Jay Leno’s “Jay Walking” interviews on the streets of New York illustrate why America has elected the leaders we have. One man, for example, answered that Australia borders the U.S. Many other unbelievably dumb answers were given to other questions.
The purpose of government is not to save people. Its purpose is to enforce the law. But when it makes up unjust laws that plunder some in order to favor others, this is injustice. Government monopolies (such as national health care) or private ones plunder some in order to favor others. That is lawless.
Nowhere is it written in the Bible or the Constitution that government is to save private businesses. Nowhere is it written that the state is commanded to give to the poor; but individuals are. The sole job of the law is to prohibit plunder. Its function is negative; not positive. It prohibits plunder.
When the state sets out to save people, it becomes a god. This is the major struggle illustrated throughout Scripture. This is why God’s wrath fell on the Tower of Babel, Babylon, Rome, and Jerusalem… statism. Humanists still say, “We have no king but Caesar.”
The three Hebrew children refused to bow to the image of the state, were cast into the fiery furnace, and came out not even smelling like smoke. Let’s follow their example so the fourth Man in the fire will be with us. He will certainly not be with those who bow and adore the mental image of the statist beast.
Then the beast … deceived … those who worshiped his image. These … were cast alive into the lake of fire… (Re 19:20).
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Statism And The Tower Of Babel
Tower
Of Babel
Statism
“…and this is only the beginning of what they will do.”
By Ron Smith
Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth." And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. And the LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech" (Genesis 11:4-7).
Josephus tells us that the people after the flood were afraid that God would send another flood, so they built this tower as insurance in case Noah had prophesied falsely. They waterproofed it with asphalt (bitumen), and built it high to ascend above the flood. There would be no need to keep God’s covenant through Noah; they could save themselves.
This account is given through the prophet from God’s point of view. “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (1 Pet 1:20). Their motive was a distrust of God’s promise through Noah that He would never send another earth destroying flood. This greatly offended God. They sought to displace trust in God with trust in themselves. Instead of a desire to make a name for God, they wanted to make a name for themselves. Instead of obeying God’s command to fill the earth, they joined as one, lest they should “be dispersed over the face of the earth.” They were “one worldists” and they were Statists. By establishing a humanistic State, they could produce a utopia and save themselves. The watchword is “power.” “And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.” And “this is only the beginning [the genesis] of what they will do.” What they have done since and what they are doing now is even worse.
This is the human situation; the human condition. This story gives us the pattern of the struggle of history that would follow. It is the City of Man versus the City of God. Every religion except biblical religion ends up looking to the State for security and salvation. Though monarchies are not the only Statist systems, we see it manifested with Israel’s desire for a king. God said to Samuel, “They have not rejected you. They have rejected Me.” They traded their freedom for security. Samuel then goes on to detail how they would have to enslave themselves to the State.
Statism comes in various forms. The extreme right wing wants zero government. They are anarchists. The extreme left-wingers are the Statists like Hitler, Stalin, and other dictators. In the middle are those who look to the original intent of the Constitution and the Law. But Statism is always something the people choose. They chose Hitler; they chose Lenin; they chose Obama. After the liberty brought by the Puritan Oliver Cromwell, they preferred a king. What they got resulted in 28 years of what are called “the killing years” under Charles II and James II. They do this because they believe the State will give them more security than their freedom under God will. But it always ends in the figurative confusion of tongues and a broken tower.
We see Statism manifested in every chapter of the Book of Daniel. In chapter one Daniel makes a decision not to defile himself with the king’s meat. The king’s meat represents the worldly consumption of the humanist/statist idea and worldview. In chapter 2 Daniel interprets the dream of the king about another kingdom that would destroy the kingdoms of this world. Chapter 3 tells of the State command to bow to the image of man that represented the State. Everyone had to conform, just as everyone is expected to conform to today’s political correctness. Notice that the entertainment industry was also involved. It was at the sound of the music that they were to bow. Hollywood is also involved in the support of Statism today.
Chapter four of Daniel tells of the king’s madness and eventual repentance when he acknowledges that God is the real ruler. Only then does his reason and sanity return to him. When “seven times” have come over the rulers of this world, “Yes, all kings shall fall down before Him; All nations shall serve Him” (Psalm 72 NKJV). Each of the following chapters of Daniel deal with the struggle between God’s kingdom and the beastly kingdoms of men. God gives the great hope that His King will eventually rule over all kingdoms.
Augustus Caesar said, “There is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved, but the name Caesar.” Caesar was the State. In the New Testament we see this struggle illustrated with the statement of the rulers of Jerusalem when they said, “We have no king but Caesar” and “Give us Barabbas.” This is seen in John’s vision of a lamb that has two horns and speaks like a dragon. Its function is to make the whole world worship the mental image of the beast (Caesar). Caesar represented the extreme left wing, and Barabbas represented the extreme right wing anarchists. (Barabbas had killed a man in an insurrection.) But even the extreme right-wingers are Statists. They attempt to build their own tower of power. They end up taking over the state they destroy. Lenin and Castro did this.
