Category Archives: Theonomy

This Conversation Is Well-Worth The Time

I will just copy and paste the whole thing:

Bojidar Marinov Joel’s point is the schizophrenia of the GOP establishment who for the last 50 years have developed in their “conservative” constituency the statist idolatry of cop-worshipping. The same establishment rejects Trump. But now their uniformed heroes endorse Trump. So the GOP establishment has to explain how they and their “finest” uniformed thugs have different ideas about Trump.

But I think the schizophrenia started much earlier, and it is in the suicidal Republican pro-police position of the last 20 years. In the mid-90s, Republicans were against the militarization of police and were generally against the police state. Since then they have changed their position to worship any cop anywhere, while at the same time the police unions have remained firmly in the grip of the Democrat Party. The FOP itself has contributed 100% to Democrat causes for the last 20 years – and yet, Republicans continue worshipping police.

Laramy Gregory
Laramy Gregory The FOP endorsed McCain in 2008. What are you talking about and where do you get that figure of 100% as it relates to contribution to Democratic Causes?

Local lodges, who have more of a chance to influence elections, vary in their endorsement of candidates. Our local lodge has consistently endorsed Republican candidates for as long as I have been a member. We contribute to causes that are are of a Republican concern and also a Democratic concern and causes that are bi-partisan.

Can you enlighten me on where you are getting your information? Would you like to recant or qualify your previous assertion concerning 100% contributions?

Your statement about uniformed thugs is highly offensive and broad. What is your chief reason for describing someone in law enforcement in those terms?

https://www.gwu.edu/~ac…/2008/interestg08/fop090508pr.html

Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, today announced the organization’s endorsement of Senator John S. McCain III for the office of President. “The FOP carefully considered the records and the responses of both candidates and, in our evaluation, Senator McCain will…
GWU.EDU

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov McCain is a practical liberal, that’s why the uniformed thugs supported him. Police is a heavily unionized gang; and we know which party is supported by the unions in this country.

Right here some numbers, although not exhaustive. One can clearly see which party profits from the FOP’s contributions:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00382556

When you follow the small portions that go to Republican politicians, they all turn out to be just like McCain: RINOs, liberals with an R.

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov One had just to see which party jumped to the defense of Darren Wilson when he murdered Michael Brown: A Socialist Democrat organized his fund-raising campain (contributions mainly from conservatives, because someone has to be the idiot), the prosecutoSee More

Hide 11 Replies
Greg Renfro
Greg Renfro Did you really just claim that Darren Wilson “murdered” Michael Brown? In what could easily be studied as the best textbook example of a justified use of deadly force by a police officer you make the accusation of “murder”? Was this ever meant to be a rational discussion or just emotional bloviation?

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov You are a little too quick to judge, without knowing the case.

I have explained it why from a Biblical perspective it is a murder. Read it and then, if you have any Biblical argument against what I wrote, tell me what it is. If you don’t have a Biblical argument, or if you don’t want to read it, I don’t give a dam about your brainwashed opinion.

http://www.christendomrestored.com/…/brown-garner-and…/

Greg Renfro
Greg Renfro Thank you for sending me your article. I appreciate the fact you at least care about arguing from a biblical perspective. I don’t really appreciate your last sentence as you appear to disregard other biblical commands of respect and gentleness to others. Maybe you would agree? Due to the time now, I will read it tomorrow and respond when I can.

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov My last sentence was conditional. You will have to worry about it only when you meet the conditions. If you meet the conditions, then you will deserve every bit of the rest of the sentence.

My sentence being conditional, it is much more respectful andSee More

Like · Reply · 1 · 23 hrs

Greg Renfro
Greg Renfro My last sentence was a question. I appreciate the fact you answered it by pointing to an article you spent a considerable amount of time writing. So, actually my sentence was conditional and you, for an unfortunate reason, continued your aggressive tone and now added name calling to your list. In a rather surprising display of hypocrisy, you ironically made yourself guilty of your own cited scripture regarding hypocrisy. Interestingly enough, it appears to be similar to your use of scripture in your article. Although, you make good points in some places, you go off script in emotional tangents and attempt to extrapolate passages to explain away intricate details of case studies vs case studies–as if they can be directly compared. Both are taken out of their proper context and therefore you incorrectly reach conclusions that are not actually biblically justified. In regards to Darren Wilson, you dismiss actual facts of the case and ignore faulty testimonies of un-reliable witnesses. You do this all based on the presupposition that you do not recognize the authority of law enforcement officers. While I welcome the discussion of the role of PD officers in society today such a discussion is nothing but perverse to inject theory in dealing with a case study when a persons life was taken by an official, on duty, sworn, law abiding, legal law enforcement employee. In other words, limit the context of the case study to the case study so your bias opinion that apparently spans far beyond the limits of the situation doesn’t cloud your judgement when analyzing if a DW was innocent or not. Have intellectual discussions of that magnitude elsewhere, not during a case study dealing with deadly force. Just putting aside biblical law for a moment, I guess I need to remind you we don’t live in a biblically theocratic society today. So, in other words we are not set up to follow a strict biblical jurisprudence even if you believe Mosaic law is binding to governments today. As Christians we work to bring all things under King Jesus, but we also deal with present day realities of societies. I am assuming you are not currently calling for the capitol punishment of all potential offenders in accordance with Levitical law? If you are, then were is the court? If you are not, then why not?
There is much more to say, but at this point I’d rather limit the discussion in an attempt to remain focused on setting the foundation. Maybe we can return to the specifics of DW and MB at some point? Thank you for reading.

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov So, your only real argument is that we do not live in a Biblically theocratic society today. Therefore, Darren Wilson did not commit murder.

Which means, abortion is not murder either. We do not live in a Biblically theocratic society today.

You did not go to the Bible to see if the Bible even allows for police. You just took the modern pagan state and made it your standard. You are a practical pagan, not a Christian, if the modern culture is your ethical/judicial standard above the Bible.

Like I said above, I don’t give a dam about your brainwashed opinion.

Like · Reply · 2 · 12 hrs

Greg Renfro
Greg Renfro Regarding abortion, that is a classic non-sequitur argument. My point was one of jurisprudence on jurisdiction. Since Mosaic Law is not being enforced in our society we cannot pretend to try another person by legal structures that are not in place. To See More

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov “To follow your argument to it’s logical conclusion than everything a police officer does is illegitimately unjustified and thus they are therefore always guilty of all wrongdoing, because there very existence is wrong.”

I take it you didn’t even read my article. Another good reason to ignore your babbling.

Greg Renfro
Greg Renfro Actually, I did read it. Despite the length, I used up many precious minutes of the day to do so. I can admit it’s possible I missed something, but I don’t think so. You made it clear their existence was where you began your objection. I extrapolated it further. I did make an attempt to understand your arguments, but one does not have to read your own commentary to evaluate an issue biblically. Your lack of response to my last appears telling.

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov If you said you read it, and yet you wrote the sentence above, you lied in one of the two sentences. Goodbye.

Nicholas Perez
Nicholas Perez A conservative/Christian (in that order) man on FB was criticizing those “Marxists who oppose police…”

I answered with a question, “Can we have Marxism without police? We know we can have freedom and a high regard for rights without police–eg, early America; Ancient Israel; Europe prior to Enlightenment–but can we actually have Marxism without police?”

#conservativeschizophrenia

Bill Phillips

Write a reply…
 
Laramy Gregory
Laramy Gregory Your own link proves you are misleading when you say 100%. This link also only discusses the National FOP PAC, not the contributions from local lodges or their individual PACs. When you paint with a broad brush you better be able to back it up.

Will you recant or qualify your previous statement?

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov 😀 Recant? Because it is not 100% but 90%? And because the 10% that goes to Republicans goes to die-hard liberals like McCain? Are you kiddin’ me?

Let’s see, I went to the local lodges to see. (And this time I am not going to show you the website, you find it yourself, being the smart stern you are.)

Over the last 20 years, the largest donors among local FOP lodges:

Baltimore City FOP Lodge 3: Democrats $155,235, Republican 18,335.

Chicago Lodge 7: Democrats $337,500, Republican $181,137 (Almost no giving to Republicans in the last 10 years, most of these R-contributions are from before 2000.)

And the same thing everywhere: Florida State Lodge, Capital City Lodge 9 (absolutely no contributions to Republicans whatsoever for the last 20 years), Indiana State Lodge, Lodge 123, Lodge 5, Illinois FOP of Police Labor Council, Maryland FOP, Nashville FOP Lodge 5, Ohio State FOP (most of Ohio’s funds “undesignated” but when followed individually, most go to liberal PACs, close to $1 million), Prince George’s County Lodge 89 (quite a lot of money for Democrats for such a small place), etc. All these donate predominantly to Democrats. If you are giving me the example of a small insignificant local lodge which has contributed $2,000 over the last 20 years, this is nothing.

Of the big givers among the lodges, only Pennsylvania State Lodge has Republicans and Democrats on a balance, and it is not sure how many of these Republicans are really conservative.

It is very clear that police everywhere is a Democrat whore, and does nothing else but work for the socialist agenda of enslaving America. Police is unconstitutional, it is a standing army, and it was created specifically to advance socialist agenda.

Police must be abolished.

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov “Your statement about uniformed thugs is highly offensive and broad. What is your chief reason for describing someone in law enforcement in those terms?”

Truth is always offensive. Look at crime statistics, and look which category of crime is the only category on the rise. It is police killings. Look at the money stolen each year by cops – more than all the thieves together. Look at the sexual crimes committed by cops. Look at the cases where a cop commits a crime and all the other cops just sit there and watch.

Yes, “uniformed thugs” is the correct word. And If there was one honest cell in you, you would have first considered whether it is true or not, not whether it has hurt you tender feelings or not.

Laramy Gregory
Laramy Gregory I am at a loss for why you or Joel are referring to police officers in this manner. I don’t understand your motivation. In full disclosure, I am grieving the loss of a friend who died honorably in the line of duty. I am trying as much as the Holy Spirit will enable me to speak to you and Joel in a manner in which dialogue can happen and a view point that I have can be expressed in a godly manner.

My friend, and as of his death, local FOP President Kenny Moats died honorably in the line of duty 8-25-16. He responded with another officer to a domestic disturbance in which family members were being threatened with a gun from another family member. Officer Moats as well as another responding officer placed themselves in-between the offending party and the unarmed victim, the offender’s Father. My friend, Kenny Moats, was struck and killed from a single gunshot in an area not protected by his vest. He died as a result of this injury in a matter of minutes. He leaves behind a wife and three kids.

I find it incredibly offensive to see Christians engage in conversations about police officers in which the police are painted with such a broad brush without regard to men like my friend and the countless others that lay their life down in the service to others. They know bravery at a level that you and Joel will never comprehend. They walk into danger that is life threatening in an effort to save someone they have never met and have no relationship with. It is heartbreaking to me to see no charity whatsoever in your comments towards officers who stand in the gap between evil and those whom evil would prey on.

In an effort to address a problem you see at a macro level, you engage in conversation that lumps in individuals like my friend. You have offered no qualifiers to your statements. When your statements are proven false, then you decide to research and try to justify your claims. Your column concerning Wilson and Ferguson is laughable to those who understand the use of force in policing. You do not address the facts as it relates to relevant case law (TN vs Garner and Graham vs Conner) which is the standard set forth by by precedent that these officers are to be trained on and in which to enforce the law. If you want to make a case concerning police action, you need to be addressing police actions relative to case law and how established case law conflicts with Biblical principles.

I don’t understand the purpose of addressing officers in the manner in which you do. To refer to them as whores??? How would you minister to my community now sir? What message of hope would you be able to deliver that allows them to see the mercy and grace of Christ in a time of suffering like we are experiencing as well as the wrath of God that will be poured out on the offender if he doesn’t’ repent or be credited to Christ’s sacrifice should the offender repent?

If anything, God has revealed to me through this thread how polarizing generalizations can be. I am amazed at your callousness and the position you have placed yourself in that prohibits you from being a witness to any gospel truth to this community (law enforcement).

Dean May
Dean May When I see you express similar grief at evil violence and death perpetrated against innocent civilians you might have a shred of credibility.

Greg Renfro
Greg Renfro Laramy Gregory, I just read your comments above and also have similar thoughts as you. In case you missed it I was just in a brief exchange with Bojidar Marinov about a similar topic. I stomached his insults towards me in an effort to work toward the cSee More

Laramy Gregory
Laramy Gregory Greg Renfro , I really appreciate your comments. I had decided to not to respond to this thread anymore but I wanted to pop back in and thank you for providing something worthy towards a conversation to help me understand what I perceive in these comments.
Like · Reply · 1 · 7 hrs

Greg Renfro
Greg Renfro Thank you Laramy!
Like · Reply · 1 · 6 hrs

Greg Renfro
Greg Renfro Laramy, for what it’s worth someone just sent me this article dealing with Marinov in a more detailed way. I think you will find this interesting: https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the…/just-facts-maam.html

92 1 1 Bojidar Marinov has a little fun with me here, wishing that I would become more of a…
DOUGWILS.COM|BY DOUGLAS WILSON

Bill Phillips

Write a reply…
 
Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov You are thinking like a woman, not like a man. You are using a personal experience to make conclusions which should not be made based on personal experience but on ethical/judicial principles.

An individual cop can die like a hero, no one argues againSee More

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov And listen to the sessions of the Freedom Conference I did a couple of months ago:

http://reconstructionistradio.com/freedom-conference-the…/

Aaron Jackson
Aaron Jackson Still better than the alternative

Bill Phillips

Write a reply…
 
Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov To the contrary, professional police is about the worst possible alternative out there. That’s why the Founding Fathers never envisioned police, never had any police, spoke strongly against standing armies, and their society was one of very low crime. It’s the emergence of police as an executive institution that created crime.

Laramy Gregory
Laramy Gregory When my friend was murdered I prayed that God would use his death to spread the Gospel. I saw our community, led largely by believers, come together and demonstrate the hands and feet of Christ in it’s ministry to the family of my friend and our communSee More

Nicholas Perez
Nicholas Perez The individual men in uniform, we love and minister to.

The institution itself is anti-Christian and must be exposed as such.See More

Nicholas Perez
Nicholas Perez Can you see the flaw in your logic here?

The question you need to address is: do we find justification for a tax (extortion) funded, standing army or pro-active street patrollers empowered to violate (negative) individual rights under the pretense of “preventive” crime, or “serving and protecting”? neither of which are permitted by a Christian theory of law enforcement.

Bill Phillips
Write a reply…
Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov Calling good evil and evil good is not sharing the Gospel. When we don’t tell the truth about police, this is not sharing the Gospel.

The truth is always a “stumbling block” to those who love lies.

LeRoy Whitman
LeRoy Whitman That’s a “heads I win, tails you lose statement” that is not reasoning, and not filled with hope. We do not depend on all civil leaders being upright (look at history), but on the Kingdom growing in society while such leaders hold a line. The “reasoning” behind such a statement falls back to the emotion-led judgment that media has been baiting.

Greg Hoadley
Greg Hoadley Perhaps I’m not a statistics elitist and I just don’t like Trump. And police unions are political after all.

Devon Austin Generally
Devon Austin Generally When Republicans love public sector unions……

Greg Renfro
Greg Renfro Did you really just claim that Darren Wilson “murdered” Michael Brown? In what could easily be studied as the best textbook example of a justified use of deadly force by a police officer you make the accusation of “murder”? Was this ever meant to be a rational discussion or just emotional bloviation?

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov You are a little too quick to judge, without knowing the case.

I have explained it why from a Biblical perspective it is a murder. Read it and then, if you have any Biblical argument against what I wrote, tell me what it is. If you don’t have a Biblical argument, or if you don’t want to read it, I don’t give a dam about your brainwashed opinion.See More

LeRoy Whitman
LeRoy Whitman Conservatives have lost in the civil government arena by thinking an “orthodoxy” is needed like in a pastoral candidate. Whereas civil leaders who are upright need to find common ground to build a coalition so they can advance righteous civil goals (whSee More

Greg Renfro
Greg Renfro You wrote: “You did not go to the Bible to see if the Bible even allows for police,” implying I haven’t refuted your article arguing a version of that claim. My extrapolation maybe inaccurate, but you didn’t correct it, you simply accused me of lying, which is actually completely false. My goodness, one would think a person who appears so committed to following God’s Law, or what they claim it to be, would be far more careful on their own personal conduct and words since you appear to have violated several scriptural commands just on a facebook forum with a fellow believer you have never met. I mean, c’mon Bojidar, I seriously respected your article despite taking issue with some of your points. I also respect Joel McDurmon as I am literally reading two of his books now and I am trying to understand Theonomic thought more in depth. I am trying evaluate it based on scripture and not on it’s pundits personal conduct. And that is why I even continue typing, because if it was the later it would have already been tossed. Granted, I do not know you personally, and I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. But seriously, think about it.

Nicholas Perez
Nicholas Perez Greg, just to get you thinking about this topic from our perspective, how does this meme strike you?

Does your heart flinch at the thought of a citizen pulling out his pistol and executing an officer on the spot rather than allowing himself to be assaulted or kidnapped?

The question of the existence of police aside for a moment (which is the real question, to be sure, but in the current situation we want to think as Biblically as we can), do you believe that police have more “rights” than everyday citizens? If an unmarked car approached my vehicle and a citizen got out and asked me to put my hands behind my back with his hand on his gun, I would be justified in killing him, right? Would I be justified in killing a police officer making a warrantless, unjustified arrest (i.e., kidnapping)?

One of the huge issues here is, are police held to the same legal standard as citizens? Should they be? If you say no, you are not only at odds with God’s Word, but with our Founding Fathers, who would have shot a police officer dead for violating their rights.

Nicholas Perez's photo.

Even Tony Miano Knows

pain

I have fairly low regard for Tony Miano. I’m sure you can find what I’ve said about him on this blog by searching. But even he knows that it is no longer acceptable to work for the government.

In this podcast, he answered questions from several different people (and you should be thankful I took the time to listen to it, because his manner of speaking is drawn-out and repetitive). A guy named Otto asked the very last question. The question was whether Otto should become a cop. Ultimately Tony’s answer was that it’s not a sin to be a cop, but he would question the Otto’s wisdom if he became a cop in this day and age; Otto should not become a cop.

I’m going to sum up Tony’s reason. Ultimately the answer was that the government glorifies sin, so you shouldn’t be a part of it. Welcome to the club, Captain Obvious. That was a huge issue even while he was a cop. Abortionists rest easy at night knowing there are no good cops. But abortion has been legal during all of Tony’s career. It was OK for Tony to be a cop and help protect abortionists, but at some point the government crossed Tony’s arbitrary, subjective line, and went too far.

At least there is a line for Tony. All too many Christians seem to not have a line, or at least be oblivious as to what’s going on.

090916-b

Eric Bolling Has Drunk the Kool-Aid

I guess people’s perspective on the level of oppression is relative. Some people apparently think that if you’re rich, you can’t be oppressed. Were the Israelite slaves oppressed in Egypt? They had leeks and onions back in Egypt (Numbers 11:5). Maybe some people can be bought off.

If you’re a government farming the people, and you want to maximize your income, you shouldn’t tax them at 100%. Communist regimes fail. So, maybe they’ve figured out that current tax rates are near optimal, where people remain happy and comfortable, and the government still makes a lot of money. I don’t know.

All I know is there is an absolute standard in God’s law, and the U.S. government violates that standard. It doesn’t matter whether we’re better off than others. It only matters that they are violating God’s law, and we need to stand against them.

How About This?

Here’s an idea for peaceful secession.  Someone opens a small office somewhere, and puts a sign up saying, “City Hall”, “County Courthouse”, “State Capitol” and maybe even “Capitol of the United States of America”.

The current government is based on circular logic. The law applies to you, because the law says it applies to you. If it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for me. The law of the new government will apply to me because the new law says it will apply to me. In reality, it should apply, because it will be a government submitted to Christ, and His law applies to everyone.

