Luther's 95 Theses.

Luther’s 95 Theses.

“How arrogant,” I said to myself the first time I heard the Calvinist doctrine of election, “I’m glad I’m not one of those people.” Looking back many years, it strikes me as funny to think about my reaction the first time I heard about the sovereignty of God. I didn’t like it. No, not one bit. Those Calvinists. They were insufferably conceited. How could anyone be so audacious as to claim he was chosen by God? What I didn’t see at the time was the plank in my own eye, the pride of believing I had the good sense to believe in Jesus Christ all on my own steam. I was a Christian, or so I thought, because I chose of my own freewill to receive Christ into my heart. I chose God, he didn’t choose me.

Fast forward about twenty years and by God’s grace, and much to my surprise, I found myself becoming one of “those people,” a Christian who understood and agreed with the Biblical doctrines of election and reprobation. I came to love the Reformation, its people, its history, and eagerly took to reading all I could about it.

With that in mind, here are a few of my thoughts on Reformation Day and why I love it.

Continue Reading »

ZambiaGod have mercy on the currency,” read the headline. Curious, I followed the link to an article about the president of Zambia calling for a national day of prayer and fasting to address country’s currency crisis. It turns out that Zambia’s national currency, the Kwacha, has fallen by 45% against the US dollar in 2015, causing Zambians a host of economic difficulty. It is eminently Christian and sensible to call on the Lord in times of trouble The Bible is filled with promises that God will deliver his people if they call upon his name. Typical is Ps. 50:15 which reads, “Call upon Me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify Me. And because it is eminently Christian and sensible to call on the Lord in times of trouble, no Western president or prime minister would ever think of doing it. “We’ve got this,” they say, “no divine help needed.”

Such was not always the case. During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln called for a national day of prayer and fasting. But that sort of thing doesn’t fly anymore. In the aftermath of the greatest national disaster of my lifetime – I’m speaking here about the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington D.C. – George Bush encouraged Americans to go to Disney World. What’s worse, he participated in a blasphemous ecumenical prayer service at the National Cathedral in Washington which featured, among others, a female Episcopal bishop, a Rabbi, a Muslim cleric and a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church-State. Far from being an example of turning to God, this service was a double-minded affront to the Lord Christ Jesus. And because it was double-minded, those who participated had no reason to think they would receive God’s blessing or assistance. The failure of the Global War on Terror stands as a stark testimony to this principle.

Continue Reading »

"You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold." - William Jennings Bryan, 1896

“You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”
– William Jennings Bryan, 1896

Talk of the US returning to a gold standard, at least according to the anointed wise men of our time, is the province of weirdoes, wackadoos and wingnuts and ought never to be mentioned in polite company by any serious presidential candidate. At least that’s the sense one gets when reading Matt O’Brien’s Washington Post article “Dear Jeb: Gold won’t make America great again.” O’Brien is upset that, when given the opportunity to squash any notion that he might support a gold standard, Jeb Bush waffled in his comments, implying that he may in fact be prepared to crucify mankind upon that dreadful cross of gold.  The horrors.  According to O’Brien, “The right answer would have been that the gold standard was a “barbarous relic” even 80 years ago, and might be the world’s worst idea today.”

O’Brien goes on to chide both Ben Carson and Bush, the former for his positive support of the gold standard, the latter for his failure to live up to his duty as “the candidate of serious policy,” which in O’Brien’s mind means taking a stance of uncompromising devotion to the central bank driven, fiat money status quo. The reason O’Brien gives for this is simple, “We tried it [the gold standard], and it failed.”

But did the gold standard fail as O’Brien thinks it did? O’Brien’s chief beef with the gold standard is that the price of gold is controlled by the Federal Reserve’s [the central bank of the United States] interest rate policy.

[T]he gold standard says that the dollar will always be worth a certain amount of gold. But that alone isn’t enough to make it true. The Federal Reserve has to do that. So, for example, think about what would happen when the price of gold “wanted” to go up. That is, when supply and demand would make its price go up if it were allowed to do so – which it wouldn’t be under the gold standard. In that case, the Fed would have to make the dollar go up instead to keep the relationship between the two the same. And making the dollar go up is just another way of saying that it makes interest rates go higher, since more people will want to hold a currency that pays more interest.

There are at least two fallacies with this argument. First, the gold standard does not require that the Federal Reserve (the Fed) do anything. In fact, the gold standard does not even require the existence of the Fed, as can be seen from the fact that the US was on the gold standard long before the it came into being in 1913. In truth, it was the Fed’s activism that caused both the stock market and real estate boom during the 1920’s and the subsequent 1929 bust that contributed to the depression of the 1930’s. It is the Fed, not gold, that failed during the depression. But as a good statist, O’Brien puts the blame exactly where it does not belong, on gold, while exonerating the Fed which did so much to create the mess. This is an example of calling good evil and evil good.

“Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly” – Karl Marx and Frederich Engels – The Communist Manifesto

Karl Marx

Karl Marx

Worth noting too, is that central banking of the sort practiced by the Fed, and so admired by O’Brien and his counterparts in the media, academia and government, was actually advanced by Marx and Engles as one of the planks in their Communist Manifesto. It is unsurprising that the communists, favoring as they did government ownership of the means of production, would also insist on government control the monetary system. What is worth noting, however, is that so many in the West seem to be of the opinion that a modern economy cannot function in the absence of a central bank. But far from being a necessity, the central banks of the world are a positive hindrance to economic development. In the 100 years of its existence, the Fed has managed to destroy 96 percent of the dollar’s value, robbed savers with artificially low interest rates to bail out its billionaire banker buddies, and created unprecedented economic distortions, the worst of which have yet to play out. It is the Fed and its unseemly support of Wall Street investment banks that is to blame for the record income inequality in the US. Not, as is commonly assumed, laissez faire capitalism. It is the Fed that helped to bring on the depression of the 1930’s and caused the tech bubble of the 90’s, the real estate bubble of the 00’s and the current stock and bond market bubbles, both of which are set to pop and threaten to send the US and world economies into an economic tailspin such that the Great Depression will seem like a golden age of prosperity by comparison. When it comes to central banks, the best thing to do is to bury them in the same pit as the rubble from the Berlin Wall.

A second problem with O’Brien’s analysis is that he assumes that a gold standard requires the government fix the price of gold at a certain level. According to the Bible, governments have only two legitimate functions: to punish evil doers and praise those who do what is right. Nothing more. Though many people assume that they should, governments have no right to manufacture money. This means that for a gold standard – or any monetary standard – to work properly, it should be the free market, and not the government, that determines what is, and what is not money as well as the market price of money, that is, the free market should set interest rates, not some monetary politburo at the Fed as is currently the case.


Although the Bible does not require a gold standard or a silver standard, it does require that money, in whatever form it takes, be honest. Historically, gold and silver have done the best job in this role. Our current system, in which central banks conjure up capital out of thin air, crediting billions of dollars to the accounts of favored financial institutions with the click of a mouse, is about as far from honest as it can get. In any other context, the normal activities of the Fed would be called counterfeiting. Or to put in another way, lying at the heart of our current financial system is a consistent violation of the Eighth Commandment, Thou shalt not steal.

Contrary to O’Brien, there is nothing serious about advocating the continuance of the current broken, immoral, central bank dominated, debt based, fiat monetary system. But statists look for every excuse under the sun to defend the central banks and their fiat money ponzi schemes, one example of which is O’Brien’s claim that a gold standard cannot be trusted to regulate interest rates. This is simply false. Since the interest rate is simply the price of money, it is regulated in the free market by the laws of supply and demand, just like any other good or service. A gold standard set by the free market is honest money enabling honest commerce conducted apart from the interference of government. It is Biblical. And it works. Seriously.

To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion or empire above any realm, nation or city is repugnant to nature, contumely to God, a thin most contrarious to His revealed will and approved ordinance, and finally it is the subversion of good order, of all equity and justice.

John Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women

Carly Fiorina

Carly Fiorina

Last week we looked a World Magazine
survey of “evangelical insiders” conducted to determine their views on the Republican presidential candidates for the upcoming 2016 election. Of the 91 respondents, the first place winner was Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Carly Fiorina polled well, coming in, “as the most popular second-choice candidate.” Given the ecumenical world-view that has come to dominate much of the American Evangelical church, it is unsurprising, but still disappointing, to see so many Evangelicals approve candidates no Christian should support

In the case of Marco Rubio, the issue is his Roman Catholicism. Because the Constitution requires a that president swear to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and because this oath conflicts with the obligation a Roman Catholic has to obey the pope, it is improper for an Evangelical – for that matter, it is improper for anyone who holds dear the Constitution – to support a Romanist for president. And yet steeped as they are in several decades of neo-evangelicalism, these “evangelical insiders” see no problem with promoting a son of Rome, who openly admits, “I craved, literally, the Most Blessed Sacrament, Holy Communion, the sacramental point of contact between the Catholic and the liturgy of heaven.” Rubio, as have many Roman Catholic candidates over the years, has stated that he follows the pope on matters of faith and morals but not on political or economic issues. He may well be sincere in what he says, but Rome offers its teaching as a packaged deal. Roman Catholics are not free to follow the Church’s teaching on faith and morals while rejecting what it says on economics and politics. That the popes currently allow Roman Catholic politicians the freedom to stray from the Church’s teaching should be seen as the Church’s concession to the fact that its power is not at this time absolute as is was in the middle ages. Should Rome again attain to the position of power it held prior to the Reformation – and this is, in fact, its long-term goal – you can be assured that when the pope says “jump,” Roman Catholic magistrates will have but one response: how high?