In the center are those who subscribe to the law. The “tea party” center is obedient to the Constitution. The king of England had broken his contract with the colonies and the duly elected rulers of the colonies had a legal right to do what they did. “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
On the other hand, the French Revolution was illegal. It instituted a reign of terror that was imitated by Russia, Cambodia, Cuba, etc. It was not founded on the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Its goal was humanist Statism and Utopia (i.e. change). They each eliminated religion as the opiate of the people. The State became the supreme power (i.e. god). Edmond Burke pointed out that the French revolutionaries could not tell the difference between change and reformation. Change as they practiced it was discontinuity with the past. They even tried a new calendar that dated the French Revolution as year one, and a ten-day week so no one could tell which day was Sabbath. Reformation, on the other hand, builds on the good of the past, is lawful, and reforms what is not lawful.
Statists are humanists who believe in the ability of man to create a Utopia (i.e. a “name for themselves” with a tower of power). The tower builders totally ignored the covenant with Noah. Statists want to separate God and the State because we cannot have two gods. And because the Constitution limits their goals, they reinterpret it. They ignore the original intent of those who wrote it. The Conservatives, on the other hand, seek to conserve the Law.
For the Statist, liberty is not a blessing but the enemy. It is not possible to achieve a Utopia if individuals are free to go their own way… His first duty must be to the State – not family, community, and faith, all of which have the potential of threatening the State.
President Barack Obama made this point when lecturing the Wesleyan University graduating class of 2008 during his campaign: “[O]ur individual salvation depends on collective salvation.”.
Because these Utopian Statists believe they can build a one-wordlist tower that reaches to the heavens, “they need to listen to the voices of condemnation from world capitals… The classroom is turned into propaganda mill rather than a place for education.”
The Statists in America call themselves “Progressives.” They realize that their goals can never be reached in America with the aggressive type of Statism. So they have adopted an evolutionary “soft” approach. They believe they are progressing towards Utopia. But in order to do this, they must progressively chip away at the Constitution. They must control the education system, the entertainment industry, and the media. They must tax and spend. They must take advantage of every crisis they create in order to push through laws that give them more control. Because they must see to it that the people believe the State can save them, they make all kinds of promises in their election campaigns. Power is what they seek; a tower of power that reaches to the heavens and provides health care for all.
Mark Levin points out that Statist “Academics claim to challenge authority but, in truth, preach authoritarianism through various justifications for and approaches to deconstructing the civil society.” This answers to the “soft” and gentle looking lamb with two horns representing both Caesar (statism) and Barabbas (anarchy). They are really two functions of the same Statist beast that speaks like a dragon and says, “Crucify Him.”
Churchofthekingmcallen.com
Of Babel
Statism
“…and this is only the beginning of what they will do.”
By Ron Smith
Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth." And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. And the LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech" (Genesis 11:4-7).
Josephus tells us that the people after the flood were afraid that God would send another flood, so they built this tower as insurance in case Noah had prophesied falsely. They waterproofed it with asphalt (bitumen), and built it high to ascend above the flood. There would be no need to keep God’s covenant through Noah; they could save themselves.
This account is given through the prophet from God’s point of view. “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (1 Pet 1:20). Their motive was a distrust of God’s promise through Noah that He would never send another earth destroying flood. This greatly offended God. They sought to displace trust in God with trust in themselves. Instead of a desire to make a name for God, they wanted to make a name for themselves. Instead of obeying God’s command to fill the earth, they joined as one, lest they should “be dispersed over the face of the earth.” They were “one worldists” and they were Statists. By establishing a humanistic State, they could produce a utopia and save themselves. The watchword is “power.” “And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.” And “this is only the beginning [the genesis] of what they will do.” What they have done since and what they are doing now is even worse.
This is the human situation; the human condition. This story gives us the pattern of the struggle of history that would follow. It is the City of Man versus the City of God. Every religion except biblical religion ends up looking to the State for security and salvation. Though monarchies are not the only Statist systems, we see it manifested with Israel’s desire for a king. God said to Samuel, “They have not rejected you. They have rejected Me.” They traded their freedom for security. Samuel then goes on to detail how they would have to enslave themselves to the State.
Statism comes in various forms. The extreme right wing wants zero government. They are anarchists. The extreme left-wingers are the Statists like Hitler, Stalin, and other dictators. In the middle are those who look to the original intent of the Constitution and the Law. But Statism is always something the people choose. They chose Hitler; they chose Lenin; they chose Obama. After the liberty brought by the Puritan Oliver Cromwell, they preferred a king. What they got resulted in 28 years of what are called “the killing years” under Charles II and James II. They do this because they believe the State will give them more security than their freedom under God will. But it always ends in the figurative confusion of tongues and a broken tower.
