nature of man to give to man that is more difficult and more sorrowful for man because man being given free will gave us the opportunity to cause our downfall into sin. God could also be said to have favored the Jewish people over the rest of the world according not to His promises or His principles, but His unfairness and His willingness to neglect the many for the few.

Even further, God could not be trusted to deliver the judgment He has *promised* to give to those who are obedient to Him in Christ because, un-tethered from His principles, He could decide to damn one and forgive the other, with no semblance or reason between them. The Bible informs us that is *not* so: Romans 2:10-11, “But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God.”

Now, this conversation was and will be had in context of the story of Moses and the several times Moses asked God not to punish the people of Israel. This did not happen only once, but the most famous incident was the time at which Moses climbed the mountain and the Lord became angry with the people who molded a golden idol in Moses’ absence, as described by Moses in Deuteronomy 9. This is also the case and almost the exact same situation plays out in Numbers 14, when God, for the rebellion of the people, forbids them to enter the land of Canaan until all of those above a certain age have died.

Despite the protest that I received for attempting to define what changing one’s mind requires, I will do so again for the benefit of this article; Simply because we describe actions in a certain way does not mean those actions are what we described them as. To demonstrate: We can call the act of skateboarding ‘cycling’, but it does not make it cycling. Therefore, it serves that we must define what we *mean* when we say we have “changed our mind”.

To change one’s mind implies several things, all of which must be met, in order for changing one’s mind to be accomplished. First, an individual must show a willingness to change one’s position on the details that have led them to their conclusion. Additionally, they must show this willingness with respect to the same circumstances in which their original conclusion was reached. This is because if the circumstances have changed, the application of the position being applied to the previous circumstances may not have the same consequences as it would when applied to the new ones. Thus, what has actually occurred is a new decision since there is a new application of the position.  However, if the circumstances have not changed, then this means that not only are they willing to compromise the principle that inspired their solution, but they are willing to do so in the exact same situation as they applied that principle originally.

An example of changing one’s mind would be to change one’s mind about not buying a new vehicle. An individual, while looking at a new vehicle, may determine they have a certain set of expectations for the vehicle before they would be willing to purchase it. They may then determine not to purchase the vehicle on the grounds that their expectations are not met. However, the sales person may question their expectations for that vehicle in such a way that causes them to believe their expectations were incorrect or unreasonable. The individual may then choose to purchase the vehicle. If they choose to do so, then they have changed their mind.

This is a change of mind in the purest form: The expectations of the car shopper are the principles being applied to the situation. The car did not change after these principles were originally applied to it, so we’re seeing a different decision being made about the exact same object or set of circumstances. We then see the car shopper violate their original expectations because they became willing to purchase the vehicle even though their original expectations had not been met. This is called ‘changing one’s mind’, specifically because what changed was not the car, nor whether or not the original expectations were met by the car, but the shopper’s willingness to apply those principles to their original intended consequence. That is to say, the shopper decided their original expectations, although violated, were no longer grounds *not* to purchase the vehicle.

Let’s hold this definition of changing one’s mind, or more formally described, being willing to violate one’s principles, to the actions of God with the people of Israel.

First, the opposing argument: God was willing to decide *not* to destroy the people of Israel, for the sake of Moses asking the Lord not to, so God changed His mind.

What actually happened was that Moses went up the mountain for 40 days and 40 nights. After this, God sent Moses down, telling him that the people had turned away from Him and that He would destroy them. Once Moses returned, he broke the tablets for his fury with the people, and crushed the golden idol they had created. He also rebuked the people strongly and to their faces. Once he had accomplished this, Moses returned to the mountain of the Lord and spent another 40 days and 40 nights praying to God to overlook their sin and show them mercy. After this time, the Lord answers Moses and says, I will not destroy the people

There are a great many reasons why this does not rise to God violating His principles and several of them involve speculating at the nature of God, which we can only know from what the Bible teaches us, and as much as it might say, it is still very little.

1) The Lord did not violate His principles.

If you read the entire situation, there never comes a point when the Lord says He was incorrect for being angry with the people. There never comes a point at which the Lord says He is no longer angry. In fact, the anger of the Lord with the sin of man endures forever. We know that this anger will never go away until sin goes away because God is just and can have no part with sin.

Albeit God showed mercy to the people in this situation, He did not do so because He decided His wrath was not needed. That is to say, God did not go back on His conviction concerning the people, nor that they deserved to be destroyed. Neither did He forget or forgive the sins of the people *at this time*. It was well understood once the law was established, in a similar fashion, the sins of the people could only be rolled forward in animal sacrifice to such a time as they could hope for at which God could provide a worthy sacrifice to cleanse them from their sins.

2) Moses did not ask God to violate His principles.

What Moses did was not correct God or tell God that He was applying His principles incorrectly. And far be it from any man to correct God! Psalm 139 verse 6 makes it very clear that God’s ways and God’s wisdom are too great for mortal man to obtain. So how would Moses, a mortal man, correct God? What just and all powerful God needs to be corrected?

What Moses did was give intercession for the people. Moses did not only break the tablets, which was done to signify that the nation had broken the law God had given them. He also crushed the idol and poured it in the river, which was a form of sacrifice for the sins of the people. He then went back up the mountain and spent more than a month in the presence of the Lord begging Him to show the people mercy despite His unwavering principles that had been violated.

Moses’ argument for God turning away His wrath was not based upon God’s decision being the incorrect one; Far from it! Moses never begged the Lord not to do what the Lord felt He should do based upon the Lord’s principles being incorrect, nor their application being incorrect. Moses never once claimed that the people were justified or not deserving of death. He asked several times for the Lord to look at *other* things, such as their ancestors who had been faithful and His promises to them, in order to turn away His wrath. As we will see in the next point, none of these were actually successful in and of themselves.

3) The Lord’s decision not to destroy the people was a result not of persuasion concerning his original decision, but of Moses’ intercession as well as the presence and existence of Jesus Christ.

John 5:38-39 says that the scriptures which the Jewish people read testify of Christ. And we see the archetypes of Christ that point forward to Him and foreshadow His life all throughout the story of Moses. Both the actions of Moses and the rejection of the rock which Moses struck are both stern clear examples of how the goodness of Christ will be both hoped for and rejected by the people of Israel throughout their history.

God choosing to listen to Moses was predicated on God’s knowledge of the situation, His eventual plan and His decisions previous to these situations arising. To understand this, we must understand something else: We must understand that God knew exhaustively what would take place and that His wrath being turned away by the prayer of Moses was His plan from the beginning. 2nd Timothy 1:9 explains that God’s plan had been laid out before the world began. God did not put Moses in a position to talk Him out of anything nor to reason away His anger, but to be a stand-in interceder for Christ in the time before Christ’s covenant could come to be. This is not the only interceder that God has ever ordained on behalf of Christ before Christ could come to earth. Melchizedek, the King of Salem, Abraham, Job and others all offered sacrifices and interceded on the behalf of the people around about them to God, begging for God’s mercy on their behalf. God commands Job to do this at the end of the book of Job, “Lest I deal with them according to My wrath “.

Further, for the sake of argument, some people argue that God could not have known that the people would disobey Him for certain, as the future had yet been unwritten by the force of the present. If this were the case, it would still be that Moses’ job was to do what he did in interceding for the people, and that this is specifically what God had called him to do. In the latter part of Deuteronomy 5, God tells the people to go away to their tents but Moses to stay and stand by Him and hear the whole law and council of the Lord. Earlier in the chapter, God had heard the people and the people had heard God by Moses going back and forth between, the intermediary, just as God had originally called Moses to do when He sent Moses to speak to the people of Israel in Egypt. Very significant is the fact that God considered Moses the most humble man in all the earth according to Numbers 12, to God’s choice for Moses to be His intermediary. He even says in Deuteronomy 5 that when the people said “You go and speak to the Lord, lest we die”, that they were *right* in all that they said, which means God knew that if He were to deal directly with them and not through Moses, that they certainly would have been destroyed. Whether God knew for a fact or not that they would disobey, God correctly set in order ahead of time means by which His eventual wrath would find place for mercy wherewith the people of Israel might be pardoned without compromising His principles. This system was not to have God’s decision changed, but for mediation to occur to allow for mercy. This system was first Moses, to claim God’s mercy on behalf of Christ, then Christ’s death and blood to wash away the sins of the people that had gone unpunished until that time.

Thus, according to these three facts, we are able to see that God did not change His mind. They demonstrate, to our definition of changing one’s mind, that God never showed a willingness to compromise on His principles such as to render His original decision invalid and that He did not show a willingness to compromise in the same set of circumstances that He became provoked in since Moses interceded on behalf of the people.

What God did actually do was install an additional step in His operation to forestall His inevitable wrath by allowing one very humble person to make intercession on behalf of those that were about to be punished, if not destroyed. God allowed Moses to set the example for all mankind that God, despite His perfect nature, was willing to give man a way to avoid the consequences of imperfection by providing us the only thing that could perfect us: Christ’s interceding blood; And through this blood we are shown His willingness to suffer loss on our behalf that we deserve to suffer ourselves, in order reconcile us with perfection.

None of this, not even the premise, could be justifiable or morally correct if God was the cause of the very imperfection that He rejects. No mercy could mean anything if God’s wrath was not perfectly justified and truthfully righteous. God’s ability to make any decision in a given situation obliterates all of this. It makes God unfair, unpredictable and subject to change His law and His plan whenever He feels like it. But we know this is not the case because Hebrews 13:8 tells us “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.” Just as Jesus Christ’s eventual life and death provided hope of mercy to every man to live before Him, so Jesus Christ’s life and death provide hope to us that live under the new law God has led us to, as was His intention even from the very beginning of the world. Malachi 3:6 says “For I am the Lord; I change not. Therefore, you sons of Jacob are not consumed.” It was always God’s intensions to spare mankind judgment until the coming of Christ. And here we are, intact and awaiting judgment today. Blessed is the name of the Lord of Hosts. Amen.

Now, some will argue against this post that God did not show that interceding mercy to those who were destroyed in the flood and some of those who were destroyed among the nation of Israel or by the nation of Israel as they were being led into the land of Canaan. The reason why God destroyed *some* men is very simple: Those men rejected the opportunities God provided for them to accept the Lord’s mercy. 2nd Peter 2:5 tells us Noah preached to the people of his age, and Genesis 6 tells us God forestalled His flood 120 years while Noah prepared the ark and preached. We know God spared Noah and his family so I cannot imagine why Noah would have preached *after* the flood. It is very obvious that his ministry was to mankind before the flood, because it would have been his only audience. In a like fashion, those who were destroyed amongst the Israelites and by the Israelites had hundreds of years of history and warnings to heed God’s warnings; When Moses came up out of the land of Egypt and spoke with the Edomites in Numbers 20, he said “You know all the travail that has befallen us.” God’s ways and God’s commandments, as well as the history of Noah, the flood, the things that happened in Egypt and the stories of the life of Abraham were all common knowledge to the people that befell the wrath of God during that time and they were all given more than ample opportunity to comply with Moses and receive mercy from God; Consider: God knows the hearts of all men. Psalm 44:21 says “Would not God have discovered it, since He knows the secrets of the heart?” And God thus would have given mercy to the people He destroyed if they had chosen to have humble hearts and fear God. To that end, notice what Peter says in Acts 10:34-35, “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in *every nation* he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him.” It is true of all of those that were punished after mocking God and disregarding His warnings for, in some cases years and in some cases hundreds of years, what is said in Romans 1:28 and 32, “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;” and “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

Additionally, God’s law did not change with God’s mind over the ages but according to what He was teaching us about His true nature and intentions that enabled Him to eventually move on to the law of liberty under Christ and reveal His complete will. This is much too long of a discussion to get into given the length of this article already, but know this: God’s plan has always been for us to be obedient in Christ. That is why God has led us from the land of slavery and sin into the land of the New Testament covenant.

