Congressional Issues 2014
SOCIETY
The Bible Prohibits the Violent Overthrow of the Government

• No Violence
• No vengeance
• Beat Swords into Plowshares
• Tyrants should resign
• Submit to tyranny until they do
• Learn how to be a submissive anarchist
• www.Romans13.com

---

The Declaration of Independence -- the Founding Charter of America -- says this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

America's Founding Fathers used words like "tyranny" and "idolatry" to describe the British government over the American Colonies.

By every conceivable measure, by every political standard, the current regime in Washington (the same regime we have elsewhere called "the Bush-Clinton regime," but which we now call "the Bush-Obama regime" "the Trump-Biden regime") is a more anti-Christian tyranny than the government that was overthrown in the War for Independence, 1775-1783. If America's Founding Fathers were justified in overthrowing a mild, Christian, comparatively libertarian government such as existed in the colonies, then Americans today are remiss in their duty to overthrow the more tyrannical government we have today.

Libertarians are sometimes criticized for wanting to abolish entire agencies of government, like the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, Agriculture, Interior, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs. But Republicans have been saying the same thing for decades.

Does it seem like an outrageous thing to say: "Abolish all federal programs and agencies?" This is what you would say if you were consistent with the principles of

• Capitalism; the Free Market rather than socialism;
• America's Founding Charters; the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and others;
• Liberty Under God.

People who are shocked by this proposal miss two important facts.

• The government created by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution no longer exists. Constitutional scholars admit a new form of government has been substituted in its place. Rather than a "Constitutional Republic," we have what legal scholars call an "Administrative State."
• The government of the United States is being abolished, and a new government which includes Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. is being put in its place: the "North American Union."

But finally, if we were consistent with the principles upon which the American Revolution was fought, we too would be working to abolish the entire federal government of the United States, just as Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Hancock worked to abolish wholly the British government over the colonies.

If there were an "easy" button that would instantly abolish the federal government, without a shot being fired, Kevin Craig would push that button. The use of violence against tax collectors -- muskets, cannons, or new weapons -- can never be justified. Our only weapon is persuasion. We must persuade politicians to cease their acts of violence, to resign and abolish their office. Use of muskets and cannons is unChristian.

The question is not whether some governments should be abolished; the question is how.

From a Christian perspective, governments are not to be overthrown by violence. In its attempt to overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein, the U.S. Federal Government killed nearly two million innocent men, women, and children, many of whom did not like Saddam Hussein any more than we did. In 1822, Thomas Jefferson wrote,

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man: 1. That there is one only God, and He all perfect. 2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments. 3. That to love God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.… Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian.

Killing two million people -- and more children than the total number killed by the Atomic Bomb in Hiroshima -- will probably not be one of the acts that will be rewarded in a future state.

We have suggested that missionaries would have done a better job of bringing about the downfall of Saddam Hussein.

The government of the United States should be overthrown, but only non-violently, using persuasion, encouraging government officials to repent of their tyranny and abolish their office.

---

Every revolution in history has moved towards the centralization of power, including the American Revolution -- Gary North "Revolutions mean the centralization of power. Until conservatives figure this out, they are not going to understand what is going on, and what has been going on for the past 500 years. " "The Puritan revolution in England was ... a revolt against the centralized power of the King, but it was done in the name of the centralized power of the Parliament. It wound up with a military dictator . . . ." "Every revolution in history has moved towards the centralization of power, including the American Revolution" "[T]he secession of the American South . . . was just another way to centralize power in the South. It was just another group of armed revolutionaries seeking to centralize power in the region they wanted to control. It was a replay of the American Revolution, as they argued." "[T]he system is irreparable. It cannot be reformed. It must not be captured. It must be de-funded. The secret of liberty is not revolution; the secret of liberty is to de-fund the existing centralized order." "The secret of better education is not capturing the public school system. The secret of better education is to go online, cut the cost of education, decentralize the entire process, and put parents in control of their families' educational programs. But conservatives learn slowly. They always want to capture the liberal system, because they have a better plan to make it work." Secession: Armed vs. Peaceful

---

Submission to Tyranny: A Christian-Libertarian Framework

The Biblical prohibition against overthrowing tyrants by force and violence is very clear and bold. Throughout His earthly ministry, Jesus was in conflict with the Herodians (Jews who collaborated with the Roman military occupation of Israel) on the one hand and the Zealots (Jews who wanted to resist the occupation using violence if necessary) on the other. Jesus did not take the side of the popular uprising, though it was clear He viewed the occupying Empire as ethically illegitimate.

Christ's apostles spoke of the reigning empire as "the powers that be," using a word that everywhere refers to demonic forces. But the teaching of the New Testament is that we are to overcome evil with good. That means overcoming statist tyranny with good, not with violence.