We see Statism manifested in every chapter of the Book of Daniel. In chapter one Daniel makes a decision not to defile himself with the king’s meat. The king’s meat represents the worldly consumption of the humanist/statist idea and worldview. In chapter 2 Daniel interprets the dream of the king about another kingdom that would destroy the kingdoms of this world. Chapter 3 tells of the State command to bow to the image of man that represented the State. Everyone had to conform, just as everyone is expected to conform to today’s political correctness. Notice that the entertainment industry was also involved. It was at the sound of the music that they were to bow. Hollywood is also involved in the support of Statism today.
Chapter four of Daniel tells of the king’s madness and eventual repentance when he acknowledges that God is the real ruler. Only then does his reason and sanity return to him. When “seven times” have come over the rulers of this world, “Yes, all kings shall fall down before Him; All nations shall serve Him” (Psalm 72 NKJV). Each of the following chapters of Daniel deal with the struggle between God’s kingdom and the beastly kingdoms of men. God gives the great hope that His King will eventually rule over all kingdoms.
Augustus Caesar said, “There is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved, but the name Caesar.” Caesar was the State. In the New Testament we see this struggle illustrated with the statement of the rulers of Jerusalem when they said, “We have no king but Caesar” and “Give us Barabbas.” This is seen in John’s vision of a lamb that has two horns and speaks like a dragon. Its function is to make the whole world worship the mental image of the beast (Caesar). Caesar represented the extreme left wing, and Barabbas represented the extreme right wing anarchists. (Barabbas had killed a man in an insurrection.) But even the extreme right-wingers are Statists. They attempt to build their own tower of power. They end up taking over the state they destroy. Lenin and Castro did this.
In the center are those who subscribe to the law. The “tea party” center is obedient to the Constitution. The king of England had broken his contract with the colonies and the duly elected rulers of the colonies had a legal right to do what they did. “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
On the other hand, the French Revolution was illegal. It instituted a reign of terror that was imitated by Russia, Cambodia, Cuba, etc. It was not founded on the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Its goal was humanist Statism and Utopia (i.e. change). They each eliminated religion as the opiate of the people. The State became the supreme power (i.e. god). Edmond Burke pointed out that the French revolutionaries could not tell the difference between change and reformation. Change as they practiced it was discontinuity with the past. They even tried a new calendar that dated the French Revolution as year one, and a ten-day week so no one could tell which day was Sabbath. Reformation, on the other hand, builds on the good of the past, is lawful, and reforms what is not lawful.
Statists are humanists who believe in the ability of man to create a Utopia (i.e. a “name for themselves” with a tower of power). The tower builders totally ignored the covenant with Noah. Statists want to separate God and the State because we cannot have two gods. And because the Constitution limits their goals, they reinterpret it. They ignore the original intent of those who wrote it. The Conservatives, on the other hand, seek to conserve the Law.
For the Statist, liberty is not a blessing but the enemy. It is not possible to achieve a Utopia if individuals are free to go their own way… His first duty must be to the State – not family, community, and faith, all of which have the potential of threatening the State.
President Barack Obama made this point when lecturing the Wesleyan University graduating class of 2008 during his campaign: “[O]ur individual salvation depends on collective salvation.”.
Because these Utopian Statists believe they can build a one-wordlist tower that reaches to the heavens, “they need to listen to the voices of condemnation from world capitals… The classroom is turned into propaganda mill rather than a place for education.”
The Statists in America call themselves “Progressives.” They realize that their goals can never be reached in America with the aggressive type of Statism. So they have adopted an evolutionary “soft” approach. They believe they are progressing towards Utopia. But in order to do this, they must progressively chip away at the Constitution. They must control the education system, the entertainment industry, and the media. They must tax and spend. They must take advantage of every crisis they create in order to push through laws that give them more control. Because they must see to it that the people believe the State can save them, they make all kinds of promises in their election campaigns. Power is what they seek; a tower of power that reaches to the heavens and provides health care for all.
Mark Levin points out that Statist “Academics claim to challenge authority but, in truth, preach authoritarianism through various justifications for and approaches to deconstructing the civil society.” This answers to the “soft” and gentle looking lamb with two horns representing both Caesar (statism) and Barabbas (anarchy). They are really two functions of the same Statist beast that speaks like a dragon and says, “Crucify Him.”
Churchofthekingmcallen.com
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Right-Wing Barabbas v. Leftists
Barabbas was a “right-winger” who killed a man in an effort to overthrow Rome. The leaders of Jerusalem, on the other hand, were “left-wingers” who wanted Roman control. These two wings are like two horns on a harmless looking lamb (See Rev 13). Its function is to get everyone to adore the mental image of the “beastly” state. Both Barabbas and the leaders of Jerusalem who each believed that humanist state control was what everyone needs illustrate this. Anarchists like Barabbas want to overthrow the state so they can run it. This is what Castro and Lenin did. Anyone who will not adore the state is ostracized. They are considered “enemies of the state.” (Can’t buy or sell, so to speak.)
The pattern set by America’s founding fathers is different. They did not trust government. Their goal was to limit it with the Constitution. For them, it all boiled down to freedom, individualism, and faith in God. The goal of the progressives is to overthrow the original intent of the Constitution. Does that smack of treason to you?
We “Tea Party” people want to be like the founding fathers. We want to turn America back to the values of the Constitution. We are not right-wing extremists. We are law-abiding, hard working citizens who plan to vote for justice as defined by the founding fathers.
They did not believe in separation of God and state. The First Amendment says that Congress should not prohibit the free exercise of religion. That is why the Ten Commandments are displayed on government buildings, God is on our money, and the Declaration appeals to the Creator. It is time for a Tea Party and back to basics. Men do not naturally evolve; they tend to devolve.
The pattern set by America’s founding fathers is different. They did not trust government. Their goal was to limit it with the Constitution. For them, it all boiled down to freedom, individualism, and faith in God. The goal of the progressives is to overthrow the original intent of the Constitution. Does that smack of treason to you?
We “Tea Party” people want to be like the founding fathers. We want to turn America back to the values of the Constitution. We are not right-wing extremists. We are law-abiding, hard working citizens who plan to vote for justice as defined by the founding fathers.
They did not believe in separation of God and state. The First Amendment says that Congress should not prohibit the free exercise of religion. That is why the Ten Commandments are displayed on government buildings, God is on our money, and the Declaration appeals to the Creator. It is time for a Tea Party and back to basics. Men do not naturally evolve; they tend to devolve.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Pork Food
Pork Food
To have a mentality that feels free to dip into the public dole strikes me as an “entitlement” attitude. It is not noble to live on the sacrifice of others unless it is a last resort. To be anxious to do that reveals, perhaps, well, a tinge of greed? Public money is the hard earned blood and sweat of taxpayers. This money goes to Washington where the handlers first rake off their wasteful percentage. Then it is sent back to the taxpayers via pork and or more wastefulness. Many other non-producers dip into the pot and take more.
This is a wasteful greed game. The prodigal son said, “Give me my share now.” He felt “entitled.” When two of David’s men jeopardized their lives to bring him a drink from the well within the Philistine garrison he refused to drink it. Noble men like David say, “God forbid that I should drink the blood of these men!”
After Hurricane Dolly hit the Rio Grande Valley, a neighbor got an estimate for their damaged roof. FEMA gave them money and they then had it done cheaper and profited by $7,000. That money came out of the pockets of hard working taxpayers. This does not represent the values of noble men. The prodigal son “wasted his substance in riotous living” and ended up sharing the food of porkers.
After I left the mission field at the age of 30 with a wife and four kids, starting a new career was tough. $3.00 an hour and two jobs living in a trailer bought for $3400 with financed money was tough. I saw in the paper government housing and called the realtor. She said if I would quit one of my jobs I would qualify. “You mean it would pay me to quit one of my jobs?” “Yes.” “No thanks. Bye.”
Why take on the “poor me” mantle when I can trust God to supply all my needs according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus? It really is better to give than to receive. I determined to give the sweat of my own brow rather than the sweat of the taxpayers. Our policy has always been to tithe first, pay bills second, and feed the belly last. It has paid off to side with God against self and be on the Victor’s side.
To have a mentality that feels free to dip into the public dole strikes me as an “entitlement” attitude. It is not noble to live on the sacrifice of others unless it is a last resort. To be anxious to do that reveals, perhaps, well, a tinge of greed? Public money is the hard earned blood and sweat of taxpayers. This money goes to Washington where the handlers first rake off their wasteful percentage. Then it is sent back to the taxpayers via pork and or more wastefulness. Many other non-producers dip into the pot and take more.
This is a wasteful greed game. The prodigal son said, “Give me my share now.” He felt “entitled.” When two of David’s men jeopardized their lives to bring him a drink from the well within the Philistine garrison he refused to drink it. Noble men like David say, “God forbid that I should drink the blood of these men!”
After Hurricane Dolly hit the Rio Grande Valley, a neighbor got an estimate for their damaged roof. FEMA gave them money and they then had it done cheaper and profited by $7,000. That money came out of the pockets of hard working taxpayers. This does not represent the values of noble men. The prodigal son “wasted his substance in riotous living” and ended up sharing the food of porkers.
After I left the mission field at the age of 30 with a wife and four kids, starting a new career was tough. $3.00 an hour and two jobs living in a trailer bought for $3400 with financed money was tough. I saw in the paper government housing and called the realtor. She said if I would quit one of my jobs I would qualify. “You mean it would pay me to quit one of my jobs?” “Yes.” “No thanks. Bye.”
Why take on the “poor me” mantle when I can trust God to supply all my needs according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus? It really is better to give than to receive. I determined to give the sweat of my own brow rather than the sweat of the taxpayers. Our policy has always been to tithe first, pay bills second, and feed the belly last. It has paid off to side with God against self and be on the Victor’s side.