I hope this has been an illuminating lesson in the unchanging nature of our God and His everlasting intensions as reflected by His actions in the scriptures.

Thank you and God bless,


Kony: Facts Please

March 11, 2012

I’m pretty suspicious this is some kind of farce to justify United Nations military action in Africa. Something about this whole plot doesn’t make sense.

Case and point, there are many other problems in Africa that are much worse, such as the civil war in Rwanda and other much more industrial and populated yet much less stable states. I had Rwandan roommates in college and they explained the situation to me, and it sounds like they would be much more appreciative of western help than those in Sudan and Central Africa.

Marxism and socialism is afoot here in America and many other western states. Whoever and whatever is behind this Kony thing needs to be exposed and explain exactly what their agenda is.

Please be aware of what you’re supporting before you give to it. You may be helping the very people that dislike your way of life and your fundamental values.

Some people say, well this movement was started by a guy that actually went out and saw Uganda and visited the people. He knows what’s going on.

The problem with it is, Kony hasn’t been a big player in Uganda in over four years. And the guy who started this thing did not have the money or visibility to get this message out there. There is a serious coordinated effort to spread propaganda and posters about this situation all over the United States as I’m sure there is in Australia and other places. It is highly suspicious. Caution is highly advisable in regards to who is pushing this thing and what their real proposal or agenda is. That’s all that I’m asking you be aware of.

Some people state that we shouldn’t be trying to keep a message that’s good from getting out and helping solve a bad situation. If we don’t, the world will be a worse place and genocides will happen.

Guess what. If we suspend suspicion, thousands of people die and tons of support goes to make the world a worse place the very way that they describe. If anyone had the sense to question Hitler and the Nazi party the day after the Night of Long Knives, things might have gone MUCH differently in Germany in the 40s. The fact that no one knows history and no one questions their leadership or the propaganda they’re fed is the *exact reason* this stuff keeps happening.

For once, can we be students of history and actually figure out what the hell is going on here before we make this a big international issue? Please?

If not, I submit we are the exact people Stalin called “useful idiots”. This is likely a progressive scheme. Stuff like this doesn’t come about spontaneously. The message that needs to get out is who the hell is funding this and what exactly they’re trying to accomplish. Period.

Some people say to just go to the website and read the mission statement. Yet, I wonder if this occurs to them: Every organization that presents a mission is not necessarily owned organized or funded by who they say they are. I can’t believe that it takes this little effort to make some believe that these people just popped up out of nowhere trying to solve a legitimate problem.

You know what the honest truth is, in the end? If the people of a nation are not willing to unite and establish a legitimate form of government for themselves that can actually protect them and bring an end to their conflicts, no one ought to or indeed can do it for them. The people that push these kind of agendas are one-world-government people like George Soros. They want to establish one gigantic EU to rule and govern the entire planet. And this is how they forward their agenda. They disguise it as a pure as the wind driven snow charity. They do the same thing with Media Matters, the Tides Foundation, and all these other stupid groups.

Now, one last point of contention I have here is the fact that they’re using our political symbols and our flag’s colors to spark emotion and empathy and rouse people’s hearts without engaging their brains. When you start presenting a message that way it’s pretty clear you’re not interested in winning a debate or presenting a legitimate problem with facts.


Kony has not be a player for 4 years in Uganda and we don’t even know if the guy is freaking alive or not.

Killing Kony, if he was really a worthwhile target, would be a simple thing for any international power including the USA. If anyone needs to be making a case for killing this guy, they need to be making it to the government and to the military, not as a propaganda campaign in the streets.

We don’t even know what killing this guy would do! Stop and think about it. We don’t know if there’s someone to replace him, if the whole situation in Uganda just goes away, who the hell even knows! Does anyone have a plan for how to fix the whole country besides putting a target on some guy’s back?

Uganda is not even the biggest concern on the continent at a time when the USA and the UN have overstretched their funding and man power in pointless wars abroad. We haven’t been presented with a good reason to throw our hats into another one of these stupid situations that’s going to benefit none of us in the west.


If you don’t want to ask real questions or wrap your head around legitimate information, do us all a favor and don’t support anything. The rule ” first, do no harm ” applies.

Mark. My. Words.: This kind of idiocy is gonna get us *all killed*.

Love and prayers,


On Christianity and Government

March 8, 2012

One of the most frustrating themes of the debate between progressive powerful government and limited republican government is the indifference of people on the basis of Christian religion. I do not mean this in terms of a religious organization requiring its members to take a certain political stance. However, by the reason and principles of Christianity, each individual Christian ought to have an understanding of and argument for legitimate righteous government as outlined by the scriptures.

Thomas Paine, in 1776, outlined the biblical contention with powerful government, which he referred to as monarchical government. He laid these arguments out in his famed pamphlet Common Sense. Though he argues against the Quakers mixing religion and politics, religion, in context, would have been what I began by explaining I did not mean; That is to say, Paine was disapproving of a religious organization initiating group think rather than individuals reasoning by their own principles, be they religious or otherwise. The principles he applied to the origin and nature of monarchical government still apply to all worldly godless forms of government today. The other founders believed in no uncertain terms that there was, according to the same basic principles Thomas Paine defended, a God-approved method of government, in which the governed are consulted and protected by the governors.

For those who are not familiar with what the Bible teaches in terms of this, I will briefly outline Paine’s arguments as well as give a few of my own thoughts as to how his ideas apply to us and our modern forms of government today.

First and foremost, Thomas Paine’s primary argument is that because the modern race of man was fathered by the first and few in number generation of mankind, we, being not so unlike them in regards to our nature and wants, should live as much like they would have as possible. This is because they would have been the most free and peaceful generation of men to live. Being the same as one another, they would have had no reason to exalt one of them over the rest. Likewise, they would not have wanted to lose their rights to the others so long as it was not essential. These individuals would have collaborated only in the areas which their motivations overlapped, otherwise being independent of one another. Further, they would have considered the freedoms of their children equal to their own and never have made any decision that would disadvantage future generations without their consent.

Paine then explains that only at such a time when mankind’s population had grown such that each individual could not be consulted easily enough to represent themselves would that group of people ever consider appointing another person to represent them. However, in order to maintain order and social compact among a body of people divided by the distance between their dwellings and diversity of their needs, the group would still attempt to install a governing body that would only administrate with the bare necessities of authority to resolve the lowest common denominator of issues pertinent to the security of the individuals in that society.

The reasoning is basically this: Why would they give up any dignity to another person who is of the same blood and nature as themselves? Why would they see anyone as more fit to decide the course of their lives than they? They would never have installed government in order to make their life decisions, but rather, to protect them from the number of vices and malcontents that would arise from a growing population that could not be held directly accountable by town council.

In this way, according to the original race of mankind and how they would have lived and have been happiest as independent individuals, having a king or a powerful government to which all our rights and dignity bends is against our very origin and nature! This is the doctrine that sets all men free: The doctrine that says all men being obviously the same and in so much as it is their birthright that no one ought to or indeed can deny, they should live in every way possible such as allows them not to rule over or be ruled over by one another.

Now, Paine goes on to demonstrate that this reasoning and these ideas were well understood by the Jewish people during the era of judges after the exodus from Egypt. When they attempted to violate these ideas by setting up Gideon over them as a king, not only did Gideon, Paine explains, deny their request, he told them that they did not have the authority to give him what they had offered! Gideon told them that the Lord was their king, not a man, and that the Lord would rule them, not mankind. But, according to their desire to be worldly and wicked, they still came to demand a king from Samuel.

He continues by providing a contrast between the origin and intentions of monarchies, in our case any powerful government, with the society mankind, by his argument, ought to naturally prefer. Not only does he do this, but he dishonors their origin by explaining that by the nature of man, there is no other way than by usurpation that hereditary monarchy could have come about. Because, Paine argues, taking the first king by lot or election would have set a precedent for the next, no man of the original generation needing to suppose that a lot or election would remove the rights of future generations to choose their own ruler. The only way the rights of future generations would have fallen by the wayside to heredity would be if someone had set themselves up in a position to force those future generations to accept it. And Paine demonstrates that this was what happened in the case of England by discussing William the Conqueror, who did just that.

In the very same way, no powerful government that denies the rights of future generations could have come about without usurpation; For neither did our forefathers suppose this to be the natural consequence of their decisions, nor would it have been their right to give away the liberties of their posterity even if they had wished to do so!

Now, more or less at the same time, Thomas Paine explains that those who believe the Bible demands loyalty to a tyrannical government have missed the point of the teaching of the scriptures. I will go by point since Paine’s writing is somewhat out of order according to how the logic seems to follow in my own view.

First, Paine explains, the Lord would have us have no other king but Him. When Gideon speaks against the people for wanting to set him up as a king, this is his explanation. The Lord shall be your king.

Second, giving any man undue authority and honor such as a king has, to dictate what is right and wrong, is idolatry, because those participating in the act would be setting a man in the place of God, which the Lord would clearly disapprove of.

Next, Samuel, when the people next demand to be given a king, tells them that a king will destroy them and take their goods and labor for himself, which would be sin in the eyes of God, both upon them for demanding this form of government, and upon the man who would do it.

Next, in His primary approval given to David, God does not regard David as a king but as a man only. For it is said, “David was a man after God’s own heart. “ There is no king that is after God’s own heart, because God never wanted us to have kings.

Further, though many quote Christ as having said “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”, this is no statement of approval to monarchical or indeed, oppressive tyrannical government, because the Jewish people had no king and were living in a state of vassalage to Rome. That is to say, they were submitting to the authority of a government that was allowing them to continue living their religious values, was no doing evil, at the time, with their proceeds and was not slaughtering their people. They had been consulted as to the needs of their people because their grievances were managed by a governor which the Romans placed over their regency. Christ was teaching, thus, that in as much as it is not evil to obey the authority of a government, to endure it. This would not therefor prohibit, by Paine’s reasoning, those who were under the authority of such a government from breaking away from it or rejecting its authority if it usurped greater powers than those which God had apportioned to government or began to do wickedness, such as those evils of monarchy described by the prophet Samuel, that no Christian could in good conscience support.

I would add myself that were we to submit to government authority absolutely, no matter the evils of that government, that Christ’s life would have never reached maturity and His ministry never taken place, because at the time that Christ was born His mother and father fled to Egypt to protect Him, as Herod had sought to destroy Him by slaughtering every man child in the region at the time of His birth. If God had ordained Herod’s authority to do this, how then would God approve of Christ’s family fleeing this authority to save Him? It is very clear Herod was never ordained such a power and God had never approved of those who usurped such authority for themselves in any government.

I, being more concerned with persuading the religious than Paine perhaps might have been, will go on to address the words of Peter and Paul myself in this context.

