Jerusalem vs. Athens

Without Christianity, the world would be uncivilized.

• Who Wants to be Uncivilized?
• Why Civilization is Good
• Jesus is the Promised Messiah
• Five Books on Civilization
• Jerusalem, Not Athens: Western Civilization is the product of Christianity, not the Greeks or the Romans
• No Liberty In Non-Christian "Civilizations"
• Marks of a Civilized Man
• Michael Novak: "A New Vision of Man: How Christianity Has Changed Political Economy"
• Gary North: "Classical Education: The Dog Returns to His Vomit"
• U.S. Presidents on Christian Civilization

There is a chilling contrast between "Jerusalem" (the Kingdom of God, the Bible) and "Athens" (the reign of man the would-be god).

Let's look first at "Jerusalem" through the eyes of the prophet Micah (chapter 4):

Here are ten "core values" of "Jerusalem" as seen in Micah's prophecy: We can contrast those values with the values of "Athens" in the modern university

Let's compare these core values in more detail. Jerusalem is on the left, Athens on the right, usually quoting Dr. North.

Athens mocks Jerusalem, just as Marx coined the word "capitalism" and Queen Elizabeth mocked Calvin's metric Psalms as "Geneva Jigs." Our belief in the Bible as the Word of God is called

Civilization = Christendom

What is "Christendom?"

This section will be radically expanded soon. For now, see the article in Wikipedia, which defines "Christendom" as "countries in which Christianity dominates or prevails." I will define "Christendom" as "Christian Reconstruction in every area of life." Going further, I will define "Christendom" as "Civilization." Some call this "Western Civilization." I've heard some Christian commentators, like Eric Metaxas, describe "western civilization" as the combination of "Jerusalem and Athens." But "Christendom," or "Christian Reconstruction," should be defined as "Jerusalem WITHOUT Athens," as Tertullian said.

It has been said that the average human uses less than 10% of the awesome power of the human brain.

"Christendom" has used only a small fraction of the civilizing power of the Bible. Too often, Christians have resorted to the strategies of Athens and the Roman Empire to build "civilization."

True civilization, which is Christian Civilization, is founded on the Bible, and the three most hated words in secular/classical/enlightenment/humanistic political philosophy:

• Pacifism
• Anarchism
• Theocracy

If you were educated in secular schools, you are a victim of educational malpractice, and have been brainwashed into believing that those three concepts undermine "democracy" and "civilization."

What is "Pacifism?"

The word "pacifism" comes from the Latin word for "peace." It does not come from the word "passive." Our definition of "pacifism" is active civilization-building dominion conducted in accordance with the ethical prescriptions of the executed Christ. It is these prescriptions that modern secular man finds so offensive.

• Thou shalt not kill (Mark 10:19, quoting Exodus 20:13)
• Thou shalt not confiscate property (Matthew 19:18; Exodus 20:13-16; Deuteronomy 5:17-20)

Jesus goes further, and says that if anyone does these things to you, you must

• Forgive enemies (Matthew 6:14-15)
• Love enemies (Matthew 5:44)
• Bless enemies (Romans 12:14)
• Pray for enemies (Luke 6:27-28)
• Give gifts to enemies (Romans 12:20)
• Exhort your enemy to repent (Matthew 18:15-17)

And if all these fail to bring repentance, restitution, and reconciliation,

• Leave vengeance to God (Romans 12:19-21)

To say that you must leave vengeance to God means you must not hire a Mafia hit-man to take vengeance on your enemy. To do so would be "unChristian" and therefore "uncivilized."

To say that you must leave vengeance to God means you must not VOTE for a Mafia hit-man to take vengeance on your enemy. To do so would be "unChristian" and therefore "uncivilized."

The moral and ethical similarity between a contract killer and a politician is not often contemplated. Nor are the frequent connections between politics and organized crime.

The Bible says that throughout history, God has raised up contract killers and vile, reprobate, pathologically violent nations to take vengeance on sinners. See Isaiah 10 for the prophecy of God using Assyria to punish Israel. Although Israel deserved punishment, it was morally wrong for Assyria to do so. Therefore God destroyed Assyria, as Isaiah went on to prophesy.

You and I must leave vengeance to God.

Autonomous Man will not do this. Autonomous Man takes vengeance autonomously, sometimes using verses of Scripture to justify his own vengeance.

It is wrong to hire vengeance-takers.

It is wrong to vote for vengeance-takers.

"Vengeance is Mine" saith the Lord. "I will repay." (Romans 12:19, quoting : Deuteronomy 32:35; cf. Psalm 94:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:6; Hebrews 10:30).

This completely rules out "politics" as secular man defines it.

Too many Christians have sought to ground the creation of an institution of human vengeance on commands given to the priesthood of Israel. See more on this.

Pacifism -- forgiveness and leaving vengeance to God -- leads logically to "anarchism."

What is "Anarchism?"

Civilization without "Archists."

The word "anarchist" is derived from two Greek words meaning "not an archist."

An "archist" is a vengeance-taker. An "archist" believes he has the right to impose his own will on others by force or threats of violence.

Every professor of political science in every university on planet earth agrees that the essential nature of "the State" is a monopoly of violence. See here.

An "archist" is the opposite of a "pacifist."

Modern secular political philosophy opposes pacifism and anarchism for the same reason. Taking Jesus literally means the end of "civilization" as they know it.