Friday, February 27, 2009
The Current Economic Crisis & Homosexuality
The Current Economic Crisis And Homosexuality
Keynesian economics (also called Keynesianism (pronounced /ˈkeɪnziən/, and Keynesian Theory), is a macroeconomic theory based on the ideas of 20th-century British economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was homosexual.
Richard Nixon imposed wage and price controls (like Communist Russia) and proclaimed, “We are now all Keynesians.” Carter came and interest rates went up to 21% in an effort to curb the inflation caused by Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society spending and Nixon’s wage and price freeze. It took Reaganomics to turn the nation around.
Congress, led by Barney Frank, had mandated for years that lending institutions give mortgages to people they knew could not pay. It all came to a head in late 2008. The government decided to give trillions to banks and business.
It is an interesting irony of Providence that both Keynes and
Barney Frank were gay. Gays do not reproduce unless they teach other boys and men to do what they do. Wealth is not created until something is produced. These guys think they can take from the producers in the form of taxes and “stimulate” the economy. This policy punishes the producers and rewards non-producers.
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number” (Gen 1:28). God meant for man and woman to be productive by having babies. Keynesian Theory is homosexual.
Romans 1:24-27
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Keynesian economics (also called Keynesianism (pronounced /ˈkeɪnziən/, and Keynesian Theory), is a macroeconomic theory based on the ideas of 20th-century British economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was homosexual.
Richard Nixon imposed wage and price controls (like Communist Russia) and proclaimed, “We are now all Keynesians.” Carter came and interest rates went up to 21% in an effort to curb the inflation caused by Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society spending and Nixon’s wage and price freeze. It took Reaganomics to turn the nation around.
Congress, led by Barney Frank, had mandated for years that lending institutions give mortgages to people they knew could not pay. It all came to a head in late 2008. The government decided to give trillions to banks and business.
It is an interesting irony of Providence that both Keynes and
Barney Frank were gay. Gays do not reproduce unless they teach other boys and men to do what they do. Wealth is not created until something is produced. These guys think they can take from the producers in the form of taxes and “stimulate” the economy. This policy punishes the producers and rewards non-producers.
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number” (Gen 1:28). God meant for man and woman to be productive by having babies. Keynesian Theory is homosexual.
Romans 1:24-27
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Of
Abraham Kuyper’s
Calvinism
Ron Smith's Summary of
Abraham Kuyper’s Speech at Princeton in 1898.
"There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: 'Mine!'"
Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920)
Abraham Kuyper was an extraordinary figure uniquely capable of wearing several hats throughout his long public career as pastor, theologian, scholar, journalist, educator and statesman. Although he began in the parish ministry, he moved on to become editor of two periodicals; to found the Antirevolutionary Party, the first Dutch political party and the first Christian Democratic party in the world; and to establish the Free University, a Christian university established on Reformed principles. He was first elected to the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament in 1874 and eventually served as Prime Minister from 1901 to 1905. Kuyper's thought was introduced to North America in 1898, when he delivered the Stone Lectures at Princeton Seminary.
Although Kuyper was not an academic political theorist, he nevertheless laid the foundations for a highly original approach to politics that would come to be labelled "Kuyperian." Its originality consisted in the fact that he sought to articulate a consistently Christian view of the place of politics in God's world free from the distortions of various nonchristian ideologies.
The most characteristic feature of Kuyper's political thought is the principle of soevereiniteit in eigen kring, usually referred to in English as "sovereignty in its own sphere," "sovereignty in its proper orbit," or simply "sphere sovereignty." Sphere sovereignty implies three things: (1) ultimate sovereignty belongs to God alone; (2) all earthly sovereignties are subordinate to and derivative from God's sovereignty; and (3) there is no mediating earthly sovereignty from which others are derivative. Current efforts at rehabilitating what is often called "civil society" owe something to this principle.
Kuyper's ideas were further developed by Herman Dooyeweerd and others in the twentieth century.
Kuyper points out that the vital turn in modern history was made in 1789. That year gave birth to the French Revolution and the "violent rise of modern humanism." That struggle continues to rage today. The only answer is Biblical Calvinism.
Kuyper points out that the term Calvinism is used in four ways:
1. In its sectarian use it is used as a derisive term with little or no understanding of what it really is.
2. The dogmatic use represents Calvinists as narrow and dogmatic people who believe in predestination.
3. The denominational use is applied to groups such as "Calvinist Baptists" or "Calvinist Methodists."
4. The scientific use refers to its political name. We say, “political name,” because, historically, it sanctions no church hierarchy or magisterial interference by the civil authority, and it results in republican (representative) government.
