“If you are a Calvinist, you should know this corollary from Calvinist soteriology: The reprobate won’t become less reprobate because you were friendly and soft; but the elect will be driven to respond if you speak as one of authority, not like their academically-feminized seminary professors (Matt. 7:29).”
Below is the email I just sent to the Rowan County Sheriff (email@example.com), which is the county where Kim Davis is the clerk. Maybe it’s too late for this sheriff to do anything, but I sent it anyway.
I don’t think Ms. Davis should have reported to the federal court where she was given jail time by an evil judge. She should stand on Kentucky law and ignore federal decrees, and hope that local people stand with her and protect her from federal intrusion.
Here’s the e-mail:
Jesus said to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. In our republic, the Constitution is Caesar. Kim Davis is doing the right thing and obeying the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of Kentucky, while evil judges try to legislate perversity from the bench.
It’s impossible for two people of the same gender to marry, even if Ruth Bader Ginsburg has decreed such from Washington DC. A judge can’t decree that two dudes can marry any more than they can decree that water now flows up hill.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn’t going to come down to the county clerk and force anyone to issue a license. She needs boots on the ground to enforce her evil decree. It seems wicked judges have never had a problem getting law enforcement to carry out their orders.
But maybe it’s time we just stop doing stupid things the judges say. Kim Davis has taken the first step, but she needs others to refuse to follow evil orders with her. She can’t do it alone. We must obey God’s law, and the Constitution, rather than men.
This country was founded on the idea that just governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. (That means if people work together, they don’t have to do stupid things judges tell them.) At this point, I don’t know if the population is so evil that they are offering their consent to the unjust laws, or whether the good people have just formed a habit of retreating from hills worth dying on. But this issue is so crystal clear that it’s time to take a stand and do the right thing.
Check out this article:
I got to attend this debate in person last February (2015). I’ve learned a lot about theonomy since then, and there are a lot of silly objections to theonomy, but there really are no good objections. McDurmon’s opening argument really lays out the presuppositional arguments for theonomy, and they can’t be defeated, and JD Hall didn’t even try.
If God’s law is just, then it is obligatory. The Bible says it is just dozens of times, even in the New Testament.
If, modern nations are free to choose a range of laws, and they are still considered just (as an anti-theonomist would say), then a theonomist is just as free to choose to work to implement God’s law as a non-theonomist would be to work to implement whatever law they want. If theonomists are wrong, then, God’s law is just one political position among many that are valid. I don’t see why there is so much vitriol against it.
In reality, I do know why there’s vitriol. God doesn’t care about the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. He only cares about His law. There are Christians who realize that if theonomy is true, they will be called on to sacrifice. Some Christians have invested their entire lives into careers that, if theonomy is true, are sinful. So, it’s easier to just accuse theonomists of heresy.
And as someone who isn’t Presbyterian, I’ve been wondering why JD Hall and others have focused so much on whether the Westminster Confession is consistent with theonomy. The confession isn’t inerrant. My only question is whether it’s biblical or not. But Hall knew that he couldn’t really answer the presuppositional arguments for theonomy, so he changed the subject to whether theonomy is consistent with the confessions.
Here’s some things to look out for in the debate. I find a lot of agreement with Hall’s opening statement, but then he spends the rest of the debate contradicting what he said. Think about why JD admits that execution for buggery was just, but then goes on to accuse theonomists of all kinds of heresy. This is because he had to change the subject.
Then, check out this for some more info on some of the mistakes JD Hall made.
This is one of the best things I’ve seen in a long time. This crazy woman receives instant consequences for her actions.
The Canon City Vineyard church has taken out a billboard that says something like, “Love God. Love people. No rules.” Of course, that’s self-contradictory. It’s like saying, “Rule A and Rule B are true. No rules.”
In Mark 12:29-31, Jesus was asked what the most important laws were:
Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
I hate to be the “Pharisee” that points this little technicality out, but commands of Jesus are laws. You could argue that you have received commands that not everyone else has received so that can’t be a law, and I’d agree. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t commands that everyone is expected to follow. Also, Jesus said if you love Him you will obey His commands (John 14:15). Clearly He has laws and commands that all men are created to follow and will suffer consequences for not following.
I watched the sermon that is posted on their lovenorules.com website. The pastor makes some valid points that we ought not make up our own rules and expect others to follow them, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any rules.
So I hate to be critical, but it seems odd to me that those who love the Truth would engage in something so blatantly false and self-contradictory as a marketing campaign.
An atheist on Youtube said, “There are, therefore, no absolutes anywhere.”
I told him that the statement is self-refuting. I hoped he would see the truth of my observation without much further explanation, and I didn’t want to make him feel bad about saying such a foolish thing.
But he later repeated it. So I thought I ought to offer a little more thorough correction.
This is what I said, “I pointed out before that this silly idea of no absolutes is self-refuting. In order to type that sentence, you assume absolute truth, absolute laws of logic, etc. By rejecting God, you’ve chosen absurdity. You know that there is no basis for absolutes without God, so you have to give them up. In reality, you can’t type a declarative sentence without absolutes. Every intelligible sentence you type demonstrates your inherent knowledge that God exists.”
Even children can understand the idea that there are no absolutes is self-refuting. But it is common for atheists to say such preposterous things. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22).