Let's compare New Testament principles with the American Revolution. Pardon us for taking some liberties with the text, but we think the analogy is fair:

---

Romans 12-13 {1} I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
         {2} And be not conformed to the world of the Scottish Enlightenment: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
         {3} For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.
         {10} Be kindly affectioned one to the British with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;
         {11} Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord;
         {12} Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer;
         {13} Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitable quartering of troops.
         {14} Bless the "Red Coats" which persecute you: bless, and curse not.
         {16} Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.
         {17} Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
         {18} If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with the British.
         {19} Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
         {20} Therefore if an enemy soldier hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
         {21} Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
         {13:1} Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are set in place by God.
         {2} Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, throwing tea into the harbor, or firing muskets upon them from behind trees, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
         {3} For archist red coats are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
         {4} For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
         {5} Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
         {6} For for this cause pay ye taxes without representation: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
         {7} Render therefore to all their dues: taxes to whom taxes are due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
         {8} Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
         {9} For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
         {10} Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

---

1 Peter 2:11-24 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;
         {12} Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
         {13} Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to king George III, as supreme;
         {14} Or unto parliament, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
         {15} For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
         {16} As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
         {17} Honour all the British. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour king George III.
         {18} Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to tyrants.
         {19} For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
         {20} For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
         {21} For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps:
         {22} Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth:
         {23} Who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not; but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously:
         {24} Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by Whose stripes ye were healed.

---

Matthew 5:38-48 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
         {39} But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
         {40} And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
         {41} And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
         {42} Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
         {43} Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
         {44} But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
         {45} That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
         {46} For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
         {47} And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
         {48} Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

---

Luke 17:7-10 And which of you, having a servant plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, "Come at once and sit down to eat"?
         {8} But will he not rather say to him, "Prepare something for my supper, and gird yourself and serve me till I have eaten and drunk, and afterward you will eat and drink"?
         {9} Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not.
         {10} So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, "We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do."

---

2 Peter 2:10-12/Jude 8-10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
         {9} Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
         {12} But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

---

Proverbs 24:21 My son, fear the LORD and the king; Do not associate with those given to change; for their calamity will rise suddenly, and who knows the ruin those two can bring?

---

Exodus 23:2 Thou shalt not follow a crowd to do evil.

---

Now, with these passages of Scripture ringing in our ears, let's ask some probing questions about the Declaration of Independence. We'll find that the American Revolution was unChristian. No violent revolution against the State is ever justifiable.

We must speak the truth and depend upon the Holy Spirit to bring repentance to politicians, so that they peacefully resign and abolish the machinery of violence and injustice.

The Key to Restoring “Liberty under God” is Regeneration of Men's Hearts,
Not Revolution

Dominion, the Gospel, and Regeneration
From American Vision

In his landmark magnum opus, The Institutes of Biblical Law, Rushdoony wrote:

All law is religious in nature, and every non-Biblical law-order represents an anti-Christian religion. But the key to remedying the situation in not revolution, nor any kind of resistance that works to subvert law and order. The New Testament abounds in warnings against disobedience and in summons to peace. The key is regeneration, propagation of the gospel, and conversion of men and nations to God’s law-word.⁽²⁾

A few pages later, Rushdoony teaches that “evil men cannot produce a good society. The key to social renewal is individual regeneration.”⁽³⁾

Another: “Clearly, there is no hope for man except in regeneration.”⁽⁴⁾

Again: “In terms of God’s law, true reform begins with regeneration. . . .”⁽⁵⁾

Rushdoony also held dominion and the reconstruction of society as a secondary priority to that of conversion:

The primary purpose of conversion is that man be reconciled to God; reconciliation with his fellow man and with himself is a secondary aspect of this fact, a necessary by-product but a by-product nonetheless.⁽⁶⁾

Here’s Rushdoony in another publication stating the same ideas:

This is the purpose of the law of God, restoration, and the means is faith, or regeneration by the sovereign grace of God.⁽⁷⁾

I suspect nearly any Rushdoony book (and there are over 60) would confirm these same sentiments. Just to test my suspicion, I grabbed a random and lesser-known work that happened to be next to my chair (yes I am writing this from my easy chair), the commentary on Genesis. Sure enough, here’s the confirmation on page 107:

The truth remains that . . . man is a sinner, and can never escape the fact except by regeneration and sanctification in Jesus Christ, a member of Him and His new humanity. . . .

But what about other “dominionist” and “Rushdoonyite” authors? We have plenty of examples:

Gary North

Dominionist and Rushdoonyite Gary North wrote of our views in 1987, in a popular book called Liberating Planet Earth:

We are talking about the transformation of this world. Only when the present world has been transformed by the gospel of salvation and the transforming work of the Holy Spirit, as He works through God’s redeemed people, will the world at last be delivered completely from sin, at the final judgment (Revelation 20).⁽⁸⁾

(Note: you only had to read eight pages into this one to get the gospel point.)

Here the transformation happens not only “when” but “only when” the gospel is preached.