We can see that it is this very Calvinism, in the scientific use that resulted in the US. Constitution. The French Revolution was based on atheism, while the American one was called "the Scots Irish Presbyterian revolt," and was based on Biblical Calvinism. George Washington and the founding fathers rejected the radicalism of the French Revolution. Calvinism's peculiar theology, special church-order, and its given form for political and social life is unique in its character. The French Revolution was a humanist imitation and counterfeit of Calvinism.
Just as Paganism, Islamism, Romanism and Modern Humanism each have their life systems, so every life-system requires conditions in the three fundamental relations of all human life, namely:
-- our relation to God;
-- our relation to man, and
-- our relation to the world.
The First Condition: Our Relation to God
Paganism worships God in the creature. Islamism isolates God from nature. Romanism teaches "God enters into fellowship with the creature by means of a mystic middle-link, which is the Church." Each of these views stands in opposition to Calvinism.
Calvinism "does not seek God in the creature, as Paganism; it does not isolate God from the creature, as Islamism; it posits no mediate communion between God and the creature, as does Romanism; but proclaims the exalted thought that, although standing in high majesty above the creature, God enters into immediate fellowship with the creature, as God the Holy Spirit."
Kuyper anticipates the objection that Luther and Protestantism should share with Calvinism and be given credit for this world-view. Though Luther alone stands by the side of Calvinism, "Luther still leaned upon the Romish view of the sacraments, and upon the Romish cultus, while Calvin was the first in both to draw the line which extended immediately from God to man and from man to God." He says, "Even the name of 'Lutheranism' is hardly ever mentioned; while the students of history with increasing unanimity recognize Calvinism as the creator of a world of human life entirely its own."
Some might object that Humanism ("People for the French Way") denies any relation with God. The fact is, they make themselves their own god. Man becomes god.
Kuyper repeats: "Thus I maintain that it is the interpretation of our relation to God which dominates every general life system.”
The Second Condition for Every Life-System:
Our Relation to our Neighbor
Paganism results in systems of caste, as in India. Islamism results in a system of slavery. The woman is the slave of man and the infidel is the slave of the Moslem. Romanism results in every relation of man to man hierarchically, and leads to "an entirely aristocratic interpretation of life." "Humanism, which denies every difference, cannot rest until it has made woman man and man woman, and, putting every distinction on a common level, kills life [abortion, etc.?] by placing it under the ban of uniformity. One type must answer for all, one uniform, one position and one and the same development of life; and whatever goes beyond and above it, is looked upon as an insult to the common consciousness [the dogmatic attitude of evolutionists?]."
Calvinism, on the other hand, holds that "we stand as equals before God." "Hence we cannot recognize any distinction among men, save such as has been imposed by God Himself, in that He gave one authority over the other, or enriched one with more talents than the other, in order that the man of more talents should serve the man with less, and in him serve his God. In the same way, Calvinism condemns not merely all open slavery and systems of caste, but also all covert slavery of woman and of the poor; it is opposed to all hierarchy among men; it tolerates no aristocracy save such as is able, either in person or in family, by the grace of God, to exhibit superiority of character or talent, and to show that it does not claim this superiority for self-aggrandizement or ambitious pride, but for the sake of spending it in the service of God... It was Calvinism, then, which was bound to find its unique utterance in the democratic interpretation of life..."
"The difference between [Calvinism] and the wild dream of equality in the French Revolution is that while in Paris it was one action in concert against God, here [in Calvinism] all, rich and poor, were on their knees before God, consumed with a common zeal for the glory of His Name."
Our Relation to the World:
The third Requirement for Every Life-System
Paganism and Islamism
"Of Paganism it can be said in general, that it places too high an estimate upon the world, and therefore to some extent it both stands in fear of, and loses itself in it. On the other hand Islamism places too low an estimate upon the world, makes sport of it and triumphs over it in reaching after the visionary world of a sensual paradise." Muslims make the world a slave and Hinduism is enslaved by it.
Romanism
By the late medieval Church's "dominion over the world the Church proved an obstacle to every free development of its life." This was a dualistic world-view. It was Calvinism that changed England’s attitude toward banking and toward the Jews. This brought about prosperity and freedom to invent and create.
Calvinism’s Early Rejection of Dualism –
Calvinism rejected dualism with the doctrines of "particular grace, which works salvation, and common grace, by which God, maintaining the life of the world, relaxes the curse which rests on it, arrests its process of corruption, and thus allows the untrammeled development of our life in which to glorify Himself as Creator."
"Henceforth, as the Calvinist saw it, the curse should no longer rest upon the world itself, but upon that which is sinful in it, and instead of monastic flight from the world the duty is now emphasized of serving God in the world, in every position in life."
Calvinism also rejected the dualism of the Anabaptists who withdrew from all civil institutions and was bound to take all civil life under its guardianship, and to remodel it, by force, if necessary. Scripture gives a good model in Joseph and Daniel "Your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies" (Gen 22:17). True Biblical Calvinism also rejects the dualistic notion of “escapism” from the troubles of the world.