Continue Reading »

Marco Rubio, neo-evangelical favorite.

Marco Rubio, neo-evangelical favorite.

Have you ever noticed this strange phenomenon, that those at the forefront of a movement or discipline generally are the ones doing the most to undermine it? Take, for example, the legal profession. Among lawyers, there is no more prestigious assignment than to be named to the US Supreme Court. And yet these high-powered legal minds – supposedly the best and brightest the profession has to offer – routinely made a hash of the Constitution, the very document on which they claim expertise. Economists are in the same boat, the majority of whom are intellectual thralls to the economy destroying nonsense taught by John Maynard Keynes. Business leaders are anti-business, favoring programs of crony capitalist government bail-outs over the free market that allowed them to prosper in the first place.

To this list you can add another category of prominent individuals doing their best to undermine the very cause for which they claim to stand: evangelical insiders. According to a poll released by World Magazine, the favorite 2016 presidential candidates of these anointed insiders – World does not tell us what criteria it uses to select these insiders, describing them only as “well-connected evangelicals” – are, drum roll please…Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina. Somehow, I’m not surprised by this. In fact, given the long-standing Romeward and feminist drift of the neo-evangelical movement. it was almost inevitable that the poll would turn out as it did.

But are these evangelical insiders thinking Biblically? Even posing this question may come as a surprise to some. What may be even more surprising to them is to hear that there are sound arguments against Christians supporting either one for president.

Continue Reading »

Pope Francis_Unholy MixThe past five days have seen the citizens of the United States subjected to a most extraordinary propaganda campaign. As the result of pope Francis’ visit to Washington D.C., New York and Philadelphia, the airwaves and newspapers of our nation have been filled with countless images of and reports on the pope’s activities, nearly all of which serve to cast Francis and his church in the most positive light possible. If it wasn’t clear before, it should now be abundantly evident to anyone, Catholic or not, that the mainstream media in this country is more than willing to prostitute itself as a megaphone for the Man of Sin. This shouldn’t be surprising. The Roman Catholic religion is designed and built to appeal to the flesh, and papal pomp certainly makes for good television.

But for all its gaudy appeal, Rome lacks that most important mark of a true church of God: the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Justification by Faith Alone. All Rome’s smells, bells, mitres, and masses put together cannot save a single soul. They cannot do so much as remit the guilt of a single sin. It is the righteousness of Christ alone imputed to believers by faith alone that saves sinners from death eternal. But this Rome flatly denies. And not only that, but it actually curses and damns all who believe this simple truth. The Roman Catholic Church-State is a false spiritual harlot of a church, teaching a false faith plus works non-gospel, presided over by the Son of Perdition himself. And yet this Babylonian Harlot-drunk-with-the-blood-of-the-saints institution is lifted up by the American press as representative of the best of Christianity. Watching this spectacle is enough to prompt any thinking Christian to repeat the words of the apostle John, who, when confronted with the vision of the Whore of Babylon, was astonished, declared, “And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.”

Continue Reading »

“Building a future of freedom requires love of the common good and cooperation in a spirit of subsidiarity and solidarity.” – Pope Francis I

Pope Francis addresses a joint meeting of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 24, 2015, making history as the first pontiff to do so. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Pope Francis addresses a joint meeting of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 24, 2015, making history as the first pontiff to do so. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Antichrist continued his assault on our nation’s capital, breaking new ground as pope Francis became the first pontiff to address a joint session of Congress. The reaction from the members of the House and Senate was as expected, enthusiastic. The same with the press. The headline on Fox News was “Pope Francis delivers message of ‘hope and healing’ in address to Congress.” The New York Times proclaimed “Pope Francis Challenges Congress to Heal World’s ‘Open Wounds.’ ” The truth be known, the pope’s speech was a chock full of the standard collectivist claptrap we have come to expect from the Vatican.

One could spend a great deal of time unpacking all the economic, political, and theological errors in the pope’s address, ideas that are incompatible with the constitutional and capitalist foundation of the United States. But to keep this discussion brief, I shall mention only three: the common good, solidarity and subsidiarity.

The term “common good” is a buzzword in the social teaching the Roman Catholic Church-State invoked as a call for socialism. By my count, the pope used this term six times in his speech before Congress. In Roman Catholic social teaching, the common good is not merely used as justification for Rome to interfere in the economies of individual nations, but it is the basis for Rome’s long standing call for world government. John Robbins explains it this way,

The “common good” is the great fiction used by the Roman Church-State to justify government control of society and economy. It is also useful in arguing for a world government, as many popes have done. The Catechism of the Catholic Church points out that “Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world.” The unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good. This good calls for an organization of the community of nations able to “provide for the different needs of men…food, hygiene, education…” (Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 187, 188).

Yes, the common good sounds so wonderful, Who could possibly be against it? But how many understand that behind such silken language lies the call for world government?

Continue Reading »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33 other followers

%d bloggers like this: