7 Mountain Strategy Purchase 7 Mountain Art Here Religion Mountain Family Mountain Education Mountain Government Mountain Media Mountain Arts & Entertainment Mountain Business Mountain 7 Mountain Strategy Home Page

By Gordan Runyan

It’s 2015. There has been an undeniable surge in interest in the political philosophy known as libertarianism. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, with his recent bids for the White House, can take some credit for this. His brand of libertarian thinking managed to create a groundswell of excitement among young voters who might otherwise have sat on the sidelines.

The reaction from within evangelical churches has been interesting, if not well-informed. Celebrity pastors have uttered cryptic warnings to their own young people. Libertarianism is libertine; libertarianism is codified atheism; libertarianism is an abandonment of biblical morality, and etc. Better by far to stick with the GOP and its election-time, half-hearted stammering about morality, followed by its own brand of codified atheism and abandonment of biblical principles!

It must, nonetheless, be admitted that modern libertarianism is dominated by atheistic thinkers. No doubt, many rank-and-file adherents are unbelievers as well. Several of the classic writers associated with libertarianism, from Rothbard to Hayek to Bastiat; to Silva and Mises; and on up to Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, were not Christian in their beliefs. This has contributed to the notion that libertarianism is an atheistic phenomenon.

This widespread notion has caused detractors to wonder out loud whether or not a Christian version of libertarianism is even possible.

We won’t bother to answer that question here: Instead, we will go a step beyond that, and assert that there is no basis for libertarianism apart from Christianity. Secular libertarianism is the real oxymoron.

“…there is no basis for libertarianism apart from Christianity. Secular libertarianism is the real oxymoron.”

As I have shown in my book, Resistance to Tyrants, it is only Christianity, with its special revelation, a full Bible breathed out by the one living God, that is capable of supplying the philosophical and moral foundations that will allow human freedom to weather the storms and remain standing. Christianity is the basis for genuine libertarianism. Atheistic libertarianism is the contradiction. It only ever gets anything right by stumbling into a biblical principle now and again. It is the proverbial blind squirrel that manages to accidentally find a few nuts.

But let’s give credit where it is due. Murray Rothbard and those like him in the list above have done some really good work in terms of thinking things through. The blind squirrels who are at least looking for nuts, and rejoicing when they find them, have been wiser than generations of Christians, who, having been handed buckets full of acorns in the Scriptures, sniffed their wrinkled noses at them and went off chasing shiny things.

With all due respect, then, and even with a great deal of gratitude, this article will show why secular or atheistic libertarianism is doomed to inconsistency from the get-go. It cannot secure true liberty. It cannot even offer a defense of individual rights, which is supposed to be the whole point of it. You cannot build a fortress on beach sand, and you cannot defend freedom from the ramparts of human opinion, either.

Atheism can provide no secure defense for liberty, precisely because it cannot provide a secure defense for any thought in particular. Here is how C.S. Lewis explained this:

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”

Given atheism, and materialistic naturalism, as popularly expressed in evolution theory, both the reader and the writer of these lines are nothing more than accidental conglomerations of chemicals. Sure, we’re happy it turned out this way. We’re not complaining. But even that happiness we have about the current outcome of all the universal randomness, the happy feeling itself, is nothing but a chemical release caused by several other chemicals bouncing off of circumstances and stimuli. Change those latter constituents a little bit, and our happy feeling becomes a sad one, just as meaningless.

Every thought in every human brain is the bio-electrical result of other chemical processes. How can such things be meaningful at all?

To borrow an illustration from contrarian author Douglas Wilson, given evolution, two humans arguing about anything at all can be compared to two cans of warm soda, popped open and set next to each other on the table. One doesn’t like the way the bubbles are fizzing in the other. It’s doing it wrong. The other one says, no, you’re the one fizzing wrong.

How ridiculous, right? They’re both only fizzing, releasing bursts of carbon dioxide in random fashion. The fizzing just is. It’s stupid to assign any meaning to it, one way or the other.

