I am not the best predictor of general election results. In 1990, I predicted that John Silber would easily become the governor of Massachusetts and in 2008 that John McCain would win a landslide Electoral College victory over Barack Obama. Of course, both predictions were wrong.
However, I’ve been good at predicting the Republican Party nominee. If we look at the 2012 and 2008 races, the front runner did not emerge until late. In both contests, it looked as though an “insurgent” candidate was the inevitable nominee. I knew that McCain and Romney were the inevitable nominees despite the media driven polls prior to the primaries.
2012 GOP Presidential Nomination RealClear Politics average. Click to enlarge.
Look at what occurred in 2012 in the RealClear Politics poll averages. Clearly, you can see that until March 1st, no candidate broke the 35% threshold in the polling average. Candidates see-sawed into the lead each month to be the alternative to Romney who just hung in there at a 25% ceiling until mid-January.
2008 GOP Presidential Nomination RealClear Politics average. Click to enlarge.
Likewise, McCain’s rise in the polls in 2008 didn’t come until very late. Rudy Giuliani had a commanding lead until it evaporated in January. McCain never had more than 25% and was often in fourth place at 12% until December. For a brief period, Mike Huckabee broke out. But Giuliani’s lead in 2008 was consistently higher than Trump’s in 2012 for a longer period of time. Yet many in the media claim Trump is an unheard of phenomenon and no one can touch his commanding lead.
This time, I predict Jeb Bush will emerge as the eventual nominee.
Yes, you read that right: Jeb Bush.
Why Jeb Bush will win the nomination
Bush is not my candidate, but he will be the nominee. You see, it’s all rigged. The polls mean nothing prior to actual votes being cast. Rubio will be his running mate — or Nikki Haley. Now before you discount this, hear me out. The reason I say it’s rigged, is not to say that your vote doesn’t count. Your vote is counted. What I mean is that before Super Tuesday, the governors of states, who have a lot of sway in the Republican Party primaries, will usually settle on a “favorite son.”
Who were these favorite sons?
1960 — Nixon, sitting vice president
1964 — Goldwater
1968 — Nixon, former vice president
1972 — Nixon
1976 — Ford, sitting president after Nixon’s resignation.
1980 — Reagan, runner-up to Ford
1984 — Reagan
1988 — H.W. Bush, sitting vice president
1992 — H.W. Bush
1996 — Dole, runner up to Bush and Ford’s vice presidential nominee
2000 — W. Bush, son of H.W. Bush
2004 — W. Bush
2008 — McCain, runner-up to W. Bush
2012 — Romney, second runner-up to John McCain
2016 — ?
With the exception of Goldwater, it has been the “favorite son” syndrome since 1960. No sitting president has lost the nomination in recent memory, even though Gerald Ford came close to losing to Ronald Reagan in 1976. In an open contest, the nomination goes to a sitting or past vice president, to the runner up in the last primary contest or to the son of George Bush. It is predictable.
I don’t see the Republican governors supporting Trump or Cruz. They will settle on someone who is safe and who they think represents the purposes of the Republican Party. That person is Jeb Bush.
The reason why this happens is because the delegate count is not proportional to the vote. Almost all later states are winner take all. And even though the primaries are more proportional than ever before, there still is the likelihood that the candidate with roughly one-third of the vote by Super Tuesday will have the majority of the delegates and will win the nomination.
- The first states to hold primaries, as usual, will be Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. Voters in those states will go to the polls in February under the party rules passed in 2014. States that attempt to jump ahead of those four states will be punished with the loss of delegates.
- States that hold their primaries between March 1 and March 14, 2016, will award their delegates on a proportional basis, meaning that no one candidate could likely win the nomination before late-voting states get to hold their primaries. Most of these states have a threshold for receiving delegates, which makes it likely that the front runner will get the majority.
- Most states voting on March 15, 2016, or later will award their delegates on a winner-take-all basis. Some delegates are unbound, but they usually vote with the state winner or with the national front-runner.
In a four-way race, it is mathematically possible to get a majority delegate count with a small minority/plurality. In the winner-take-all primary states, you don’t need a majority to win all the delegates. In fact, in these states, it is mathematically possible to get 100 percent of the delegates with 25.1% of the popular vote in a close four-way race.
In the 2016 Republican primaries, 1,237 of 2,472 delegates are needed for a majority. It’s no accident that just 16 states will allocate 1260 delegates and most of these are winner-take all.