Peter says in regards to government in the New Testament, “And chiefly them that walk after the flesh, in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government, which are presumptuous, and stand in their own conceit, and fear not to speak evil of them that are in dignity”, 2nd Peter 2:10. Now, the version I have chosen to quote is the Geneva Bible, as this is the translation that the founders would have read during their time. Here, Peter disdains those that speak evil against dignitaries.  Some take this to mean that anyone who speaks out against government is rebellious. Yet, Peter makes two qualifications to the type of individual that he is speaking about in this verse, from it and the verse previous to it. He states first that the person is unjust and second that they despise government. This means that those who despise government because it prohibits them from living their unjust unclean lifestyle at the expense and hazard of those around them, God will judge. This can be more plainly described as hating law and justice in general. This says nothing about a righteous person speaking out against an unjust government or delivering God’s teaching against monarchy to those who are living under an oppressive monarch. In fact, 2nd Timothy 3:16 teaches that all scripture is given for teaching and for giving an argument against the naysayers who argue against righteousness. How then would God contradict Himself by forbidding that teaching be done when it applies to an oppressive regime or dictator? Certainly, this is not what the scriptures teach at all. Before the end of his life Paul preached to King Agrippa. If we suppose all kings to be ordained of God, why then would God send Paul to preach to a man He had already set in authority over Paul? It is a simple thing to understand. Agrippa was not a minister according to God’s purposes for government or law. Agrippa was a king that was a ruler according to his own purposes. And if any government chooses to do or sponsor sinful acts, chooses not to be subject to its own laws or chooses to exalt a man in the place of God, then it is operating according to its own purposes and not according to God’s.

Take a look at the very next verse that Peter offers as an example of this principle! Peter speaks about angels not rebuking those that stand before, or that is to say, against the Lord. They, who will eventually punish the evil doers with the sword, do not speak untruths or angry words to those they will be completely justified in destroying. Were we being taught never to contend with those who do evil or set themselves up in the place of God, this would be a very poor example to present us with, as the angels of the Lord go before the destruction of all evil. A parallel rebuke of those who despise government in Jude 1 illustrates Michael in the very act of fighting Satan but refusing to rail against him. On the one hand, Michael is the example of the principle, and in the other he is physically attacking the very thing he is choosing not to speak evilly about. However, what Michael did say is an example to us as well: ” The Lord rebuke you! ” What I believe this teaches us is that in as much as anyone, including a government, has violated God’s law and done evil, those who are righteous must speak out and stand in opposition to that evil, charging the doer of that evil not according to their own doctrine or interests, but God’s. For these reasons, these passages in Jude 1 and 2nd Peter 2 are clearly reprimands of those who wish to live in willful lawlessness, not those who justly stand in opposition to an out of control government that is doing evil in the sight of God.

And to this point, Paul’s words on government are found in Romans 13. According to Paul, the governor is a ‘magistrate’, or in the original Greek, a ‘dee a ko nos’, the same word from which we get the word ‘deacon’, of God. And in as much as we should submit to God, we should submit to the authority of government because those who fear or hate the rule of law are only those who wish to do evil.

Now, there are a few things to take note of immediately when reading the first seven verses of this chapter.

First, the word deacon is not the same as the word ruler. The word ruler was chosen by the King James interpreters specifically to give the king and the church a hook to hang their hat on when arguing for the rapacious relationship the English government had formed with religion, that is to say, having put state in charge of theology. The Geneva Bible, the translation the founders would have read, translates this word as ‘magistrate’, which I will use going forward. Proof of this is the verses that speak about King Agrippa, as in Acts25, who is referred to by scripture with the word ‘bas il yoo ce”, which is to say, the one who is in charge of a land or a province.

Next, the law enforcer described here is one who seeks to punish evil and not good. The Third Reich, Stalin’s soldiers, Mao Tsetung, the soldiers who guarded the trains during the Holodomor in the Ukraine, and every other murderer or usurper would not qualify as a ‘magistrate’ by the teaching of Paul.

Another of Paine’s arguments falls in line with this point that further explains the relationship: ” There is no power from heaven that must be checked.” That is to say, there is no ill intending or abusive power that comes from God. By this argument we come to understand that when a government chooses to do evil and punish good according to God’s law, what it does it no longer has the authority to do from God but from the men that embolden it to do this evil.

My additional thought to those that might bring up Pontius Pilate would be that Pontius Pilate’s job in administrating was to keep peace and civil order in the area he was in authority over. While he may have personally been a very wicked person, as a government figure, he attempted to release Christ three times and to absolve his authority of the responsibility twice. God gave him power over Christ for a certain time, but Pontius Pilate was never given approval for any of the evil things he did before or after by this situation taking place.. A righteous God never would.

Finally, we must look at Paul’s teaching in context with Christ and Peter’s words and silence in other places to understand what is being taught here.

Christ, when speaking to soldiers who inquired about His instructions to them, told them in Luke 3:14 not to do violence to any person, but this is not a commendation to pacifism. The word used for violence here is ‘dee as i’ o’, which means to terrify someone, to shake them, or to cause them to tremble. It can also mean to commit an act of extortion. This would mean Christ’s first command is related to the third to the soldiers, which is not to abuse their power for their own personal gain or satisfaction. Like tax collectors, soldiers at the time were prone to steal and take things by force instead of, as Christ commanded, being content with their wages. So, Christ here did not disapprove of the profession of a soldier nor prohibit the use of arms for every reason. He did, however, prohibit the use of government power to abuse the people under one’s authority.

Peter, in the same way, when he is sent to speak with Cornelius in Acts 10 and 11, does not instruct Cornelius to leave the Roman military, which the very first verse of Acts 10 explains he is a member of. Cornelius was a just man, and yet was a man of war and of the government. Yet, Peter instructs Cornelius in the gospel and how to conduct his business as a military man and as a Christian going forward.