In preaching against humanism and communism, North contrasts “the preaching of the gospel of personal, individual salvation,” with “the imposition by force of an elitist, top down revolutionary cadre.” He obviously sides with the former.⁽⁹⁾ Indeed, North condemns the socialist message as “the gospel of ‘salvation through political plunder’”⁽¹⁰⁾

In another place, North affirms the centrality of the Gospel once again, this time quoting Rushdoony in Political Polytheism:

“The key to social regeneration is individual renewal,” wrote Rushdoony in 1973. But we must begin this process of reconstruction with confident faith in the gospel; we must be confident that God’s salvation is as comprehensive as sin is.⁽¹¹⁾

North gets more explicit:

The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. . . . The way to achieve this political goal is through successful mass evangelism followed by constitutional revision.⁽¹²⁾

I had to straighten out a raging liberal on this quotation some time ago. To his credit, he at least quoted us. Mr. Friel has not yet risen even to the scholarly level of this leftist atheist.

One Reformed critic of theonomy and dominionism, William Edgar, actually represented our position correctly in First Things, in a memorial of Rushdoony after his death: “they tend to believe that God’s Kingdom will eventually be established on earth through the faithful preaching of the gospel and the faithful application of God’s law to society.”

David Chilton

How do dominionists say the kingdom of God shall gain dominion in all the earth? Dominionist David Chilton (deceased) in Paradise Restored, wrote: “The Garden of Eden, the Mountain of the Lord, will be restored in history, before the Second Coming, by the power of the Gospel; and the desert will rejoice, and blossom as the rose (Isa. 35:1).”⁽¹³⁾ How was that again? “By the power of the Gospel.”

Disagree with the eschatology, if you will (another discussion to be had), but don’t accuse the man of calling for political activism “without the gospel.” This is something of which everyone at the table should take note.

Chilton reiterates: “By means of the gospel, His people are extending His rule over the face of the earth, until all nations are discipled and Paradise comes to its most complete earthly fulfillment.”⁽¹⁴⁾

Chilton commented on Revelation 21:24–27:

This is written of a time when the nations still exist as nations; yet the nations are all converted, flowing into the City and bringing their treasures into it. As the light of the gospel shines through the Church to the world, the world is converted, the nations are discipled, and the wealth of the sinners becomes inherited by the just. This is a basic promise of Scripture from beginning to end. This is the pattern of history, the direction in which the world is moving. This is our future, the heritage of generations to come.⁽¹⁵⁾

Chilton was quite clear here about the gospel flowing through the church.

Interestingly, Chilton directly addressed the very criticism Friel and Co. leveled here, only consider: this was published in 1985 (it is still available for free online). Chilton responded to the exact same criticism as it had come from Hal Lindsey, that “postmillennialists . . . believed that Christians would … [bring] about the Kingdom of God on earth through their own efforts.” Chilton said,

This is one of the most commonly heard objections to the Hope. The dominion outlook is equated with the liberal “Social Gospel” movement of the early 1900s. Such an identification is utterly absurd, devoid of any foundation whatsoever. The leaders of the Social Gospel movement were evolutionary humanists and socialists, and were openly hostile toward Biblical Christianity. It is true that they borrowed certain terms and concepts from Christianity, in order to pervert them for their own uses. Thus they talked about the “Kingdom of God,” but what they meant was far removed from the traditional Christian faith. Orthodox postmillennial teachers such as Benjamin Warfield and J. Gresham Machen vigorously opposed the Social Gospel. True postmillennialism has always been truly evangelical: It teaches that the Kingdom was established by Jesus Christ alone, and that the Kingdom is advanced through the spread of the gospel and the application of the Bible to every area of life.

There is another dimension to this issue, however. Since we believe that Christians will overcome all opposition and will bring the gospel to the ends of the earth, postmillennialists are accused of having faith in man. This is a radical distortion. The truth is that postmillennialists believe in God, who works in history through redeemed man. We believe that the omnipotent Lord of heaven and earth is indwelling His Church, and will not allow us to be defeated in the mission He gave us. St. Augustine prayed: “Give what You command, and command what You will.” That is our attitude as well. Because God works in history to bless the godly and curse the ungodly, history is on our side. In the battle between redeemed men and wicked men, we have faith in redeemed men. We believe that God’s people will overcome, in time and on earth, as well as in eternity. In Christ we are the heirs of all things.⁽¹⁶⁾

Chilton addressed this 28 years ago. 

Kenneth Gentry, Jr.

Ken Gentry, another postmillennialist and dominionist, writes in He Shall Have Dominion:

In response to the Pharisees, Christ specifically declared that the kingdom does not come visibly with temporal fanfare. “And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:20-21). Obviously a spiritual conception of the kingdom is here demanded, in contradiction to an Armageddon-introduced, earthly, political kingdom.

This is why Christ went about preaching what is termed the “gospel of the kingdom” (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14-15). He proclaimed a redemptive, spiritual kingdom. Hence, being exalted to His throne leads to a spiritual effusion of grace, not the political establishment of an earthly government.⁽¹⁷⁾.

On page 232 of the same work, Gentry writes,

The New Testament clearly expects an era of Christian dominion to occur prior to the Second Advent of the Lord Jesus Christ in power at the final judgment. This era of dominion will produce the worldwide transformation of society through the preaching of the gospel and individuals’ widespread positive response to the message of redemption – a continuity of dominion.

Note once more: “through the preaching of the gospel”—not “political activism without the gospel.” Get that. Mr. Friel didn’t.

Ray Sutton

Dominionist Ray Sutton, in That You May Prosper, explains a little of how this works: not through government or political activism, but through individual evangelism:

The spread of the Gospel is not a top-down operation. Salvation comes from above, in that it is applied through the work of the Holy Spirit. But normally, the spread of the Gospel should be from household to household, “leavening.” This is certainly what we see in the Book of Acts. The Gospel begins in the menial households of the Roman Empire, and it spreads to the greatest family, Caesar’s household, when Paul is taken captive and converts Caesar’s own bodyguards.⁽¹⁸⁾

Conclusion

Well, there you go. Here are twenty quotations with references from the most popular and widespread works on dominionism and Rushdoonyism, all of which directly mandate the preaching of the gospel before political activism and as the only successful foundation of it. These references make this explicit, are stated in no uncertain words, and have been easily accessible for decades—some for over 40 years.

We have not even touched the writings of Gary DeMar, nor my own, nor have we examined the dozens of other writers in the movement or more loosely associated with it, now or at one time. We could find similar examples in all of these.

Mr. Friel, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Wax, and Rev. Glenn have missed all of these. These Christian leaders are all respected and trusted not to miss these kinds of things. I am glad to enter the discussion. I hope to hear from them soon. Heck, maybe we can get everyone together for another steak dinner and film the discussion over again.Endnotes:

1. Mr. Wax actually spoke much good sense against the points Friel and Johnson made. Though I would be critical of some of his comments, I will have to address the good points as well in a separate article.(↩)
2. Institutes of Biblical Law, 113.(↩)
3. Institutes, 122.(↩)
4. Rushdoony, Institutes, 449.(↩)
5. Rushdoony, Institutes, 627.(↩)
6. Institutes, 777.(↩)
7. Rushdoony, Politics of Guilt and Pity, 340.(↩)
8. Liberating Planet Earth, 8.(↩)
9. Ibid., 71.(↩)
10. Ibid., 154.(↩)
11. Political Polytheism, 20.(↩)
12. Political Polytheism, 87.(↩)
13. Paradise Restored, 46.(↩)
14. Ibid., 148.(↩)
15. Ibid., 208.(↩)
16. Ibid., 227–228.(↩)
17. He Shall Have Dominion, p. 226(↩)
18. That You May Prosper, 134.(↩)

The Myth of "The Extra Mile"

The Biblical Case Against "National Defense"

"Revolution" is the employment of violence against "the powers that be."
"National Defense" is the employment of violence against "the powers that wanna-be."
Violence is contrary to the ethics of the Pacifist Christ.

Listen to Audio

1. We are commanded to be subject to whichever government God "ordains."

---

Romans 13:1-7

13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except by God, and those that exist are put in place by God. ² So then, the one who resists authority resists the ordinance which is from God, and those who resist will receive condemnation on themselves. ³ For rulers are not a cause of terror for a good deed, but for bad conduct. So do you want not to be afraid of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from it, ⁴ for it is God’s servant to you for what is good. But if you do what is bad, be afraid, because it does not bear the sword to no purpose. For it is God’s servant, the one who avenges for punishment on the one who does what is bad. ⁵ Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. ⁶ For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are servants of God, busily engaged in this very thing. ⁷ Pay to everyone what is owed: pay taxes to whom taxes are due; pay customs duties to whom customs duties are due; pay respect to whom respect is due; pay honor to whom honor is due.

---

Titus 3

3 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

---

1 Peter 2:13-17

¹³ Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; ¹⁴ Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

¹⁵ For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: ¹⁶ As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

¹⁷ Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

• Anarcho-Pacifist Apologetics in Peter's First Epistle
• Social Apologetics
• A Theonomic Critique of Logic
• Apologetics Without Aristotle
• Benjamin Rush Quote
• On Building the Kingdom
• Listen to Audio

---

Being "subject" is not something Americans are very good at.

• Would Jesus Celebrate Independence Day?

---

Matthew 26:52
King James Version (KJV)

⁵² Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

---

Matthew 22:15-22
New King James Version (NKJV)

¹⁵ Then the Pharisees went and plotted how they might entangle Him in His talk. ¹⁶ And they sent to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth; nor do You care about anyone, for You do not regard the person of men. ¹⁷ Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”

¹⁸ But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why do you test Me, you hypocrites? ¹⁹ Show Me the tax money.”

So they brought Him a denarius.

²⁰ And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?”

²¹ They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”

And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” ²² When they had heard these words, they marveled, and left Him and went their way.

---

Render Unto Caesar - R.J. Rushdoony

---

Jesus on Paying Taxes to Caesar

During this time many Jews were locked in conflict with Roman authorities. Many wanted to establish a theocracy as an ideal Jewish state and for them any Gentile ruler over Israel was an abomination before God. Paying taxes to such a ruler effectively denied God’s sovereignty over the nation. Jesus couldn’t afford to reject this position.