- California — 172 — June 7, 2016 (winner-take-all statewide and by district)
- Texas — 155 — March 1, 2016 (proportional with 20% threshold)
- Florida — 99 — March 15, 2016 (winner-take-all)
- New York — 95 — April 19, 2016 (proportional with 20% threshold)
- Georgia — 76 — March 1, 2016 (proportional with 20% threshold)
- North Carolina — 72 — March 15, 2016 (proportional)
- Pennsylvania — 71 — April 26 (winner-take-all)
- Illinois — 69 — March 15, 2016 (winner-take-all)
- Ohio — 66 — March 15, 2016 (winner-take-all)
- Michigan — 59 — March 8, 2016 (proportional with 15% threshold)
- Tennessee — 58 — March 1, 2016 (proportional with 20% threshold)
- Arizona — 58 — March 22, 2016 (winner-take-all)
- Indiana — 57 — May 3, 2016 (winner-take-all statewide and by district)
- Missouri — 52 — March 15, 2016 (winner take all above 50% or by district)
- New Jersey — 51 — June 7, 2016 (winner take all)
- Alabama — 50 — March 1, 2016 (proportional)
TOTAL — 1260 delegates
Well-organized campaigns do well in the states they absolutely have to win. This was John F. Kennedy’s strategy in the 1960 primaries. He and Robert Kennedy, his brother and campaign manager, picked the states they knew they had to win and concentrated there.
This is also the reason that the states appear in the order they do. States will lose their delegates if they do not hold their primaries when the Republican National Committee says so. There is a delegate math that ensures that a certain type of candidate will win. Note that California, which is the largest delegate count state, is at the very end. By that time, whoever is the front runner usually wins California outright and gets almost all the delegates.
Florida is similar. Florida is a huge state it has the third most delegates behind California and Texas. In the past, Florida move its primary up, so that we would influence the other primary elections. But the Democratic and Republican National Committees penalized Florida for doing this. If you remember, Hillary lost all of her delegates and that is the reason why Barack Obama won the nomination for the Democrats even though she won the popular vote. The Republicans did something similar. Romney won Florida outright they made it so that he would lose only half his delegates. In the end, Romney still won handily.
So this is how it is rigged. There are these little nuances in the rules.
You have to ask yourself, why doesn’t either party do a straight out popular vote count to determine its nominee in the primaries? The reason for this is that in a multiple person race it will drag on and no one will end up with the majority. They want to make it look as though the party is united behind one candidate. So psychologically, when Republicans and Democrats see a candidate in the lead, who they think can bring the party victory in November, they will coalesce around that one candidate.
Let me reiterate, that is neither Cruz nor Trump.
For as long as Bush or Rubio have 12% of the vote in the early primaries, they are the two front runners. I believe that Rubio will be the next nominee after Bush in 2020 or 2024, but I am getting ahead of myself.
The reason Trump has been so popular in the 2015/2016 polls is because he means big money to the major media outlets. They want him to win. First, because he is vastly entertaining and it’s making them millions of dollars. Second, they believe that he is the worst possible candidate for the Republicans. The liberal media outlets want him to win so the Republicans can lose in November. They see him as easily beatable by Queen Hillary who they believe will coast to an easy coronation.
It is a bizarre Orwellian notion that the media can somehow wag the dog and influence primary elections. Thankfully, they’re almost never right. None of the major conservative media moguls are willing to say that the emperor has no clothes. No one is willing to say what everyone knows.
The only one so far I know who is doing this is Glenn Beck, who doesn’t seem to think that what he says matters to his popularity too much. Glenn Beck says a lot of crazy stuff, but in this case he is accurate. Beck said on January 15th that a Trump presidency would be a “monster much, much worse than anything that Barack Obama could have dreamt.”
A Trump nomination would be a disaster for the Republican Party. Not only would Trump lose the general election, but it would change the Republican Party forever. A huge number of Republicans will leave the party if Trump wins. Many Republicans, including myself, would see that the only viable alternative to this disaster would be a third party candidate.
So while I’d like to the Republican Party implode in favor of a replacement, such as the Constitution Party, I recognize that this will probably never happen. The powers that be behind the scenes are not so stupid as to let the GOP commit suicide.
The date of Christmas was not determined by Church Fathers by copying the date of a pagan Roman winter solstice festival. Instead, the date was calculated from the Jewish calendar using the date of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, September 22nd, 6 BC, when Gabriel appeared to Zecharias in the Temple according to Luke 1:5. The conception of John occurred “immediately after that” when John returned home to Elizabeth to the hill country of Judea, by calculation on September 24th, 6 BC.
The conception of Jesus was calculated to have occurred when Elizabeth was “in her sixth month” (Luke 1:26,36) on March 25th, 5 BC, which was also the first day of Passover in that year. John’s birth was June 24th, 5 BC, followed by Jesus birth in Bethlehem on December 25th, which was also the first day of Hanukkah, or the Festival of Lights, in that year. The Church Father, Hippolytus of Rome, in his work Chronicon, saw that each date had allegorical significance.
So why is Christmas celebrated on December 25th?