Since neither Christ nor Peter demanded that the soldiers or Cornelius stop serving in the Roman military, God obviously did not disapprove of the Roman mission or what their government was doing in the region at the time. It would be the campaign of Titus and the genocide and persecution of Jews and Christians the Roman Empire was about to engage in following the time of the apostles, beginning with the execution of Paul, that God would condemn, as John foretold in the Revelation. Therefore, neither Christ nor Paul are teaching to be subservient to evil or tyrannical government, no more than God would approve of a monarch in the Old Testament. God is opposed, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament, to powerful governments that commit idolatry and abuse the people whom they are supposed to govern.

Now, here is the crux of the problem for us as Christians: Where do we go from here? We can demonstrate from scripture that God disapproves of powerful, abusive and oppressive government. We can demonstrate from scripture that God never intended for there to be any king but Himself. But we can also demonstrate that God wants us to be subject to the authority of government in as much as it does not violate His laws or His principles. Obviously these beliefs need to play a role in our politics and the way we talk about and understand political issues as we participate in holding our government accountable. But where do we go and what do we do as Christians when a government becomes tyrannical, out of control and violent towards its own people?

Some say that we should lie down and die under any and every oppression presented to us. There are a great many arguments for this point of view, and I will take the time here to take each of them apart one at a time.  Then, I will offer my own recommendation based upon a few biblical principles.

Christ told Peter to put away his sword in Matthew 26, telling him that those who take the sword will be killed by it. Consider a few things here: If Christ believed there was never an appropriate time to defend one’s self, why would He have allowed Peter to go armed in the first place? Does anyone believe the disciple Peter would have carried a sword on the road with Christ if Christ did not approve? Peter was one of the Lord’s closest apostles and most ardent supporters. He was the only one to venture near the place where he was being tried when the other disciples fled. He was also the one that Christ gave the benediction to that his confession, that Jesus was the Christ, would be the basis upon which the Church itself would be built. How then would one of the most faithful followers of Christ during His ministry be carrying something Christ would never allow or approve of?

Christ said to be harmless as doves in Mathew 10. Christ was speaking of being innocent of wrong doing or reproach in this verse. The original Greek word used here is ‘ak er ah yos’, which is to say, pure in mind and heart, not mixed up with wickedness, plainly, innocent. This is not a command of pacifism, but purity.

Paul commanded the Philippians to be harmless as well in 2:15. The same word is used here. The word translated harmless here does not, in the original Greek, imply pacifism, but purity of thought, in the same terms that would have been used when speaking about mixing wines or metals. There is no recommendation in this scripture to absolute pacifism either.

Peter commends slaves to be submissive to their masters, both kind and harsh, in 1st peter 2:18. Peter here is speaking to those owned as slaves and the employed. This verse says nothing with respect to government.  Peter does go on to say that Christ submitted Himself to the judges righteously, but this is not a parallel example, that is to say, like for like. Christ’s submission is demonstrated in a situation which God would have clearly disapproved of, where as being an indebted servant or being employed to another person is completely different. To say that this one verse requires us to endure the same abuses in the same manner as Christ did is fallacious because the same abuses are not described in both situations. We’re being commended to follow Christ’s behavior as our example in a different eventuality, which is either being a servant or employee of a master.

As evidence, in this situation the master is never referred to as a king or government figure, as God, even back in the Old Testament, never intended for anyone to be a slave to a powerful government figure or monarch, disapproving of them loudly and clearly. The word used for master here is ‘des po ta is’, which means, literally, an owner. Yet God never gave government the authority to own anyone. This cannot be our commendation to be subject to any authority, even a wicked and murderous government, since neither Pontius Pilate nor the master of Peter’s teaching presents a government figure that is disobeying God’s law. Again, it was not Pilate’s prerogative to seek to put Christ to death. If that were the case Pilate would have ordered Christ crucified immediately.

The most compelling argument for being a pacifist, both in terms of government and participating in the military, would be Christ’s teaching in Matthew 5. In verse 39 Christ teaches “But I say unto you, Resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” This would parallel the teaching “Render not evil for evil,” in 1st Peter 3:9.

I would answer those who would suggest that these scriptures are teaching us to be pacifists that these words were spoken by the two people who, in my earlier point, were perfectly ok with Peter carrying a sword. Christ Himself threw the money changers out of the temple by force in Mark 11! Anyone who would suggest that the words of Christ or Peter promote absolute pacifism set the scriptures and Christ at odds with themselves and Himself.

The truth of the matter in terms of war, self-defense and protecting one’s self is this. In Ezekiel 33, God explained the terms by which morality is to be applied to armed conflict and protecting one’s family and community. In fact, in this verse, it is already common knowledge that God is referencing which is already understood by Ezekiel, but this allegory God uses when speaking with Ezekiel serves as our enlightenment. He says that when a man is made a watchman, if he sees the enemy coming and he blows the horn, all of those who do not heed the warning, their blood is on their own hands. Yet, if the watchman does not blow the horn when he sees the enemy coming, if anyone dies because the enemy invades, their blood is on his head. So it is with us today. While we ought turn our cheek to rebuke and persecution, while we ought to “as much as is possible, as depends on you, live peaceably with all men”, Romans 12:18, while we ought to put our sword in its place, we *must* protect our families, our churches and our neighbors or their blood will be on our hands.

Christ, at the time of His ministry, and the apostles after His teaching, were teaching that the Kingdom of Heaven, that is to say, the Church, was not being established to fight an earthly war. Christ says in John 18 “if my kingdom were of this world my servants would fight”. The stress of peaceful demeanor and love for one’s enemies they expressed was to serve as direction both to the Church and we as individuals in our personal lives. But this does not absolve us from our obvious and God-given responsibilities to fight to abolish murderous and wicked rulers, invaders of our lands and those who break the law. Such is not the violence described by Christ when speaking to the soldiers, but is righteous, in as much as it has tried for peace at every turn and found no resolution but to flee or to stand one’s ground.