On the other hand, the Roman leaders were very touchy about anything that looked like resistance to their rule. They could be very tolerant of various religions and cultures, but only so long as they accepted Roman authority. If Jesus denied the validity of paying taxes, then he could be turned over to the Romans as someone encouraging rebellion (the Herodians were servants of Rome).

---

The Bible prohibits violent revolution against "the powers that be." (The prohibition is not based on the goodness of the powers, but the ordination of God.) "National Defense" is violent revolution against "the powers that wanna be."

---

Update September, 2013

Syria is in the news.

Suppose I am the "anarchist" you learned about in government school. Suppose I am outraged that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against "its own" people. I want to overthrow the government of Syria by detonating a bomb in the Syrian capitol, killing off members of the government, so they can be replaced by my friends.

The traditional interpretation of Romans 13 prohibits the violent overthrow of the government, such as I've described.

Suppose, then, that I renounce my Syrian citizenship and become an American citizen and vote for Barack Obama and the United States Congress to drop lots of bombs on Syria in retaliation for the Syrian government crossing "the red line." Is this prohibited by Romans 13? Why not?

Why is it that if I'm a Syrian citizen I am not allowed to overthrow my government by force and violence, but if I'm an American citizen I can overthrow the government of Syria, Iraq, Guatemala, Iran, or any government I want? Isn't it the case that in a "Representative Republic" such as the United States, that the actions of Congress and President Obama reflect the will of "the People?" If "We the People" are Christian, doesn't Romans 13 prohibit the United States government from representing "the will of the People" and therefore from overthrowing governments, fomenting civil wars, prosecuting military invasions or "police actions" around the world?

Obviously very few people in Washington D.C. have read Romans 13 in the last 50 years.

2. God "ordains" invading governments, and we are commanded to be subject to them.

All governments -- even the most lawless and tyrannical -- are "ordained" by God.

---

Rome invaded and conquered Israel a few years before Christ was born.

---

Matthew 5:41
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

⁴¹ And if anyone forces^[a] you to go one mile, go with him two.

Footnotes:

a. Matthew 5:41 Roman soldiers could require people to carry loads for them.

---

Reformation Study Bible

5:41 if anyone forces you. The possibility of a Roman soldier coercing a person to serve as a guide or burden carrier was real. Even if compelled by force to do something for someone, one can demonstrate freedom by volunteering more than was demanded rather than begrudging the service.

Generously provided by Ligonier Ministries

---

Matthew Henry:

Some give this sense of it: The Jews taught that the disciples of the wise, and the students of the law, were not to be pressed, as others might, by the king’s officers, to travel upon the public service; but Christ will not have his disciples to insist upon this privilege, but to comply rather than offend the government.

---

The IVP New Testament Commentary Series

Love Even Your Oppressors (5:41)

Here Matthew probably means submission to a Roman soldier's demands. Because tax revenues did not cover all the Roman army's needs, soldiers could requisition what they required (N. Lewis 1983:172-73; Rapske 1994:14). Romans could legally demand local inhabitants to provide forced labor if they wanted (as in Mt 27:32) and were known to abuse this privilege (for example, Apul. Metam.9.39). Yet "going the extra mile" represents not only submitting to unjust demands but actually exceeding them—showing our oppressors that we love them and take no offense, although our associates may wrongly view this love as collaboration with an enemy occupation. The truth of this passage is a life-and-death matter for many believers.

Such courageous love is not easy to come by and is easily stifled by patriotism. To take but one example that challenges my own culture, many white U.S. citizens may wish to rethink the patriotic lens through which they view the American colonies' revolt against Britain in the 1770s-did they really have grounds for secession of which Jesus would have approved if they had been his disciples? Past oppression is also easily recalled. British Christians might consider their feelings for Germans; Korean and Chinese Christians, for the Japanese. In some form the principle can apply to most national, racial and cultural groups. While early Christians responded to their persecutors with defiant love (a humility the persecutors often viewed as arrogance), many politically zealous Christians in the United States guard their rights so fiercely that they are easily given to anger (which opponents also view as arrogance).

Rather, Jesus' teaching does mean that we depend on God rather than on human weapons, although God may sovereignly raise up human weapons to fight the oppressors. If we value justice and compassion for persons rather than merely utopian idealism, we must also calculate the human cost of opposing various degrees of injustice. In first-century Palestine, few "safe" vehicles existed for nonviolent social protest against the Romans; Romans viewed most public protest as linked with revolution, and punished it accordingly. In a society like ours where Christian egalitarianism has helped shape conceptions of justice, nonviolent protest stands a much better chance of working. Neither violent revolutionaries (whose cause may be more just than their methods) nor the well-fed who complacently ignore the rest of the world's pain (and whose cause is merely personal advancement) may embrace Jesus without either distorting him or transforming themselves in the process.