The usual answer to this question is that it was adjusted, like many Church feast days, to coincide with the pagan feast days, this one being the winter solstice. This is a convenient explanation, but the exact date of December 25th is for another reason entirely. It was proposed by several of the Church Fathers at least as early as the second century. Since the “celebration of Christmas” was a custom instituted later, the second century is far too early for the “pagan copycat” thesis to be valid. To explain how the Church Fathers arrived at this date, we need to examine first the date of John the Baptist’s conception as told in Luke.
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zecharias, of the division of Abijah (Luke 1:5).
According to 1 Chronicles 24:7-19, King David had divided the priests into 24 divisions who took turns serving in the Temple. During their service they lived in the Temple and were separated from their wives and children. Each order served for a period of eight days twice a year. The priests of the course of Abijah served during the 10th and 24th weeks of the Jewish year. Luke goes on to recount how the angel Gabriel appeared to Zecharias while he was serving in the Temple.
So it was, that while he was serving as priest before God in the order of his division, according to the custom of the priesthood, his lot fell to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. And the whole multitude of the people was praying outside at the hour of incense. Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And when Zecharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zecharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:8-15).
Note here that “the whole multitude of the people” (i.e., the whole nation of Israel) was present outside the Temple. Some have attempted to reconstruct the weeks of service according to Josephus’ account in Antiquities 7:14:7, which relates that the first division, the division of Jehoiarib, was on duty when Jerusalem was destroyed on August 5th, AD 70. Using this date as an anchor, the eighth division of Abijah would serve two times in the year, one of them being in late September. However, it is uncertain if these allotments began on exactly the same day of the year, since there would be four extra weeks to account for at the end of the year. But there were only two times in the year when the “whole multitude of the people” of Israel was required to be in Jerusalem worshiping at the Temple. These were the fall and spring feast days. Zecharias’ vision apparently occurred on one of the high feast days, several of the Church Fathers thought it was the Day of Atonement, and then Zecharias returned to his home immediately after that.
So it was, as soon as the days of his service were completed, that he departed to his own house. Now after those days his wife Elizabeth conceived (Luke 1:23,24).
Since “the hill country of Judea,” where Elizabeth lived according to Luke 1:39;65, is no more than a day’s journey from Jerusalem, the conception of John the Baptist must have occurred soon after that. Several of the Church Fathers noticed this correspondence and made the inference that John must have been conceived shortly after the Day of Atonement, which usually falls in September. In fact, the Church Father John Chrysostom thought that Zecharias was actually the Jewish High Priest because he was in the Holy Place on the Day of Atonement, which in 6 BC fell on September 22nd. So September 24th was calculated as the date of John’s conception. The birth of John occurred exactly nine months later on June 24th.
Since Jesus was conceived six months after John (Luke 1:26,36), various dates around this time, December 25th, January 2nd and 6th were given by various Church Fathers and each of these have been celebrated as the Nativity of Jesus. In fact, the Eastern Orthodox Church has always used January 6th as the date of Christmas.
If John was conceived during one of the spring feasts — Passover or Pentecost, which were the other two times in the year when the “whole multitude of the people” of Israel was required to be in Jerusalem — then we would have winter birth for John and a summer birth for Jesus.
Notwithstanding, the Day of Atonement fits well as an anchor date because it points to a winter birthday for Christ. Josephus notes that Herod died shortly before the Passover in 4 BC, which began on April 11th of that year. This gives several months for the events surrounding the Nativity and fits the narrative accounts of both Matthew and Luke.
We should not be dogmatic about the exact day. However, we can use December 25th as the anchor date. This date helps explain several events recorded in the Nativity accounts and is important for establishing a timeline that supports the historicity of the Gospels.
The following is an excerpt from the script of a video to be produced in the future, Christ’s Victorious Kingdom: Postmillinnialism Rediscovered. Some of the following has been edited from the writings of my friends, Bob and Rose Weiner.
The Immeasurable Power of the Gospel
I heard the bells on Christmas Day
Their old familiar carols play,
And wild and sweet the words repeat
Of peace on earth, good will to men.
And in despair I bowed my head,
“There is no peace on earth,” I said,
“For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on earth, goodwill to men.”
Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
“God is not dead, nor doth he sleep,
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail
With peace on earth good will to men.”
— Henry Wadsworth Longfellow,
“I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day,” December 25th, 1864
The U.S. Civil War was still raging when Longfellow wrote these words. Over 600,000 died, more than half due to disease and primitive medical care. He had just received news that his son, Charles Appleton Longfellow, had suffered crippling wounds as a soldier in battle. Just two years earlier, he had lost his wife to an accident with fire. Sitting down at his desk that Christmas Day, he heard church bells ringing. It was in this setting that Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, a committed Christian, wrote these lines.
Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
“God is not dead, nor doth he sleep,
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail
With peace on earth good will to men.”
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, 1868
While it might have looked as though the apocalypse was at the doorstep of his nation, Longfellow quoted scripture and persisted in what was known in early America as the “Puritan Hope” – that the Gospel was strong enough, not only to convert souls, but also to transform the nations bringing “peace on earth.”
The historic belief of the Church that the Gospel is destined to overcome all opposition is totally opposite of the ideas of the end-times that have been propagated throughout evangelical Christendom over the last century. The presence of evil in the world and sin in our nation has been viewed by modern Christians as an indication that civilization is crumbling, and that we Christians on that “sinking ship” should spend as much time as possible trying to rescue as many of the passengers as we can. This has resulted in an escape-orientated Christianity rather than dominion-oriented Christianity.
As David Chilton wrote in Paradise Restored:
Regardless of their numerous individual differences, the various defeatist schools of thought are solidly lined up together on one major point: The gospel of Jesus Christ will fail. Christianity will not be successful in its worldwide task. Christ’s Great Commission to disciple the nations will not be carried out. Satan and the forces of Antichrist will prevail. Jesus returns at the last moment, like the cavalry in B-grade westerns, to rescue the ragged little band of survivors.
As a result of almost a century of this type of teaching, the Church has lost many major battles to the enemy. The Gospel is just as powerful today as it was in the days of the Reformation and the two Great Awakenings in America. It is not the Gospel that has changed; it is the orientation of the Christian that has made the difference.
Therefore, some questions we ought ask ourselves.
Do I have an eschatology of defeat or an eschatology of victory?
Do I see the devil running the world and getting more and more powerful all the time?
Do I see the ministry of the church as mainly that of a rescue mission, with no other lasting effect in the world other than saving a few individuals from hell?
Is my message for the “last days” simply: “Antichrist is coming, run to the wilderness”?
- or -
Does the Gospel center on a powerful vision that sees Christianity becoming victorious throughout the entire world before the second coming of Christ?
Such a worldview was completely foreign to many of the great Christian scholars of past centuries. On the contrary, the view of the Church in history was held by such godly and respected men as throughout history, such as, Athanasius, Augustine, Eusebius, John Calvin, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, Robert L. Dabney and Benjamin Warfield to name just a few.
This ought to tell us that the postmillennial worldview is well worth considering.
by Andrew Sandlin
Fallen man does not seek dominion, which begins with his salvation and his ability to rule himself, but, rather, the goal of fallen man is domination, to control other people. – R. J. Rushdoony
The inner principles of biblical theocracy and of Reformed orthodoxy require the adoption of Christian libertarianism.
What is Christian libertarianism?
Christian libertarianism is the view that mature individuals (professing Christians in the church, and all externally obedient men in the state) are permitted maximum freedom under God’s law.
The name libertarian is ordinarily identified as an economic and political philosophy stressing human freedom and minimum (almost non-existent) state interference in individual lives and activities. Its proponents, despite wide differences among themselves, include Ludwig von Mises (economics), Murray Rothbard (social theory), and Ayn Rand (philosophy). This thesis usually operates on a strictly Enlightenment pre-commitment to the centrality of human freedom and man’s rational choices as the desirable features of human existence. It thereby repeats the Original Sin of lust for human autonomy (Gen. 3:5).
Nevertheless, libertarianism manifests certain distinct features of biblical-Reformed religion, and, when anchored to biblical Faith and shorn of its sinfully autonomous impulses, points toward a fully legitimate orientation to life: maximum freedom under God’s law. Indeed, one may argue that libertarianism is a secularized version of certain critical aspects of the Christian conception of freedom, which sees human authority strictly limited by divine authority as expressed in Holy Scripture.
This orientation flows from the tenet of theonomy specifically and from Christian reconstruction generally. Theonomy means God’s law as expressed in or deduced from the Bible. As held by Christian reconstructionists, it denotes that all human authorities are “relativized” (though certainly not eliminated) in terms of biblical revelation. This orientation is a key theme in the writings of the father of modern Christian reconstruction, R. J. Rushdoony.
The Reformed commitment to covenantal continuity as well as the propositional authority and sufficiency of Scripture impels one toward Christian libertarianism: as a rule, human authority may impose nothing beyond what Holy Scripture requires, appropriate to its sphere. What does this mean in practical terms?
Christian Libertarianism in the State
In the sphere of civil authority, it means the state may not impose any law not expressed in or deduced from Scripture. It means no warrant exists for the state’s regulation of the economy (beyond the assurance of just weights and measures). It means the state may not tax citizens to furnish education, welfare, or health benefits. Holy Scripture alone marks out civil and criminal laws. It does not create the impression that additional law or regulation is necessary or permissible; indeed, it conveys the opposite impression (Dt. 4:2). Even the judiciary must operate within the bounds of biblical revelation (Dt. 1:13-18). The civil magistrate is bound to enforce the inscripturated law of God apposite to the civil sphere–and nothing beyond.
The civil government (one government among many) is a ministry of justice, not of compassion and mercy. Church, and especially, family government, are ministries of mercy and compassion (Gal. 2:10; 1 Tim. 5:3-10). Health, education, wealth, welfare, and all else except those narrowly defined areas of jurisdiction invested in the state belong either to the church or the family (or private associations, whom the latter deputize–such as private schools).
Thus, the state must punish murder (Ex. 21:12), theft (Ex. 22:1-4), idolatry (Ex. 22:20), and other sins that the Scriptures explicitly requires it to punish. Since we may deduce from Scripture that abortion is murder (see Ex. 21:22, 23), that copyright infringement is theft, and that the public worship of the Earth by New Age advocates is idolatry, the state may suppress these crimes. It is not, however, authorized to punish employers whose buildings do not meet “recognized” safety codes, doctors who practice medicine without a state license, automobile drivers who drive “too fast,” or pagans who refuse to get baptized. The state’s jurisdiction is limited to the explicit word of God and valid deductions therefrom.
It bears mentioning that the charge that Christian reconstructionists and theocrats are intent to gain political power in order to coerce the unbelieving population to accept Christianity is slanderous. In the civil sphere, we want and work for one thing and one thing thing alone: the enforcement of bibical law apposite to the civil sphere, and nothing else. The civil and criminal law of the Bible is punitive. Christianizing society is the role of the family and church, not the role of the state. The state’s role is to maintain public order, which includes the punishment of evildoers (Rom. 13:1-7). It is not designed to make men good, but to restrain their evil.
This thesis of Christian libertarianism in the state is no doubt controversial among professed Christians in the United States. It should not be controversial among those who hold to unswerving biblical authority. It is impossible to defend on exegetical grounds that the civil magistrate may impose law not expressed in or deduced from the Bible.
Christian Libertarianism in the Church
In the church, Christian libertarianism means that the leadership (whether bishop, session, presbytery, synod) may not require adherence to regulation beyond the purview of the law of God. Such authority may issue positions and policies, but none that under threat of excommunication they can enforce, except those which biblical revelation requires.
For instance, church leadership must require weekly attendance at formal worship (Heb. 10:25), as well as partaking of the sacraments in appropriate times and cases (1 Cor. 11:23-26). Church leadership must, for example, excommunicate contumacious drunkards, fornicators, witches and warlocks, rebels, and schismatics (Gal. 5:19-21), and any others who willfully violate biblical dogma and injunctions (Rom. 16:17, 18).
Church leadership may not, though, excommunicate merely because one does not conform to the “church program.” It may not excommunicate merely because one does not attend all stated services or because one does not maintain a “spirit of submission” to church leadership. It may not excommunicate merely because one has personality clashes with fellow members. Much less may church leadership excommunicate over such practices as movie theater attendance, alcohol consumption, and line dancing.
Occasionally church leadership may curtail freedom when members act immaturely by refusing to exercise their freedom or by abusing their freedom (1 Cor. 3:1-3). This situation, though, is abnormal (Heb. 5:11-14), and church leadership should work diligently to liberate such juvenile individuals. An example: church leadership may impose on a member whose pre-conversion sins included voracious immorality a requirement that he (or she) may not remain alone for extended periods with a member of the opposite sex, although the Bible does not impose such a requirement. The goal of such an ordinarily unnatural and unnecessary imposition is to lead the member to full freedom. Church leadership may find it necessary in certain limited cases to impose discipline in order to lead to self-discipline.
In addition, sometimes it is necessary to limit one’s freedom to avoid offending weaker brethren (Rom. 14), but this situation may not persist if the weak brother’s actions lead to division (see v. 1). This situation is abnormal too, and church leadership should work to bring the weaker brother into a greater knowledge of the Faith.
The ecclesiastical magistrate no less than the civil magistrate is bound to enforce biblical injunctions apposite to his sphere.
Christian Libertarianism in the Family
The situation in the case of the family is somewhat different. Children are not granted the freedom of adults since they have not demonstrated that they can use that freedom responsibly (Gal. 4:1, 2), just as criminals are not granted freedom since they have demonstrated that they have used it irresponsibly. When children become of age, they leave their tutelage behind and participate in the true freedom of the Christian adult (1 Cor. 13:11). As in the case of the childish adult in the church, the goal of the treatment of the chronological child in the Christian family is self-discipline: the object of imposed discipline is self-discipline.
What greater joy is there than for the parents (naturally or ecclesiastically) to see their children walking in the truth (3 Jn. 4)!
The wife has bound herself by oath to obey her husband in all things (Eph. 5:22-24), just as the husband has bound himself to die for her if necessary (Eph. 5:25-28). The Bible does not require that all women obey all men in all things any more than it requires all men to die for all women if the situation lends itself to such sacrifice. An oath limits freedom. Christians are required to fulfill their oaths (Ec. 5:4-6), unless those oaths violate the Scriptures.
When a young man swears an oath in the armed services to defend his country, or when an employee agrees to submit to the dictates of an employer in return for monetary compensation, he willingly binds himself to greater obedience than the Bible generally enjoins. When a citizen willingly consents to obey the civil magistrate or a member church leadership in all things not contrary to Scripture, he vo-litionally limits his freedom. He is not compelled to do so by Scripture. Such servitude is biblically volitional, not mandatory (note Ex. 21:1-6).
A woman is not required to marry; but if she does, she is required to fulfill her vow to obey him. He is equally required to fulfill his vow to love her even to death, and to honor her (1 Pet. 3:7).
Obedience and Legitimate Disobedience
Nor do Christian libertarians in any way deny the validity of subordinate human authorities in the family, church, and state. The leaders in these spheres are charged to enforce the law of God, and Christians are charged to obey lawful authorities in every sphere –family, church, state (Eph. 5:22; 6:1, 2; Heb. 13:17; Tit. 3:1). They are not permitted to foment revolution. They may not disobey human authority merely because human authority (sinfully) requires that which is beyond its Biblically prescribed limits. We are called to meet injustice with justice, not with additional injustice. However, if human government requires that which God’s word forbids or forbids what God’s word requires, man must obey God and disobey human government (Ac. 5:29).
Christians may resist civil tyranny under the authority of a lower territorial magistrate. They may also resist it when their person and property are immediately threatened (Ex. 22:1-4)–even if by the civil magistrate. They may not lead revolutions. Revolutions are armed means to alter the structure of society. Resisting tyranny is not revolution; and Christians alter society by faith and obedience, not by revolution.
No human government of any sphere is unfailingly just. Man is called to reverse sin by faith and obedience (Rom. 12:17-21).
No reductionism or biblicistic or Anabaptist principle is at work in Christian libertarianism. We do not argue, for example, that adherence to the law of God invalidates the creeds and confessions of historic Christianity. Indeed, because we perceive them as valid deductions from biblical revelation, we hold them as subordinate standards in the Faith.
The Guiding Principle of Christian Libertarianism
At the root of Christian libertarianism is the biblical conviction that God grants men the freedom (never the permission) to sin. He reserves to himself the historical and eternal punishment for most sins. He does not vest authority in the hand of man to punish most sins. For example, the prophets are replete with warnings to Israel of her oppression of the poor and other disadvantaged, but God never once suggests it is the responsibility of civil magistrates to “equalize” market results by redistribution of wealth. Scripture exhorts Christians to be filled with the Spirit and avoid covetousness, but it is not given either to the state or church to suppress these sins legislatively.
The state is authorized to punish theft and the church to suppress heresy, but beyond the written law of God apposite to their spheres they are not permitted authority or jurisdiction.
God does not generally vest human authority with broad legislative jurisdiction. Christian libertarians recognize and stress this fundamental fact.
Christian libertarianism is not license. No man may disobey the law of God, even if God does not vest the state, church, or family with the authority to suppress or punish the specific sin. Vengeance is God’s and He will repay evil in His own time (Rom. 12:17, 19).
Aversion to Christian Libertarianism
Two main depraved propensities govern the violation of Christian libertarianism. First, the desire of tyrants to tyrannize, and second, the desire of slaves to experience slavery.
In the state sphere many prefer security to freedom, and they eventually are willing to sacrifice large areas of God-given freedom to obtain the security only state coercion can guarantee. Where there are social and economic slaves, social and economic tyrants will oblige them. This is the course of socialism.
In the ecclesiastical sphere, many Christians prefer subordination to the whims of a domineering and charismatic leader rather than the painful life of choices which freedom entails. This situation appears in almost all religious denominations and groups: fundamentalist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Baptist, Charismatic, Episcopal, and many others. It is always easier to commit one’s soul to a church or confessor than to obey God’s law-word and bear individual responsibility for one’s choices. It is easier, and it is much more costly.
In the family sphere, many married children prefer the suffocating authority of domineering parents to the freedom creating a new covenant demands (Gen. 2:23, 24). The children lust for domination, and the parents lust to dominate. It is, from a pragmatic standpoint, an ideal arrangement. It is also sinful.
We are called, if at all possible, to be free men, not slaves (1 Cor. 7:21, 23). This is the studied and urgent theme of libertarianism.
The following information is from Florida Family Policy Council.
FFPC Press release | Tallahassee, FL
The Florida Family Policy Council (FFPC), led by President and General Counsel John Stemberger, held a press conference to herald the launch of a statewide campaign — on behalf of thousands of pro-life Floridians — calling on Gov. Rick Scott to fully defund Planned Parenthood in the state, and redirect those funds to the more than 600 community health clinics in Florida.
Read the press release.
Planned Parenthood wants you to believe that they provide essential services women can’t receive anywhere else. We say they’re wrong. Watch this short video clip from Alliance Defending Freedom explaining why.
Additional videos debunking Planned Parenthood deceptions can be found here.
This resource includes stats on the number of procedures Planned Parenthood performs every year, including the number of abortions they provide, breast exams, Pap tests and cancer screenings. This resource also compares the services provided by Planned Parenthood Clinics to other Community Health Centers. This resource addresses the history of Planned Parenthood’s failures to report sexual abuse and sex trafficking, its involvement in sex-selective abortion, race-targeted abortions, and baby body part harvesting.
This fact sheet from Liveaction.org provides by year the number of abortions Planned Parenthood performs annually, clearly showing a vast increase in abortions performed by the organization in the last 20 years. This resource also provides a brief overview of Planned Parenthood’s funding sources; leadership; controversial statements; and past/ongoing investigations into the organization for fraud, failure to report sexual abuse, questionable medical processes, and failure to follow parent-consent laws. A brief history of Planned Parenthood and its founders can also be found here.
Alliance Defending Freedom’s (ADF) research strongly suggests that Planned Parenthood and its affiliates are engaged in a pattern of practices designed to maximize their bottom‐line revenues through billings to complex, well‐funded federal and state programs that are understaffed and rely on the integrity of the provider for program compliance.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and its affiliates have been subjected to heightened scrutiny in the wake of a congressional investigation into its apparent fraud, waste, and abuse of taxpayer funding, and the release of undercover videotapes that appear to show Planned Parenthood officers discussing illegal means of circumventing fetal tissue procurement laws. As a result of these developments, Alliance Defending Freedom and its allies have received inquiries regarding whether, and under what circumstances, states possess the legal authority to disqualify Planned Parenthood affiliates from participation in state Medicaid programs. This white paper provides a brief overview of state authority for terminating a Medicaid provider, as well as the process involved in doing so and the constitutional ramifications of such an action.
Letter provided to Governor Scott outlining a list of current investigations of Planned Parenthood, a list of known abuses by Planned Parenthood in Florida, Planned Parenthood’s current taxpayer funding sources in Florida through Medicaid and Title X, a list of other states who have discontinued their Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood, and a request urging the Governor to discontinue these contracts.
FFPC is asking Governor Scott to take immediate executive action on the following two things:
- Terminate Florida’s Medicaid contract with Planned Parenthood.
- Terminate the subcontracts of Title X funds with Broward and Collier County.
FFPC is releasing a series of fact checks on Governor Scott’s response to our demand that he defund Planned Parenthood.
CLAIM: It would violate Federal Law if Governor Scott terminated Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid contract.
“In a rare moment of agreement, Scott and Planned Parenthood questioned the governor’s authority to do that. ‘If the state were to take action to exclude Florida Planned Parenthood affiliates from Medicaid this would be in clear violation of federal law,’ Planned Parenthood Spokesperson Goodhue wrote. ‘Only around $45,000 in state match goes through the federal Medicaid program to Planned Parenthood offices in our state, and that is guided through the federal Medicaid formula in compliance with federal law,’ Scott spokeswoman Jackie Schutz wrote in an email.” – Margie Menzel, Oct 1, 2015 CBS / News Service of Florida
States not only have the obligation, but the legal right to terminate the Medicaid contracts of those healthcare providers who are no longer deemed qualified. In fact, the powers of a state Medicaid program to exclude a provider are broader than those of the federal government. A state Medicaid program may exclude a health care provider from participation “for any reason for which the Secretary could exclude the [provider] from participation” (i.e., the grounds for discretionary exclusion enumerated above) “[i]n addition to any other authority.” 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(p)(1) (emphasis added).
Moreover, exclusion of Medicaid providers for a variety of reasons is relatively common and rarely challenged. According to the HHS Office of the Inspector General, over 9,000 providers have been excluded as Medicaid providers over the last two decades. In Florida, executive action has terminated hundreds over the past two decades. Exclusion of a Medicaid provider is thus nothing new. It is a common experience for states to suspend or terminate a Medicaid provider’s participation in the program. Planned Parenthood is no exception.
Finally, it should be noted that the disqualification of Planned Parenthood from any state Medicaid program would not deny anyone a meaningful choice of providers. Planned Parenthood represents a very small part of the Medicaid-eligible providers in every state. Governor Scott clearly has the authority to disqualify Planned Parenthood, and he should not give Planned Parenthood a free pass. Were they any other Medicaid provider, they would have already been disqualified.