The beauty of some dinky, cheap little office is that that is what government is supposed to be–dinky and cheap. What we have now is a grandiose, expensive monstrosity. The Pueblo County courthouse is like a cathedral with beautiful paintings, a great rotunda, gold leaf (I don’t know if it’s gold leaf or gold paint). I would guess the clerk and recorder’s office has 25 foot ceilings.

1024px-Colorado_State_Capitol_Building_Third_Floor
The inside of the [state capitol] building is adorned with what is believed to be the entire known supply of Colorado Rose Onyx, a rare rose marble from a quarry near Beulah, Colorado. White Yule Marble from the quarries near Marble, Colorado, was also used throughout the building for the floors.
Fremont County has a beautiful, though slightly less luxurious building. But the Colorado state capitol is an ostentatious building. It dwarfs the Pueblo County Courthouse and it is dwarfed by government buildings in DC. Government ought to be small and plain. Every piece of gold leaf in the state capitol was purchased with stolen money.

So, if this office to be opened would be an alternative government to the existing monstrosity. There would be no taxes. It would not be executive (making laws) but strictly judicial as Romans 13 explains. The only purpose of government is to punish evildoers. Not to issue currency, build roads, educate children, help the poor, etc.

doi3

The Declaration of Independence says it is our right to institute a new government. That is their document. That is what they’ve based their government on. They have no other basis. They’ve abandoned the Lord Jesus Christ as a basis.

Republican Policies are Democrat Policies from 20 Years Ago

Clinton’s policy in 1996 was Marxist. Marx wanted government to control the borders of England to prevent Irish workers coming in and increasing the supply of laborers.

Clinton’s policy there is alarmingly similar to Trump’s current policy. No wonder liberals have been kicking our butts when our own “heroes” are stealing their socialist ideas and slowly moving us to the left. We move left, and Democrats move farther left. Forgive me for thinking that in 2036 the Republican presidential candidate will be taking a strong stand to protect Obamacare.

People need to educate themselves. The video below is step one on educating yourself on what the Bible teaches on immigration. If you can, take notes and send them to me. I wish I had taken notes the first time I listened. But that’s okay, because these lectures are worth listening to again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtj7VV_Z_cc&list=PLklULHO3LnKrxPPdx_ONujWh7HBbExnJG

 

 

Growing Indications that Tony Miano Might Be a Woman

Tony Miano is a statist. I’ve explained it before (<–this article is important), and my concern for Tony is growing.  The first interaction I had with Tony was when my former assistant pastor (who was a chaplain for the police department) invited Tony to speak at our church.

At that time, my evangelism partner and I were embroiled in conflict with the police about how we were doing evangelism on Main Street. Apparently some of the police complained to Tony about our methods, and from the pulpit, Tony denounced us and our evangelism. He was speaking out of complete ignorance, and completely mischaracterized what we were doing, but it certainly indicated where he is intellectually.

The next indication of Tony’s character issues came when he stated on Facebook that he thinks theonomy is akin to Islam. Now, Christians may or may not like theonomy, but to refer to God’s civil law as being akin to Islam reveals an astonishing level of stupidity. He accepted the rebuke from many Christians and took a short break from Facebook. I wish it had been a much longer break, because his recent activity is very troubling.

Here’s what he said on Facebook that made his idolatry and character issues so clear.

tm1

There is no logical fallacy. This meme is true, but Tony’s presupposition is that Christians need to submit to the state, so he can’t see that the Revolution was instigated by the black robed regiment (Presbyterian pastors) preaching from the pulpits about what Scripture teaches about proper government, and what Christian rebellion ought to look like. Tony thinks that true Christianity leads to submission to tyrants.

tm2

I’m willing to concede that the particular founding fathers that Tony lists here weren’t Christians. So what? They played a big role in the revolution, but there were dozens of others with a big role, and thousands of others with smaller roles, many of whom were Christians. These guys on Tony’s list were behaving inconsistently with their unbelieving presuppositions and taking part in the Presbyterian rebellion, aka the revolution.