Yet Jesus' own life explains the meekness he prescribes. When the time appointed by his Father arrived, Jesus allowed people to crucify him, trusting his Father's coming vindication to raise him from the dead (Mt 17:11; 20:18-19). He was too meek to cry out or bruise a reed until the time would come to bring "justice to victory" (12:19-20). Yet he proclaimed justice (12:18), openly denounced the unjust (23:13-36) and actively, even somewhat "violently," protested unrighteousness although he knew what it would cost him (21:12-13). Jesus was meek (11:29), but he was not a wimp. He called his disciples to be both harmless as doves and wise as serpents (10:16)-in short, to be ruled by the law of love (22:39). Love of neighbor not only does no harm to a neighbor but bids us place ourselves in harm's way to protect our neighbor.

IVP New Testament Commentaries are made available by the generosity of InterVarsity Press.

---

Zealots and Sicarii - The "Second Amendment" crowd of first century Israel.

• I Repudiate the Second Amendment
• The 2nd Amendment vs. Family Values
• Why I Would Give Obama My Guns If He Asks
• Pink Pistols Survey
• Immigration and Gun Control
• Guns in Churches
• A New Civil War?
• What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control

---

If the Bible prohibits violence against those who are in authority over you, how can you justify using violence against these very same people when they are in the process of putting themselves in authority over you -- by invading your nation and conquering it?

If Christian ethics prohibits you from "standing up for your rights" against "the powers that be" (using violence), why do you think you would be permitted to "stand up for your rights" against "the powers that wanna be?" Against those same powers when they are becoming "the powers that be?"

Answer: you are not permitted to use violence against invading powers.

God sent the invaders.

3. God has had much practice in sending evil governments against people who forget Him.

God "Ordains" Evil: A collection of dozens of Biblical references to God sending "the sword" as a judgment against evil nations. This is the Old Testament background of Romans 13.

Governments are evil (sinful; violations of God's Commandments against theft, murder, enslavement, vengeance).

God "ordains" evil, sinful governments, commissioning them to violate His Commandments as a judgment against evil doers, stealing from those evil doers, depriving them of life and liberty, "serving" God as an instrument of God's vengeance.

It's not your business who the "powers" are. God puts them in place, and changes them whenever He wants.

Of course, if "the powers that be" invite your opinion of them ("voting," "referendum," "town hall," etc.) take advantage of the opportunity to speak the truth, and invite them to repent of their confiscation of property, murder, deprivation of liberty, and vengeance.

And of course, if "the powers that be" order you to sin against God, "We must obey God rather than man." (Acts 5:29). In other words, it's a sin to disobey a direct command from God, but it's not a sin to be a victim of governments that disobey direct commands of God (by stealing, murdering, kidnapping, taking vengeance, and everything else the State does routinely). Most Christian teachers fail to make this elementary distinction.

---

Hebrews 10:32-34
English Standard Version (ESV)

³² But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, ³³ sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. ³⁴ For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one.

Matthew Henry

They were afflicted in their estates, by the spoiling of their goods, by fines and forfeitures.

4.  God sometimes sends the objects of His wrath to an evil government, taking them captive and shipping them off to a foreign land, rather than putting an evil government in place over the objects of His wrath.

---

Jeremiah 29:7

⁷ And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.

---

1 Timothy 2:1-2

¹ I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
² For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

---

Jeremiah 27

27 In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah came this word unto Jeremiah from the Lord, saying,

² Thus saith the Lord to me; Make thee bonds and yokes, and put them upon thy neck,

⁸ And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand.

⁹ Therefore hearken not ye to your prophets, nor to your diviners, nor to your dreamers, nor to your enchanters, nor to your sorcerers, which speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the king of Babylon:

¹⁰ For they prophesy a lie unto you, to remove you far from your land; and that I should drive you out, and ye should perish.

¹¹ But the nations that bring their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him, those will I let remain still in their own land, saith the Lord; and they shall till it, and dwell therein.

---

"National Defense" is the attempt to avoid "bringing your neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon." Or China.

"National Defense" is a very expensive lie.

"National Defense" is not Biblical. It is Humanist. It is socialist. It is fascist.

---

Matthew Henry

Nebuchadnezzar was very unjust and barbarous in invading the rights and liberties of his neighbours thus, and forcing them into a subjection to him; yet God had just and holy ends in permitting him to do so, to punish these nations for their idolatry and gross immoralities. Those that would not serve the God that made them were justly made to serve their enemies that sought to ruin them. [Jeremiah] shows them the vanity of all the hopes they fed themselves with, that they should preserve their liberties,

Those that will bend shall not break. Perhaps the dominion of the king of Babylon may bear no harder upon them than that of their own kings had done. It is often more a point of honour than true wisdom to prefer liberty before life

"Better Dead than Red!"

---

5. Old Testament "Holy Wars" are not a valid basis for "National Defense"

---

Old Testament "Holy Wars" are not a valid basis for "National Defense" in New Testament times. They were offensive, not defensive, and ceremonial, fulfilled in Christ.