Exposes the Dangers of Abortion to Women!
These shocking eyewitness accounts expose the dangers of abortion not only to unborn children, but to the health and lives women as well. An antidote to the smokescreens of the liberal media, these short clips show what really happens in and around abortion clinics.
Although the content is emotionally gut-wrenching, these videos have been used in church seminars and small groups to educate Christians on the abortion issue and to lead people toward a pro-life position. Contains 2 hours and 40 minutes of materials that can be shown separately.
Watch these pro-life videos on-line.
“These videos helped change my mind from pro-choice to pro-life. Your videos are what did it for me. I will be walking in next year’s March For Life in San Francisco.” — A. Jackson, California
“I was going to have an abortion until I saw your video. Praise Jesus!”
— M. Drew, YouTube Commenter
$4.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
High Quality Paperback — 40 pages of dynamite!
Revival, Resistance, Reformation, Revolution
An Introduction to the Doctrines of Interposition and Nullification
In 1776, a short time after the Declaration of Independence was adopted, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were assigned to design an official seal for the United States of America. Their proposed motto was Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God. America owes its existence to centuries of Christian political philosophy. Our nation provided a model for liberty copied by nations the world over.
By the 21st century, we need a “Puritan Storm” to sweep away the Hegelian notion that the state is “God walking on earth.” We need revival and reformation in full force to vanquish the problems that plague us as a nation — from government controlled healthcare — to abortion on demand — to same sex “marriage.” This booklet gives a primer on our founders’ Christian idea of government and examines how the doctrine of nullification was woven into the Constitution as a safeguard against federal tyranny. It concludes with the history and theology of civil resistance. A Second American Revolution is coming with the Word of God growing mightily and prevailing! (Acts 19:20).
$7.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
Download the free Study Guide!
Is there a connection between pagan religion and the abortion industry?
This powerful presentation traces the biblical roots of child sacrifice and then delves into the social, political and cultural fall-out that this sin against God and crime against humanity has produced in our beleaguered society.
Conceived as a sequel and update to the 1988 classic, The Massacre of Innocence, the new title, The Abortion Matrix, is entirely fitting. It not only references abortion’s specific target – the sacred matrix where human beings are formed in the womb in the very image of God, but it also implies the existence of a conspiracy, a matrix of seemingly disparate forces that are driving this holocaust.
The occult activity surrounding the abortion industry is exposed with numerous examples. But are these just aberrations, bizarre yet anomalous examples of abortionists who just happen to have ties to modern day witchcraft? Or is this representative of something deeper, more sinister and even endemic to the entire abortion movement?
As the allusion to the film of over a decade ago suggests, the viewer may learn that things are not always as they appear to be. The Abortion Matrix reveals the reality of child-killing and strikes the proper moral chord to move hearts to fulfill the biblical responsibility to rescue those unjustly sentenced to death and to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves (Proverbs 24:11,12; 31:8,9).
Speakers include: George Grant, Peter Hammond, RC Sproul Jr., Paul Jehle, Lou Engle, Rusty Thomas, Flip Benham, Janet Porter and many more.
Ten parts, over three hours of instruction!
Running Time: 195 minutes
$19.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
With “preaching to the lost” being such a basic foundation of Christianity, why do many in the church seem to be apathetic on this issue of preaching in highways and byways of towns and cities?
Is it biblical to stand in the public places of the world and proclaim the gospel, regardless if people want to hear it or not?
Does the Bible really call church pastors, leaders and evangelists to proclaim the gospel in the public square as part of obedience to the Great Commission, or is public preaching something that is outdated and not applicable for our day and age?
These any many other questions are answered in this documentary.
$19.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
“When the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain, pain that is long and agonizing.” – President Ronald Reagan to National Religious Broadcasters Convention, January 1981
Ronald Reagan became convinced of this as a result of watching The Silent Scream – a movie he considered so powerful and convicting that he screened it at the White House.
The modern technology of real-time ultrasound now reveals the actual responses of a 12-week old fetus to being aborted. As the unborn child attempts to escape the abortionist’s suction curette, her motions can be seen to become desperately agitated and her heart rate doubles. Her mouth opens – as if to scream – but no sound can come out. Her scream doesn’t have to remain silent, however … not if you will become her voice. This newly re-mastered version features eight language tracks and two bonus videos.
“… a high technology “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” arousing public opinion just as Harriet Beecher Stowe’s 1852 antislavery novel ignited the abolitionist movement.” – Sen. Gordon Humphrey, Time Magazine
Languages: English, Spanish, French, South Korean, Chinese, Russian, Portuguese, Japanese
Running Time: 28 minutes
$17.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)