tm3

Tony wouldn’t know a tyrant if he walked up and bit him. Tony is a retired tyrant, and he loves tyrants. He has no idea what the Bible teaches about how we ought to resist tyranny. American Christianity has no biblical doctrine of how to resist tyranny, and we’re reaping what we’ve sown.

tm4

Tony has revealed that he has a tender, little soul, because the commenter here, extremely politely, called him ignorant with a morally deficient view of government, and he says the commenter needs to be mindful of his tone. Is Tony a man? This isn’t how a Christian man has a conversation.  The commenter’s tone was very polite, and a Christian man shouldn’t respond this way to rebuke. Time for Tony to drop the “little-girl-tea-party routine” and read Proverbs.

I decided to comment on this, even though I was eight days late to the conversation. Tony deleted my comment. Maybe different people look at that differently, but I look at that as being indicative of a serious deficiency in manhood. I realize some popular people are busy so they can’t respond to every comment they receive on social media, but to delete a comment you disagree with shows a huge character problem.

I’ve gone to the Jehovah’s Witness state convention the last couple years, and they refuse to accept literature from us. They are scared that being exposed to a viewpoint critical of their own could lead them away from their religion. I have such little respect for that. My worldview is informed by Scripture, and it will stand up to scrutiny. I don’t have to be scared of being exposed to something critical of Christianity. In fact, I think you ought to expose yourself to things that are critical of your beliefs, because it will force you to more precisely define what you believe, and you’ll better learn how to defend your position.

Obviously, I should have written my comment down. I knew Tony was a pansy who may very well delete it. Here’s what I said as best as I can remember, including the two links.

Tony Miano said, “There is no biblical support for Christians rebelling against government.”

I think Tony missed the entire Old Testament, and has badly misinterpreted Romans 13.

http://reconstructionistradio.com/freedom-conference-the-biblical-christian-duty-to-rebel/

 

Twisting Romans 13 Has Consequences

But I guess when you share Adolph Hitler’s interpretation of Romans 13, you have no compunction in deleting comments of someone who disagrees with you.

Ten Purposes of God’s Law

I wrote these down from this podcast, and I didn’t catch exactly which book they came from, but they’re from Greg Bahnsen, who is the Einstein of Christianity.
The ten purposes of God’s law:
1. The law declares the character of God.
2. The law reveals the demands of God on our lives.
3. The law pronounces blessing on its adherents.
4. The law provides a definition of sin.
5. The law exposes infractions and convicts of sin.
6. The law works to incite rebellion in sinful men
7. The law condemns all transgression as deserving God’s wrath and curse.
8. The law drives us to Christ for salvation.
9. The law guides the sanctification of believers.
10. The law serves to restrain the evil of the unregenerate.

Must Listen – Session 4 of the Freedom Conference

-Belief in an executive government (our government) is idolatry. An executive government is one that makes laws. If government can make laws, they are a god. Only God can make laws; government’s only job is to punish those who violate God’s law.

-Torture is unbiblical.

-Questions for self-examination:
1. Do we call the cops on our neighbor for things the government ought not be involved in? Stop.
2. Do we teach our kids to respect all authority? Stop.
3. Do we teach our kids to discern proper authority?
4. Are our kids in public school? Public schools haven’t failed, but are very successful, and operating at maximum efficiency.

-The nuclear family is the building block of a Christian society.

-1 Cor. 3:21-22: The past isn’t ours. The past is forgotten. Christians are to have a future orientation.

-TO DO LIST:
Step 1. Purge the pulpits of idolatry.
-Socialists aren’t the problem; American pastors are the problem.
-If a pastor isn’t preaching rebellion at this time of injustice, he’s preaching idolatry.
-Stop donating to idolatrous churches/pastors/ministries.
-We are responsible for rebuilding the black robed regiment.

Step 2. Starve the beast.
-Serve on a jury. Only vote to convict for biblical crimes.
-Defeat school bonds and tax increases.
-Influence the sheriff to reject federal government handouts.
-Don’t submit to the government voluntarily. Make your compliance painful and expensive.

http://reconstructionistradio.com/freedom-conference-the-way-of-wise-rebellion/