And so we basically have about 6 billion fizzing cans of soda on the planet right now, arguing with each other about all sorts of things, including politics and morality and libertarian theories. Some recent atheist apologists have even suggested that we fizz the way we do because we cannot do otherwise. Every thought in our head is a hardwired result of all the other things that have ever happened to us, both in terms of external stimuli and internal chemistry. Forget “free will.” The whole concept is a bust. There is no will at all, free or otherwise. There is only the chemistry. Things fizz, man.

Once there was a can of soda called Ayn Rand, and the random bubbles of her spongy brain-stuff came up with something called objectivist liberatarianism. She couldn’t help it; don’t get mad at her. The chemistry! But now it’s been a long time since she stopped fizzing altogether, and, y’know, really, why should anyone fizz in a manner that looks like “caring” about how she happened to fizz? Six billion of one, half a dozen of the other.

Given man as a bag of chemicals, and his thoughts as basically involuntary electric sparks, why should libertarianism be given any more of a hearing than, say, Communism or fascism? Communism, after all, is an officially atheistic theory of government, just like Hayek’s brand of libertarianism. They’re not really all that different, at least in terms of their beginnings. Both are founded on the notion that the smartest of the fizzing bubble bags among us can fizz in such a way as to get it all figured out. Neither one can stomach a belief in absolute truth. Especially if (horrors!) that truth has a name.

In direct opposition to all of this, Christianity believes in ultimate, absolute, unchanging truth. We even know His Name. He is Jesus of Nazareth, the creator and sustainer and judge of all things.

We are not randomly formed, purposeless accidents of a universe full of stuff colliding chaotically. We were made in the image of God, for the privileged purpose of bringing glory to Him. We were created with the capacity to know things that are really true. Maybe not the whole truth, at least not in this world, but the truth we know is really true. As Cornelius Van Til taught, we can know some things reliably because God knows all things exhaustively.

Some things are right and some are wrong. In the atheist’s world (and, therefore, in the secular libertarian’s world) right and wrong are meaningless categories fizzed up out of nowhere.

“Some things are right and some are wrong. In the atheist’s world (and, therefore, in the secular libertarian’s world) right and wrong are meaningless categories fizzed up out of nowhere.”

Let’s shift for a moment, from political theory to science. The secular scientist is a walking contradiction. She goes to work, throws on her lab coat, and does what she will do, having simply assumed some things that her own worldview will not allow her to account for. She assumes that her senses, her powers of observation, are basically reliable. She assumes they will tell her the truth (the what?) about what she’s observing. She assumes she lives in an orderly universe that follows its own rules with a fastidiousness that rivals the nuns who taught her in grade school. Otherwise, what would be the use of testing and investigation? She thinks she can know things. She doesn’t think she’s merely fizzing. She believes that the truth of a thing can be found out through processes that involve rational, logical thought; with the caveat that she won’t believe in anything apart from testing and solid evidence. She is adamant about this, though she has no way of testing the rules of logic, or of confirming that rational thought really is better than the irrational flavor.

She prefers rational to irrational thought. But there are a lot of folks who don’t, obviously, like the guy who walks around my town in a cowboy hat and tiny, red shorts, and believes he’s from outer space. I’ve talked to him. He’s really happy. That’s just it: given atheism, and naturalistic evolution, who’s to say he’s fizzing wrong? Our scientist, in order to live in the world she prefers and pursue the career she enjoys, must borrow all her foundational ideas from Christianity, the worldview she has rejected.

It is the same with secular libertarianism. It can offer no compelling reason why maximum liberty should be preferred to slavery. Libertarians can only appeal to the preferences of people who fizz a lot like they do.

Human history has shown us some things more clearly than other things. One of the more clear ones is that the institutions of slavery, and of government tyranny, are constant threats to take over. History teaches us that not everyone has a big preference for liberty. Lots of folks enjoy tyranny, particularly the ones in charge of it.

A truly consistent secular libertarian has no basis on which to say to the fascistic tyrant, “You are wrong!”

The best he can muster on his own view of the world is, “I do not prefer your way of doing things!” Or, “All things considered, I myself would rather be free!” Rousing battle cries, those.

What we see when we read the works of the atheistic libertarians are repeated attempts to present axioms (unproven and unverifiable truths) that can form the cornerstones of their different systems. Popular in our day is the recourse to a so-called Non Aggression Principle. For many modern libertarians, this is the touchstone of their thinking. Without it, they cannot really proceed. Basically, the Non Aggression Principle (NAP) is the idea that using force of any kind to coerce someone into doing your will is wrong.

Okay, I can go along with that, as long as we leave room for things like self-defense (some use of force is justified sometimes.) But given atheism, the NAP is neither right nor wrong, morally speaking, precisely because such categories are fictional inventions of the blobs of goo we call people. Given atheism, nothing is either right or wrong. Whatever is, just is. Period. Your moral judgments about them are pretty, petty nothings that merely express your preferences: Fizz.

For an atheist to plead for governments to follow the NAP makes as much sense as if he was to explain to a fire why it ought not burn down his house because of NAP. The fire won’t care about the NAP. It’s a force of nature. But, assuming atheism is correct, everything is merely a force of nature. Some forces are dominant and some get dominated. The law of the jungle trumps the NAP. Survival of the fittest. It’s not wrong: it just is.

Another popular attempt at proposing an axiom that could ground libertarianism was Murray Rothbard’s brand of utilitarianism. He proposed that free markets and minimum government should be the rule because they “work.” They get the job done, so to speak, in terms of providing maximum wealth and happiness to the maximum number of people. Again, I have no problem agreeing that they do work this way. In fact, I strongly wish we’d all give it a try and see what happens.

But the issue is, again, that libertarianism only “works” if we agree that the goal is maximum wealth and happiness for most people. Lots of people, and entire cultures throughout history, in fact, have not agreed with this. Some have reacted violently to the notion. Islam is one stark example. Many cultures value other things, like a sense of community, over the accumulation of wealth. Who’s to say they’re wrong about that? Well, not the atheist. He can only prefer one thing over the other, and try to persuade people to fizz like him.

Ayn Rand’s own “objectivism” was yet another attempt at grounding freedom on something other than the truth of God. Nobody holds to it anymore. Few can even explain it.

This is why secular libertarianism cannot be trusted to protect individual rights. What in the world would a “right” be in Atheist Land anyway? Where do rights come from? Do all humans have a right to life in Atheist Land? Thankfully, all their libertarian writers seem to think so (unless, of course, we’re talking about humans in the womb): they just can’t account for it, or give any reason why it ought to be that way.

The 20th Century saw mind-boggling numbers, multiple millions of people murdered by the atheist regimes of Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, etc. The brutality continues in North Korea. Just looking at the numbers, we can’t assume that atheists cherish any particular belief in a basic human right to life. Atheist Land: It’s the Bloodiest Place on Earth. ™

The same atheistic regimes proved without a doubt that they also had no use for any theory of a right to private property. In fact, a cardinal principle of theirs was/is that the community owns everything, not the private citizen. Private property, in their eyes, was a vicious fiction invented by greedy capitalists to keep the working man down. Not only was it not really a right, but it was actually a great evil to be opposed at every turn.

Granted, I’d rather be ruled by a libertarian atheist than by a so-called Christian socialist (both being anti-biblical contradictions, by the way) but my worry would always be that the atheist, although agreeing with me about my rights now, may at some point find the whole notion passe’ and decide it’s time to break a few eggs for the new, communal omelet.

The Christian who studies his Bible understands that you and I have rights because, as the US Declaration of Independence said, we are endowed with them by our Creator. God’s law gives us an authoritative list, not merely of moral duties, but of rights.

It works like this. How can I know you have a right to life? Because the 6th of the Ten Commandments forbids murdering you. How can I know you have a right to ownership of private property? Because the 8th tells me it’s unlawful to steal your stuff. If it wasn’t really yours then it wouldn’t be possible to steal it from you. Every violation of the law of God impinges on someone’s rights, whether your neighbor’s or God’s Himself.

You have a right to hear the truth from people and to not be lied about. That is part of why it’s wrong to bear false witness. If you are married, it’s actually a violation of your rights in the matter to have someone try to seduce your spouse, or for your spouse to cheat. God has already told them not to commit adultery, thereby proving your right to have your own marriage left alone.

We could go on like this all day. The point is twofold. For one, your rights come from God, and therefore no atheistic theory can protect them. And two, if a government did in fact protect these God-given rights, well, what would we have? We’d have the very thing the first settlers of America risked their lives to try to attain, the shining “city on a hill” that formed the centerpiece of the original American vision.

“…your rights come from God, and therefore no atheistic theory can protect them.”

Atheistic government has another issue. No humanistic theory is able to sort out the philosophical puzzle called the problem of the one and the many. That is, while rejecting the revelation of God, no government is going to be able to provide the proper balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the larger community. Communism goes all the way over to the community side (and thus the name of it) while secular libertarianism occupies the opposite end of the spectrum. But the God of the Christian is Himself both a unity and a community, as per the historic doctrine of the Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit dwell together as separate Persons, and yet in perfect oneness. The Christian God, in His own nature, is the ultimate solution to the problem of the one and the many. As we implement His word to us, in every area of our lives, we will strike that balance that humanists will never know.

Why libertarianism and not Communism, socialism, or the Soma-induced happy place of Huxley’s Brave New World? While these cans of soda bubble angrily at each other for dominance, Christianity can actually provide an answer. The answer, boiled down, is this: God the creator is also God the lawgiver. His declaration, and not my preference (or yours) is what makes a thing right or wrong, good or evil. He gets to say, because He’s God. And it turns out that when we study the laws God has given us, and try to follow the principles He’s told us to live by, we find that these things call for very minimal civil government intrusion into society. These things provide very strong protections for individual liberties. These things create a free economic market which encourages innovation and efficient production (and thus, low consumer cost.) These things insure that the lowliest outcast will have the exact same legal standing as the mightiest king or general.

In conclusion, I am happy and thankful for the spadework done by the “classic liberals” (as libertarianism used to be known) even if many of them were inconsistent with themselves, having to borrow Christian presuppositions and worldview features in order to make their theories workable. F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, for instance, landed smack-dab in the middle of my comfortable evangelicalism like a bunker-busting smart bomb. A Christian economist pointed me to it, and I’m thankful to God. I am also thankful that many believers are experiencing that same sort of awakening, an awakening to Biblical ideas and how to apply them in every area of life. Just because a blind squirrel hands you a nut, doesn’t mean it isn’t a nut.

Can one be an atheist and a libertarian? Certainly. There are many of them. But none of them are consistently so. None can provide a grounding for libertarianism that is more substantial than their own likes and dislikes. But the Bible can do this. The Bible does this. Truly, it is not for no reason that the apostle James referred to the Law-Word of God as “the perfect law of liberty.” It is freedom’s only ground, its only solid foundation.

“You were bought at a price: do not become slaves of men.” I Corinthians 7:23 (NIV)

Source: Freedom Outpost

About Gordan Runyan 

Gordan Runyan is a pastor and author who hides out in the high plains desert of New Mexico. Kindle readers, check out more from pastor Gordan Runyan, over a dozen items, from short articles to full sized books here.


The Choice Of The Western Civilization

by Rich Carey on March 22, 2013

by Ivan Gruikin and Tsveta Ivanova
(reprinted from GeorgeBalakov.net)

The tragedy in Newtown stirred up waves of emotion to the already heated issue of mass killings in the United States. Such mass shootings are often times viewed as mostly a problem with American dimensions. However, just recently in Bulgaria, where I’m from originally, (Bulgaria as a EU member imposes strong restrictions on owning and bearing arms) two bloody skirmishes   occurred, leaving behind eight victims. In addition cases like the “Brevik” case in Norway, clearly show that this problem cannot be confined to a strictly-defined national context and is relevant to both the U.S. and Europe.

What happened in Newtown (and before that in Colorado) raised the question of limiting the right to bear arms and became a priority of the re-elected American president. According to proponents of gun restrictions, the easy access to weapons would inevitably lead to violence and mass murder. Defenders of the Second Amendment’s response is that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun.  And then, somewhere in the middle of these two extremes are those who maintain that violent movies, video games, and the Internet are mostly responsible.

Why are these chilling and self-destructive patterns being seen in developed Western countries, which are supposed to hold the highest civilization standards in the world? How can the modern Western man be protected from itself? What is going on in the highly civilized Western mind that gives impetus to cold-blooded and suicidal mass-murderers?

The truth is that in recent decades many things in the everyday life and mind of the average American and European have radically changed. One example – the level of religious devotion has declined drastically. People declare their atheistic beliefs or state that their religious feeling is a matter of family tradition and habit. God is removed from his rightful place of honor and His name is subjected to flippant usage even to the extent of being used for cursing.

The attitude towards sexuality, marriage and family relationships have changed as well. Homosexuality has been exalted as a criterion for civilization. Legalizing same-sex marriage and the right of these couples to adopt and raise children seems to be an irreversible process. Frequent change of the intimate partner is an integral part of the modern understanding of personal freedom and choice.

The nature of family relationships has also alternated. Spouses are more free and independent from one another than ever before; each has their own space with no regard of the other person. Children learn their lessons on privacy, independence, and success in life early in their development. Obedience to parents is socially unacceptable and declared harmful to children; we hear about more and more laws protecting the child’s dignity and freedom apart from their parent.

It seems as if the modern man in the West has become completely emancipated from any moral constraints or long-standing cultural traditions. The young generation finds its idols in morally liberated music and movie stars, fashion icons, or even sports celebrities. Anything goes and there is no limit in the pursuit of success. You work 24 hours a day, seven days a week and of course that includes Sundays. Success is above all else and is considered a virtue.

If all of the above is true, what’s wrong with it and where is its connection with the massacres like the one in Newton, one might ask.

However ancient sounding to some people, let me briefly remind you the Ten Commandments as examples of the most common violations of our day: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me … , Do not make any graven image … , Not misuse the name of the Lord your God … , Six days work in them and do all your work …, honor your father and mother ….; …. not commit adultery “- these rules are now thrown away by the modern man who feels strong enough to manage his own destiny – without God, without a master. The very thought that he has to obey any rules beyond his own ideas, tastes, and desires, is humiliating for this new master of the universe. Nobody believes that the widespread violations of Biblical rules can be a problem for the individual and for the society. So why then be surprised that more people would violate one of the other Ten Commandments – “Thou shalt not murder”?

Yes, indeed, the modern man has increased in knowledge, is able to direct his fate in many ways, claiming to influence the world around him. Many are determined to save the planet from the destructive human activity. “Mother Nature” will not tolerate any changes in the ecological balance. But why do we continue to delude ourselves that we can afford to violate the rules of the Creator of human life?

Let’s think logically. No one can convince us that man is the creator of this world. Obviously, man is much more of a result, output, outcome, and not the master of the world. The harmony and perfection of nature’s reality unambiguously show that there is a creator, designer and a legislator. The existence of physical, chemical, mathematical, biological and any other material laws are a fact and do not depend on the will of the people – the latter could only advance in their relative knowledge and use.

The growing loss of reason and common sense in the Western world are a form of denial of the subordinate role of man and his need to comply with the rules of the universe. But how would it be possible to accept only some rules in the world and at the same time to reject the existence of God’s rules for life, human relationships and social behavior? Should we deny the distinct differences of the sexes and their different roles in the construction and development of the family? Is it possible to exist as a human race without basic common notions of good and evil?

If we are open-minded and honest – we can’t pretend to avoid the answers to these questions. Controversial moral criteria will undoubtedly destroy the integrity of the community. It becomes a a harbinger of its decline and uncontrolled regression.

In a similar way the lack of a common legal system will lead to end of the society. Can our imagination picture how far we can go with this approach? Today, same-sex marriages seem inevitable alternative to the traditional family. Would there be an argument against the acceptance of a family of three or more people in the near future? And what could be our moral reason to oppose marriage relationship between man and an animal – if this is the the will of man and it does not bother anyone else? After all the pet does not object to the will of man.

Even if we agree completely with the idea of ??biological determinism of homosexuality – why should this mean that it’s good and worthy of acceptance and encouragement? Mental disorders, for instance, are treatable. There can certainly be found “scientific” arguments supporting  biological propensity to murder, suicide, violence, lying, and rare sexual deviants – will we then still encourage the public expression of the unique human individuality?

Let us not be fooled by any collective proposition of insanity in which the only thing that matters to people is what they feel, what they want, and what they do; a way of living in which people don’t strive to submit to any external legal (much less God’s) moral constraints.

This is only the first step towards the mass suicide of the Western civilization unfolding before our eyes. In this scenario, the consumer with his passions and desires is the foundation of a new ideological dogma that rejects any residue of pluralism and free thinking in the Western world. Conformism and moral relativism are part of this new official religion where the defending of different positions are prohibited; demagoguery and lies can explain each new outrage.

Under this dogma, the opponents of same-sex marriage are labeled as narrow-minded bigots, the abortion opponents are accused of denying women’s freedom and dignity, and as far as it goes for the people rejecting political correctness – they are accused of backwardness of being enemies of the social peace.

I have spent many years of my life in a nation dominated by a totalitarian ideological system, and I find great similarity in the restrictions put on the freedom of thought, the freedom of expression, and opinion in Bulgaria, a communist country in Eastern Europe 25 years ago and the current situation in Western Europe and the United States. Of course there is a huge difference in the ways liberty was suppressed in former communist countries and the way this is done in the present Western world, but I can still recognize the similarities. Today in Europe and the U.S. you are not yet thrown in jail for public expression of opinion, but let’s think about what will happen with the triumph of political correctness and the legal prohibition of “speaking the language of hate”? The very expression of one’s negative attitudes towards homosexuality threatens one to be convicted of a criminal offense. The result of this legislative trend is obvious – a legalization of a new totalitarian ideology. Let us not get mislead by the fact that we’re still able to speak freely – the demonization of dissenting voices could be just the beginning.

Let us imagine what would happen later on. The Church will be completely neutralized – initially the preaching of sin and divine punishment will be outlawed. The law will protect children from their parents and discipline at home, which will further destroy the remnants of the family. The state and its institutions will remain the sole measure of authority of the human and social behavior – with all the ensuing consequences. They will be increasingly independent of any traditional morality. They will be educated and guided by individuals who will reproduce new biological entities whose performance today does not make sense to even try to imagine. It is possible that the new biological entities could be created by the technological all-powerful state and the traditional reproduction (for it’s politically incorrect and favoring heterosexual character) – officially banned? What future awaits our children?

I began this article with a reminder of the tragedy in Newtown and worked my way to a possible future that may not be so far away.

What is the choice set before us?

On the one hand we see the out of control human nature and its escalating desires guaranteed by statism where man is god and there are no other gods besides him. On the other hand we have the eternal divine rules that man must respect: the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom: thou shalt have no other gods, honor your father and your mother, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not kill, do not bear false witness, forgive, love your neighbor as yourself, love your enemies! Can we imagine a more perfect moral system that could be the basis of human life, of human society? Can people be normal and keep the rules, without having a deep inner belief about the sacred and divine nature of basic moral concepts and norms? Without the fear of God, the laws against murder would have the same weight as mere traffic laws, nutritional restrictions and safe working conditions rules which can broken easily.

Will we be able to accept the standards of good and evil, when life and moral behavior are fully humanized and defined by an omnipotent state, which would be the only guarantor of justice, prosperity, and happiness? The state in the role of being the only one to define these concepts for us! Are we ready for such scenario?

And lastly – why should we restrict ourselves to Christianity, with so many other religious doctrines to choose from?

The contemporary Western civilization, our civilization, whose fate is of interest for me is the Christian one. Christianity is the spirit of forgiving love, of the changed man, and of hope and peace. It is Christianity that has a clear moral system, which separates sin from grace. The modern Western world with its human rights, rule of law, individual freedom, and respect for the individual freedom draws its spirit and principles from the teachings of Christ. The freedom and prosperity of the individual arise as values in the Christian West – and nowhere else. Christianity has influenced so much the western thought and the lives of people in the West that we do not even think about it.

To reject Christ people today often use the examples of the Crusades, the Inquisition, religious wars and conflicts – all unrelated to the essence of the gospel of Christ. But nearly two thousand years ago, the apostle Paul warned the believers in Rome, which was then the capital of the civilized world about the consequences of rejecting God (paying particular attention to the spread of homosexuality and violation of divine moral rules): “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – His eternal power and divine nature – are clearly seen, being understood by creatures so that they are without excuse …….. Because…. although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God….. but became futile in their imaginations, and their thinking, and foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools….. Therefore God gave them over to shameful lusts….. because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator….. They were filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, quarreling fraud and malice …. God haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, reckless, faithless, without natural affection, unmerciful ….. “.

We all know the ultimate fate of mighty Rome.

Do we want this to happen again?


Ivan Gruikin is a bulgarian attorney, chairman of the Bulgarian Civic Organization “Justice”. He stands up for conservative political values and is a strong critic of the leftist political models in Bulgaria and the European Union as a whole. He can be reached at: gruikin@abv.bg

Tsveta Ivanova is a theology student.

This insightful analysis was reprinted in it’s entirety from the blog of my friend George Balakov at GeorgeBakalov.net.  Thanks for bringing this valuable information to us, George!


Video – Agenda: Grinding Down America

Arts & Entertainment

This is the BEST documentary on the planned takeover of America from within that I have ever seen. This is a MUST SEE for every American who values family, faith, liberty and freedom. It reveals the structured, long-term plans of the radical socialists over the past several decades and see just how close we are to the point of no return.

I implore you – please take the time to watch this with your family THIS WEEK (it’s only online for free for a limited time). Share it with as many people as you can. Let’s come together and take our nation back before it’s too late.

0 comments Read the full article →

Response To The Presidential Elections of 2012

Thumbnail image for Response To The Presidential Elections of 2012

This is an excellent analysis of the 2012 election by Dutch Sheets. I highly recommend that you invest the time to read it.

5 comments Read the full article →

The Rapture: History and Influence in America (Video)


This video is an excellent overview of the history and development of the Rapture theology in America and the effect it has had on our culture.

0 comments Read the full article →

The Kingdom of God is “Grand Central Station” by Dennis Peacocke

Thumbnail image for The Kingdom of God is “Grand Central Station” by Dennis Peacocke

The message of the King and his Kingdom is scripturally designed by God to be the point of departure for all other doctrine. Every track of doctrine, beginning with the message of salvation in Christ, is to go out from and stay integrally connected with the central point of the King and His Kingdom. Theological error or imbalance can then be easily described as either turning any subordinate doctrine into a place of its own “Grand Central Station,” or disconnecting its relationship back to the Kingdom’s context and preeminent position.

0 comments Read the full article →

The Secular City Model

Thumbnail image for The Secular City Model

In this article, Joe identifies the unfolding secularism that is overtaking our cities and calls for concerted action by believers to take a stand against this onslaught. I could not agree more with Joe’s conclusions.

0 comments Read the full article →

Contrasting the New Testament Ekklesia and the Modern Congregational Assembly

Thumbnail image for Contrasting the New Testament Ekklesia and the Modern Congregational Assembly

If the church is going to recapture its cultural commission of discipling nations and having global influence, as found in Genesis 1:28 and Matthew 28:19, it has to learn the difference between building an ekklesia and a mere congregation that assembles together.

2 comments Read the full article →

Why Political Activism in the Pulpit is Part of the Gospel of the Kingdom

Thumbnail image for Why Political Activism in the Pulpit is Part of the Gospel of the Kingdom

If we are going to transform culture we need to engage and shift the influencers toward biblical values at the highest levels in every major sphere of society. We cannot only reach masses of people and change political elections. If we don’t reach the 3-5% who are the decision makers, then we will never reach our goals of societal transformation.

5 comments Read the full article →

The Origin and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State


The rhetoric of “separation of church and state” and “a wall of separation” has been instrumental in transforming judicial and popular constructions of the First Amendment from a provision protecting and encouraging religion in public life to one restricting religion’s place and role in civic culture. This transformation has undermined the “indispensable support” of religion in our system of republican self-government. This fact would have alarmed the framers of the Constitution, and we ignore it today at the peril of our political order and prosperity.

0 comments Read the full article →
Timeless Wisdom