Conclusion to the "Three Fundamental Relations"
"This justifies us fully in our statement that Calvinism duly answers the three above-named conditions, thus is incontestably entitled to take its stand by the side of Paganism, Islamism, Romanism and Modern Humanism, and to claim for itself the glory of possessing a well-defined principle and an all-embracing life-system."
The first written constitution in history came about as the result of a sermon by Calvinist Thomas Hooker in 1639 Connecticut.
• Everyone has a worldview. Few have a coherent worldview or are able to articulate it clearly.
• Most people don’t consider their worldview to be a central defining element of their life, although it is.
• People spend surprisingly little time intentionally considering and developing their worldview. More often than not, their worldview development process is one of unconscious evolution and acceptance. They allow it to evolve and sum it up this way: “Whatever.”
• Americans rarely interact with each other on a substantive level regarding matters and issues that relate to worldview development and clarification. When they do so, they often do not know how to process the interaction or how to progress from their existing position.
“Survey after survey has shown that Americans – including a huge majority of born-again Christians and evangelical Christians – lack a biblical worldview.”
--- From the book, “Think Like Jesus,” by George Barna.
ChurchoftheKingMcAllen.com
7401 N. Ware Rd
585-4402
Abraham Kuyper’s
Calvinism
Ron Smith's Summary of
Abraham Kuyper’s Speech at Princeton in 1898.
"There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: 'Mine!'"
Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920)
Abraham Kuyper was an extraordinary figure uniquely capable of wearing several hats throughout his long public career as pastor, theologian, scholar, journalist, educator and statesman. Although he began in the parish ministry, he moved on to become editor of two periodicals; to found the Antirevolutionary Party, the first Dutch political party and the first Christian Democratic party in the world; and to establish the Free University, a Christian university established on Reformed principles. He was first elected to the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament in 1874 and eventually served as Prime Minister from 1901 to 1905. Kuyper's thought was introduced to North America in 1898, when he delivered the Stone Lectures at Princeton Seminary.
Although Kuyper was not an academic political theorist, he nevertheless laid the foundations for a highly original approach to politics that would come to be labelled "Kuyperian." Its originality consisted in the fact that he sought to articulate a consistently Christian view of the place of politics in God's world free from the distortions of various nonchristian ideologies.
The most characteristic feature of Kuyper's political thought is the principle of soevereiniteit in eigen kring, usually referred to in English as "sovereignty in its own sphere," "sovereignty in its proper orbit," or simply "sphere sovereignty." Sphere sovereignty implies three things: (1) ultimate sovereignty belongs to God alone; (2) all earthly sovereignties are subordinate to and derivative from God's sovereignty; and (3) there is no mediating earthly sovereignty from which others are derivative. Current efforts at rehabilitating what is often called "civil society" owe something to this principle.
Kuyper's ideas were further developed by Herman Dooyeweerd and others in the twentieth century.
Kuyper points out that the vital turn in modern history was made in 1789. That year gave birth to the French Revolution and the "violent rise of modern humanism." That struggle continues to rage today. The only answer is Biblical Calvinism.
Kuyper points out that the term Calvinism is used in four ways:
1. In its sectarian use it is used as a derisive term with little or no understanding of what it really is.
2. The dogmatic use represents Calvinists as narrow and dogmatic people who believe in predestination.
3. The denominational use is applied to groups such as "Calvinist Baptists" or "Calvinist Methodists."
4. The scientific use refers to its political name. We say, “political name,” because, historically, it sanctions no church hierarchy or magisterial interference by the civil authority, and it results in republican (representative) government.
We can see that it is this very Calvinism, in the scientific use that resulted in the US. Constitution. The French Revolution was based on atheism, while the American one was called "the Scots Irish Presbyterian revolt," and was based on Biblical Calvinism. George Washington and the founding fathers rejected the radicalism of the French Revolution. Calvinism's peculiar theology, special church-order, and its given form for political and social life is unique in its character. The French Revolution was a humanist imitation and counterfeit of Calvinism.
Just as Paganism, Islamism, Romanism and Modern Humanism each have their life systems, so every life-system requires conditions in the three fundamental relations of all human life, namely:
-- our relation to God;
-- our relation to man, and
-- our relation to the world.
The First Condition: Our Relation to God
Paganism worships God in the creature. Islamism isolates God from nature. Romanism teaches "God enters into fellowship with the creature by means of a mystic middle-link, which is the Church." Each of these views stands in opposition to Calvinism.
Calvinism "does not seek God in the creature, as Paganism; it does not isolate God from the creature, as Islamism; it posits no mediate communion between God and the creature, as does Romanism; but proclaims the exalted thought that, although standing in high majesty above the creature, God enters into immediate fellowship with the creature, as God the Holy Spirit."
Kuyper anticipates the objection that Luther and Protestantism should share with Calvinism and be given credit for this world-view. Though Luther alone stands by the side of Calvinism, "Luther still leaned upon the Romish view of the sacraments, and upon the Romish cultus, while Calvin was the first in both to draw the line which extended immediately from God to man and from man to God." He says, "Even the name of 'Lutheranism' is hardly ever mentioned; while the students of history with increasing unanimity recognize Calvinism as the creator of a world of human life entirely its own."
Some might object that Humanism ("People for the French Way") denies any relation with God. The fact is, they make themselves their own god. Man becomes god.
Kuyper repeats: "Thus I maintain that it is the interpretation of our relation to God which dominates every general life system.”
The Second Condition for Every Life-System:
Our Relation to our Neighbor
Paganism results in systems of caste, as in India. Islamism results in a system of slavery. The woman is the slave of man and the infidel is the slave of the Moslem. Romanism results in every relation of man to man hierarchically, and leads to "an entirely aristocratic interpretation of life." "Humanism, which denies every difference, cannot rest until it has made woman man and man woman, and, putting every distinction on a common level, kills life [abortion, etc.?] by placing it under the ban of uniformity. One type must answer for all, one uniform, one position and one and the same development of life; and whatever goes beyond and above it, is looked upon as an insult to the common consciousness [the dogmatic attitude of evolutionists?]."
Calvinism, on the other hand, holds that "we stand as equals before God." "Hence we cannot recognize any distinction among men, save such as has been imposed by God Himself, in that He gave one authority over the other, or enriched one with more talents than the other, in order that the man of more talents should serve the man with less, and in him serve his God. In the same way, Calvinism condemns not merely all open slavery and systems of caste, but also all covert slavery of woman and of the poor; it is opposed to all hierarchy among men; it tolerates no aristocracy save such as is able, either in person or in family, by the grace of God, to exhibit superiority of character or talent, and to show that it does not claim this superiority for self-aggrandizement or ambitious pride, but for the sake of spending it in the service of God... It was Calvinism, then, which was bound to find its unique utterance in the democratic interpretation of life..."
"The difference between [Calvinism] and the wild dream of equality in the French Revolution is that while in Paris it was one action in concert against God, here [in Calvinism] all, rich and poor, were on their knees before God, consumed with a common zeal for the glory of His Name."
Our Relation to the World:
The third Requirement for Every Life-System
Paganism and Islamism
"Of Paganism it can be said in general, that it places too high an estimate upon the world, and therefore to some extent it both stands in fear of, and loses itself in it. On the other hand Islamism places too low an estimate upon the world, makes sport of it and triumphs over it in reaching after the visionary world of a sensual paradise." Muslims make the world a slave and Hinduism is enslaved by it.
Romanism
By the late medieval Church's "dominion over the world the Church proved an obstacle to every free development of its life." This was a dualistic world-view. It was Calvinism that changed England’s attitude toward banking and toward the Jews. This brought about prosperity and freedom to invent and create.
Calvinism’s Early Rejection of Dualism –
Calvinism rejected dualism with the doctrines of "particular grace, which works salvation, and common grace, by which God, maintaining the life of the world, relaxes the curse which rests on it, arrests its process of corruption, and thus allows the untrammeled development of our life in which to glorify Himself as Creator."
"Henceforth, as the Calvinist saw it, the curse should no longer rest upon the world itself, but upon that which is sinful in it, and instead of monastic flight from the world the duty is now emphasized of serving God in the world, in every position in life."
Calvinism also rejected the dualism of the Anabaptists who withdrew from all civil institutions and was bound to take all civil life under its guardianship, and to remodel it, by force, if necessary. Scripture gives a good model in Joseph and Daniel "Your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies" (Gen 22:17). True Biblical Calvinism also rejects the dualistic notion of “escapism” from the troubles of the world.
Conclusion to the "Three Fundamental Relations"
"This justifies us fully in our statement that Calvinism duly answers the three above-named conditions, thus is incontestably entitled to take its stand by the side of Paganism, Islamism, Romanism and Modern Humanism, and to claim for itself the glory of possessing a well-defined principle and an all-embracing life-system."
The first written constitution in history came about as the result of a sermon by Calvinist Thomas Hooker in 1639 Connecticut.
• Everyone has a worldview. Few have a coherent worldview or are able to articulate it clearly.
• Most people don’t consider their worldview to be a central defining element of their life, although it is.
• People spend surprisingly little time intentionally considering and developing their worldview. More often than not, their worldview development process is one of unconscious evolution and acceptance. They allow it to evolve and sum it up this way: “Whatever.”
• Americans rarely interact with each other on a substantive level regarding matters and issues that relate to worldview development and clarification. When they do so, they often do not know how to process the interaction or how to progress from their existing position.
“Survey after survey has shown that Americans – including a huge majority of born-again Christians and evangelical Christians – lack a biblical worldview.”
--- From the book, “Think Like Jesus,” by George Barna.
ChurchoftheKingMcAllen.com
7401 N. Ware Rd
585-4402
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