• No "Holy Wars" in Our Day
• Holy War: Ceremonial Atonement by Destruction
• Humanist Holy War
• Holy War: National Capital Punishment
• Capital Punishment: A Ceremonial Shedding of Blood

---

6. "National Defense" is Defense of Politicians, Not "The People."

---

"National Defense" really means "Government Defense," that is, not the defense and protection of the American People, but the perpetuation of the power of Washington D.C. insiders. Google "Continuity of Government"

---

Pure "Patriotism" is un-Christian

---

The United States is not the Christian's Nation.

Our real citizenship is not in this nation-state.

Our allegiance is not to this government.

The State recognizes the conflict, even if most "Christians" do not:

• A Christian cannot hold public office under the Bush-Obama regime.
• A Christian cannot even become a naturalized citizen of the United States.

Why should any Christian kill or die for an atheistic tyranny like that in Washington D.C.? Why would any educated Christian participate in "National Defense?"

---

National Security, Swiss-Style by Nick Bradley

---

7. "Self-Defense and "National Defense"

---

For years I opposed pacifism as "unrealistic" and "impractical."

I claimed that God imposed a moral requirement on me to "defend my family" in the event of a home invasion, and that pacifism in the face of such an attack was immoral, not just cowardly.

To discharge my moral responsibility, I voted for a system of self-defense called "The State." This was the only "realistic" view. I was "practical." Not like those crazy pacifists.

Now, as I begin my second half-century of life, I look back on a bad decision. Since I was born, the machinery of self-defense called "The United States Federal Government" has murdered, crippled, or made homeless tens of millions of innocent non-combatant civilians. Children, grandmothers, and breadwinners.

It started with my fear of an attack on my family by a random, anonymous home invader.

• Statistically, this event is wildly improbable. Millions of American homes have never been invaded.
• "The State" doesn't even promise to prevent such an event. Some police departments have the slogan "To Protect and to Serve." They have been sued in court for failing to protect after victims called 911. Courts have always thrown these cases out. The State has no duty to protect, and citizens have no legal expectation to be protected. So much for "defense."
• The State only claims to "deter" such an event to some extent by taking vengeance on the attacker -- after the invasion has taken place and my family is dead.
• But my family was never really in danger. Most attackers attack their own families or friends.
• All such violent criminals are then warehoused by the State in atheistic penitentiaries (where no one is helped to become "penitent") so that their dysfunctional character and bad morals can spread and multiply among the prison population.
• If my home was ever actually invaded, I would probably not be in the same room as my gun, and I would have no idea how to respond to the invader. I would never have imagined myself preaching the gospel to him, engaging him in a way that psychologically disarmed his anger or fear, and praying at the same time. I have been trained by media and academia to be a "tough guy" and blow the attacker's brains out, and this leaves me silent and dependent.
• Every year hundreds of unarmed Christians pray and preach their way out of violent attacks.
• I have never been systematically trained by church or state to know the commands and example of Christ and to "follow in His steps" (1 Peter 2:21) in case of a violent confrontation. I just keep voting for "the State."

From this crippled, unrealistic, skewed vision of "self-defense" comes the global disaster known as "national defense."

• There is no danger of America being invaded. No totalitarian foreign government would ever let a million of its soldiers step foot on American soil, and witness our high standard of living. The entire army would immediately defect.
• We spend a trillion dollars a year, but have no realistic defense against incoming nuclear-armed missiles.
• What "the State" defends is not the "homeland," but the assets of multinational corporations abroad and the jobs they create for foreigners.
• "The State" also uses the armed services to advance the agenda of atheistic Communism and Secular Humanism.
• Churches are often ground-zero for military attacks by the U.S. armed services. A prominent church steeple was the target in Nagasaki, which had the largest Christian population in Japan. Iraq also had the largest Christian population of any Arab nation.
• Christians in America have trillions of dollars of disposable income. "Obamacare" is God's judgment on Christians, who have failed to carry out the "works of mercy" which are supposed to characterize Christians. Christians have given liberals an excuse to step in and give glory to the State. Christians alone could eliminate all health and welfare problems -- not only for other Americans, but for the world's poor. Prof. Ronald J. Sider notes;

  “If American Christians simply gave a tithe rather than the current one-quarter of a tithe, there would be enough private Christian dollars to provide basic health care and education to all the poor of the earth. And we would still have an extra $60-70 billion left over for evangelism around the world.”
  Book Review: The Scandal Of The Evangelical Conscience - Acton Institute PowerBlog

  We could bribe half the world into abandoning Jihadism and becoming Christian. But American Christians prefer the delusion of "national defense" and comfortable entertainment in their mega-churches.

  American Christians have the economic muscle to bring in "the millennium." But we waste it on "defense."
   

• The tentacles of "the State" -- the institution of "defense" -- now choke Christianity around the world.
• Home invasions occur ten thousand times a year. Governments kill ten thousand people every single DAY, on average.
•  In order to protect myself from a statistically improbable act of violence, which could probably be defused by a courageous and prayerful Christian witness, and vainly gambling on the State to give me an extra 20 years of life, I'm willing to create an institution of "defense" to protect me from an equally improbable foreign invasion, and this institution is responsible for killing tens of millions of human beings around the world since I was born. [body count] This is so radically self-centered and barbaric that it staggers the imagination of a Christian worldview.