Remember that America was founded by millions of people who fled the continent of Europe where they were facing, primarily, religious persecution. Many of these people were very close to what I would consider Bible believing Christians. Yet, today, there is not always a place for Christians to run if their government becomes tyrannical. We cannot always protect our families or our country by fleeing from our oppression. We must, as briefly and as infrequently as humanly possible, stand and fight for God’s law and for peace.

Further, many wars are prolonged and evils allowed when we choose not to speak or act. Paine argued that to allow England and the colonies of America to continue to be basically at armed conflict with no resolution rather than vying for independence was the most immoral choice anyone could make because such a conflict would continue indefinitely and cause the most heartache, bitterness and bloodshed. Nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than in Ireland, where there is still a great bitterness and resentment between the loyalists and those who wanted independence from England, even today.  This has caused several more wars since the original and always there is a fear and feeling of unease when bombings and shootings take place that a war is about to begin. This is ungodly behavior and ungodly government, according to the laws and principles God sets forth in the Bible.

In such situations, if we who are Christians and believe in God will not stand up and demand leadership that is interested in a final end to conflict, God will not hold us guiltless. In the same way, those who were Christians in Nazi Germany that chose not to fight to save the lives of the Jewish people and right the wrongs of their fellow countrymen, God will not hold them guiltless. This harkens back to the quote of the honorable man, Dietrich Bonheoffer, who said “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” This good man gave his life to try to unseat a tyrant that was murdering millions of people and fighting an unjust war. To him, he believed if he had not acted that God would have punished him for being indifferent in the face of evil. However much we may not think of it in this manner, this does follow the principle both of Ezekiel 33 and of James 4:17, “He who knows to do good and does it not, to him it is sin.” In this way we understand that the evils of men and government that fall to us to resolve, we cannot be indifferent towards. In some situations, the right thing may be to run, but there are some situations in which the right thing is to fight to protect the innocent and end conflict.

David did the same when he was in exile. While he chose never to take the life of king Saul, he knew the king was a tyrant and an ungodly man, and he resisted his power at every turn with his own military might. He only chose not to take the life of Saul because he believed, in his loving heart, that God would give him a way to become king without taking the life of a man that was once his dear friend. Even though Saul had lost the approval of God and presented David with a great enough threat for him to be justified to take Saul’s life, David chose to wait for the Lord. However, armed conflict did finally end the reign of Saul. And in every situation where evil outside of Israel presented itself, David did not hesitate to fight to protect his people and restore peace. He never initiated a war with the enemies of Israel, but he did fight to end them. Today, if a government begins to violate its own laws, to slaughter its own people, or to sponsor things that are wicked, we must resist that evil to the degree its extremity justifies, speak out to rebuke it and as the only final alternative, should it be one of violence and slaughter, take up arms against it. God approved of this in the Old Testament and the New Testament, even as much as the Lord allowed Peter to carry his sword as his final alternative to allowing his wife, children or fellow disciples be murdered by the thieves, bandits and corrupt soldiers of their time.

Now, that brings up the final question that needs to be resolved, which is, if this were the case why didn’t the apostles resist being arrested, imprisoned and in many cases put to death? That is very simple. They believed that God would protect them. God has never issued a command that would have us allow our friends, families or neighbors to be killed by those who intend evil. We are not apostles with the protection of providence. While God has provided us beforehand the things we need to live our lives, we cannot expect God to intervene on our behalf for the sake of the gospel in the manner that He did to preserve the message of the apostles. The apostle Paul, in one situation, actually was let down a city wall in a basket and did flee from capture at one point during his life. In as much as it was within their power and they understood the threats that they faced, the apostles did flee the power of fire and sword in the lands that they lived in. We must assume they also defended themselves or others when it was necessary, if they felt at any time God expected them to do so. The Bible does not tell us about enough of their lives to assume that they simply did not or never needed to. Neither does it teach us to assume that we simply should not or will never need to ourselves. The apostles, ultimately, were destined to be martyrs. But not every Christian is ordered to be a martyr for the sake of Christ. Those who are martyrs are glorified in the book of Revelation, but the word martyr does not even imply that one did not fight or defend themselves as the original martyr, Stephen, did not. If Stephen knew he would be slaughtered, it could be argued that he might not have done what he did, and that decision would have been completely justified, as his ministry would have been very valuable to the Lord and the early Church. So long as we do not begin violence and we do our utmost not to take the lives of others unless absolutely necessary, our military service, self-defense and fleeing the powers of wickedness are all approved by God. As in the case of so many genocidal regimes and dangers that beset our families and our neighbors in the course of our lives, not to do so would, itself, be evil.

So, as I’ve discussed above, to neither speak nor act in the face of evil government is itself evil. When rebuked and beaten by the Sanhedrin, the apostles answered them “We ought to obey God rather than men.” And then they went on their way rejoicing that they had been counted worthy to suffer for the cause of Christ. Even so today, if it will not cost us our lives, we are obliged to speak out against and even participate in government in order to stay, if at all possible, the course of evil in the world around us. If it will cost us our lives, we must choose whether or not to speak, to fight or to flee best protects our family and our neighbors as well as best fits our duty to the principles of the scriptures. This one thing is certain: If we choose to do nothing, God will surely punish us.

Pray for God to save our Constitution and our republic,


The Two Gentlemen of Statecraft

July 28, 2011

There were at a certain time, two gentlemen of statecraft. One a level headed and industrious gentleman, Capitalist by name, believed that a wage earned is a wage prized, not quickly squandered and the owner thereof. He believed that trading time for money presented no gain but was a fair trade according to talent and productivity. He believed in operating within budgets, private industry belonging to its owners and that property was a right granted to all by God as expressed by the words “pursuit of happiness”. In terms of charity, this gentlemen believed that no law or organization could take on the moral responsibility to care for one’s neighbors or family, and to take the income with which the people would do so was to cripple their good intentions as well as the purpose of their liberty.

The other was  not much of a gentleman, to be sure. Unhappy to be called by name, this gentleman changed their name often, like a shape changer hides their true form. This gentleman believed that people who agreed with them were the intelligent ones, that they should make the rules, that they should decide who is given what resources and that their organization granted by its graces the rights of all people. This gentleman and their associates, on the whole, stated that the American people, the most charitable nation in the history of mankind, were incapable of ruling themselves, being responsible with their own property and liberties. They stated that Americans must be controlled because they had decided they were genetically and intellectually inferior. This gentleman worked tirelessly not to earn their own income or care for the people around them, but to victimize the people within their reach who were suffering and teach them to target and hate those that have been more fortunate than they. The gentleman did this, of course, for their own gain and prowess, preferring rather to be empowered by an angry mob than to earn success through ambition.

It so happened that these two influential gentlemen happened to have a duel of wits. The second gentleman suggested that prosperity is principally a result of taking what belongs to those that are very successful. It did not particularly seem to matter to the second gentleman what should happen to whatever was taken from the successful until the gentleman was questioned just exactly what the purpose of the taking from the successful was. The gentleman claimed that the plan was necessary because it helped the poor, giving them a source of income. The first gentleman, Capitalist, suggested that prosperity, wealth, came from more people doing things and making things. Capitalist responded that people, rather than taking from others, might be more independent if they did things to provide for themselves. Rather than be GIVEN a source of income, Capitalist argued, maybe they could EARN a source of income. And those that could not, in the most charitable nation on earth, might be the responsibility then of someone who could. Capitalist then pointed out that we can either be dependent on those that will feed us or we will feed ourselves, adding that anyone that believed in themselves even slightly ought to prefer one to the other.

It so happens that this battle of wits was already decided. You see, the ungentlemanly gentleman never responded to the challenge. They committed an error by changing the subject from creating wealth, prosperity, to giving one person what was taken from another. They simply changed their reasons for their statement to something that would appeal to those that heard it. In truth, their goal had never been to do anything about poverty, but rather justify their ideology and put their friends in charge of running things. Thus the Proteus of this story changed shape again to save face. Taking two items from one person and giving them separately to two others does not increase the number of the items available to the three, neither does it create a mechanism for producing a third or fourth item. Simple mathematics will tell you that. So what was the goal of the socialist Proteus? Simply this: To make the two to whom those items are given the slaves of the fourth, the one who has usurped the power to take from those who have, earn and produce. Proteus himself sought to be the chief usurper.

But here is the beautiful thing. Every socialist knows without Capitalism, their scheme fails. They pretend that everything comes from the government, yet they implode when the stagnation they create turns into debt they can’t repay. It has happened endlessly throughout history, starting with Leninism and then every other variation since. Neighboring capitalist nations have been the envy of every Marxist centrally planned kennel before and after the Cold War. Government is not God and will never be God, and yet we continue to let it promise us everything if only we would give it more power. What once was obvious about finance and productivity in human society has been blurred by the few that seek to saddle it. And every time the ruling class grows fat and lazy on the dime of the public they eventually bankrupt the whole. They can’t argue the obvious fact that if you take away every incentive to produce, those of us who actually work will quit supporting the freeloading beholden cretins that bow down to the central planning monolith. So why does it still occur?

Because Proteus. Faithful Proteus. Lovely Proteus. Changes shape once again. Always the promise is that prosperity can simply be had if those who produce it would quit sitting on it. How long until you are satisfied? Will you sell out to those who profit from the government that implements your policies all the days of your life? Is that what you’re satisfied with? Are you content with siding with the idea that Americans can’t? That we can’t raise our own children. That we can’t produce our own energy. That we can’t provide for our friends and family. That we aren’t morally good enough to own our own property. That rights and power and know how all come from government instead of the people, the ones from which the government itself borrows consent to exist?  Benjamin Franklin believed in making people uncomfortable in their poverty because he believed in their ability to achieve. Isn’t it painful to the point of suffering to believe the opposite? Are you content with having to say out loud daily that taking from someone is the same as producing or improving something? Doesn’t any of this make you sick inside?

Dear Proteus. I have had enough. I cry for the punishment you will walk away into. You will destroy our Republic. And we will all hang on your cross. You can ignore the history and plug your ears to the facts about the dramatic changes this Great Experiment has had on the earth, but you will not escape the constant consequences of your ignorance. The government will never extinct the poor. Either the people must want to feed others or they should feed themselves. It was never the goal of government to distribute what one has to another. Any government that claims to do this takes from all to pay itself, and makes slaves of the few that choose to depend on it for what they need. This discourages good will and charity. It is deafeningly obvious nothing you propose will prosper the ends to which you claim to propose them. But the true goals of those behind you are incredibly clear! Those who the government feeds are bound to consent. It’s obvious. They are purchased voters. You work for a political machine. They are the ruling wealthy paying the public for their loyalty; This is a stunning realization for you, I’m sure. Thomas Paine wrote a book 200 years ago that says exactly what I’m saying to you today: Every king that supposes himself the owner of his people will eventually bow his crown to Common Sense. This is the spirit in which I invite you back to the Republic and back to the Constitution. We can either refound this nation on the firm principles that it has been built on or we can watch our foundation rot away and crumble. Do you really want to defend the tyrant that takes from the people what is not theirs?

I appeal to your curious nature. I appeal to your willingness to change shape. I appeal to your common sense. I have not told you anything that you did not already know. You do not have to agree with me to be intelligent, but you do have to listen. Dearest Proteus, change the shape, and the owner, of your heart.

God save the Constitution.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.