Conclusion: "Self-defense" is irresponsible and unChristlike. "National Defense" is unmitigated evil.

What most Americans don't realize, is that the Constitution and the government it created is going to be abolished whether you are involved in the process or not.

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNITED STATES WILL BE ABOLISHED

Either THEY will abolish the U.S. on THEIR terms, for THEIR purposes,
or
WE will abolish the U.S. on OUR terms and for OUR purposes.

Who are "THEY?" Who are "WE?"

What is OUR agenda? What is THEIR agenda?

Let's face it: The Constitution has ALREADY been abolished.

In no rational sense can we be said to be governed by the Constitution as intended by its Framers. The Constitution is dead meat. It is only emotion and sentimentalism that leads anyone to conclude that the Constitution has not already been abolished.

US Government Abdicates, by Jim Davidson

If you think the Constitution is functioning in any meaningful sense, PLEASE, read that link above. Here it is again: The Constitution is Dead Meat.

Since the Constitution has de facto been abolished, we must now work to abolish it de jure.
The Constitution has been abolished, but people don't know about it; we must make sure everyone realizes it.

Since the Constitution has been abolished, those who have abolished it have replaced it with something else. None of the Framers of the Constitution would recognize our current government as being anything close to what they intended to create. It doesn't matter what you call our present system -- soviet socialism, "The Administrative State," "mixed economy," etc. -- it is not the system created by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. As long as people believe the Constitution has not been abolished, they will continue to believe that what exists is constitutional. And as long as people believe the Constitution is in force, those who have abolished it and are establishing their own form of government will continue to move us along the path that takes US where THEY want to go.

But can't we RESTORE the Constitution? Can't we use the Constitution to return to the kind of limited government envisioned by its Framers?

No. See Peter B. McCutchen, Mistakes, Precedent, and the Rise of the Administrative State: Toward a Constitutional Theory of the Second Best, 80 Cornell L. Rev. 1 (1994).

But suppose we could. If we could restore America to the way things were in 1787, what would keep America from returning to the state we're in today? Obviously the Constitution did not prevent the abolition of the Constitution in the name of the Constitution.

What was it that allowed the Constitution to be abolished?
What was it that allowed America to be abolished?
What was it that could destroy the idea of every man living peacefully under his "Vine & Fig Tree?"

 

The answer is: socialism.
The answer is: belief in the idea that it's OK to take from others by force.
The answer is: the widespread belief in the moral legitimacy of an institution called "the State." The idea of "the State" -- that an elite group can wield the power of violence against their fellow man -- is more powerful than any Constitution, as history and the nature of fallen man proves. We must abolish this whole idea if we want to preserve America.

This is the purpose of The Christmas Conspiracy!

---

We join America's Founding Fathers in pursuing the vision of the Prophet Micah, working for a day when all Americans will live safely and peacefully under their Vine & Fig Tree. But to accomplish this goal we believe we must reject two of the Founders' strategies:

• We reject armed revolution;
• We reject every constitution that creates a violent confiscatory socialist institution such as "the State."

James Madison initially opposed The Bill of Rights because he believed the Constitution was strong enough to protect those rights. It was a document of "delegated powers," he said, and it delegated no powers to "the general government" in those areas addressed by the Bill of Rights. But neither the idea of limited authority nor the Bill of Rights prevented the federal government from vastly exceeding the limits established by the Founding Fathers.

If -- and it's a big "if" -- we could return government to the size it had in 1789, there is nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights to prevent history from repeating itself. This is because every Constitution is self-contradictory. Every Constitution legitimizes the right of some people to live at the expense of others. Every Constitution gives its moral approval to theft and murder.

The reason why returning government to the size and function intended by the Framers is such a big IF is that so many people are now accustomed to living at the expense of others. There are so many "entitlements" and government programs that threaten one group of citizens with violence in order to confiscate their wealth and give it to others, and so many people have become dependent on these programs, and consider them a "constitutional right," that it is utterly futile and useless to tell them that these programs are "unconstitutional" -- contrary to the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers are all dead. Nobody cares about them. Nobody cares about their Constitution.

But God is not dead.

What we need to do is convince Americans that theft is against the Law of God.

All theft. All the time.

And that means an end to all constitutions.

This is the purpose of The Christmas Conspiracy!

We are trying to convince Americans that King Jesus prohibits ALL theft, all the time.

We are trying to convince America that "the government shall be upon HIS shoulders" (Isaiah 9:6).

This is the most radical agenda in the world.

UPDATE! President Bush has entered into an agreement with Mexican President Vicente Fox to merge the United States and Mexico into a new government, possibly called "The North American Union" or "The United States of North America." The Agreement is called "The Security and Prosperity Partnership." Read the incredible details here:

www.STOPtheSPP.US