Liberty was a 19th-century anarchist periodical published in the United States by Benjamin Tucker from August 1881 to April 1908. Included in its masthead is a quote from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon saying that liberty is "Not the Daughter But the Mother of Order."

Most people think that liberty and prosperity are the products of imposed order -- order imposed by "the State."

"The State" says "We have a moral right to take vengeance on the bad guys and take money by force [extortion] from the good guys." This is false. The Bible says vengeance belongs to God, not to any earthly creature. Extortion is a sin. When "the State" attempts to impose order on a society, it engages in sin. Even if the State has some noble motivation, and even if the bad guys are genuinely bad, the State sins, and legitimizes sin, and when sin is legitimized, Christendom is undermined.

Relentless, systematic institutionalized vengeance is uncivilized.

"The State" is the enemy of True Christendom. For Wikipedia, above, "the State" is essential to "Christendom." This is because Wikipedia is the vassal of Athens, rather than Jerusalem.

Civilization is the byproduct of obedience to the Commandments of God, and especially those pacifist-sounding Commandments of Christ which "the State" and "the institutional church" relegate to the "personal" and "private" sector, freeing up "the State" to use violence and aggression to pursue State objectives.

Jesus is "the Prince of Peace." Prior to His Incarnation, the world was uncivilized. The Reign of King Jesus is fulfilling "Messianic Prophecies" from the Old Testament which emphasize "peace on earth." True Pacifists are anarchists. Christian pacifists create true Christendom.

What is "Anarchism?"

The idea of imposing Biblical commandments on the State is anathema to secular humanistic autonomous political philosophy.

They will say Christians are attempting to "impose a Theocracy" on "our" democracy.

The word "Theocracy" is derived from two Greek words meaning "God governs."

A pure Theocracy is not a government by clergymen. That would be an "ecclesiocracy," from the Greek ekklesia, which is usually translated "church" in the New Testament.

God rules/governs when people are obeying His commandments.

True Christian Civilization is a society that obeys God's commandments.

Civilization is Christian Theocracy, or "Christocracy."

Benjamin Rush signed the Declaration of Independence (1776) and served in the Presidential administrations of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison -- each of whom came from a different political party. And of what party was Rush? He answered:

I have been alternately called an aristocrat and a democrat. I am now neither. I am a Christocrat. I believe all power. . . will always fail of producing order and happiness in the hands of man. He alone Who created and redeemed man is qualified to govern him.

"Civilization" is the result of being governed by the Prince of Peace. All those who trace their genealogy to Athens despise Christian civilization. Their civilization puts them in power over a society characterized by

1. Pederasty
2. Demonism
3. Warfare
4. Slavery
5. Autonomy ("Man is the Measure")
6. Welfare State
7. Human Sacrifice
8. Cyclical View of Time
9. Female Inferiority

All those who trace their genealogy to Jerusalem are champions of Christian civilization, and are at war with Athens. The symbol of the Athenian State is "the sword." Christians battle against the sword with the Word of God:

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

2 Corinthians 10:3-5
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. ⁴ For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, ⁵ casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,

No sensible person wants to be "uncivilized."

The English word "civilization" comes from the same Latin root as "city." Augustine wrote a book "On the City of God" (De Civitate Dei).

• "The City of God" is civilized.

• "The City of Man" is uncivilized.

The City of God leads to life, peace, and prosperity, while the "City of Man" ultimately leads to death, either through tyranny (genocide) or through chaos and meaninglessness (suicide).

Our job as human beings is to build the City of God following God's Blueprints. This is the only path to lasting civilization.

Before the Advent of Christ, the world was uncivilized. It was a world of dehumanizing violence, irrational occultism and demonism, and the complete absence of any concept of personal liberty. Jesus, the Messiah, by His reigning from the Throne of David, has created Christian Civilization. Every corner of the earth has now been touched by the City of God. Our job is to continue to invite the world to live in this peaceful and prosperous City -- to become "civilized."

Civilization = Salvation

Jesus is the cause of "Western Civilization."

That's because Jesus is a "Savior" (one who brings "salvation"), and "civilization" is another word for the Biblical concept of "salvation."

Civilization is holistic salvation. The word "salvation" comes from the same Hebrew root as "JESUS." The name "Jesus" comes from the Hebrew word Yhowshuwa', which is derived from yasha', which is the Hebrew word most frequently translated "salvation." Here's how one mainstream scholar defines the Hebrew word for "salvation:"

Yasha and its derivatives are used 353 times. The root meaning . . . is “make wide” or make sufficient: this root is in contrast to sarar, “narrow,” which means “be restricted” or “cause distress.” To move from distress to safety requires deliverance. [T]he majority of references to salvation speak of Yahweh granting deliverance from real enemies and out of real catastrophes. That which is wide connotes freedom from distress and the ability to pursue one’s own objectives. Thus salvation is not merely a momentary victory on the battlefield; it is also the safety and security necessary to maintain life unafraid of numerous dangers. Hartley, John E. (1999). 929 יָשַׁע ["yasha"], in R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. 1, pp. 414-15.

Let's think about this definition. An "uncivilized" person with power is called a "tyrant." When God threatens a sinful and rebellious nation, He often threatens to send "a sword." "Sword" is a symbol for violent uncivilized people with power: Tyrants and their armies. These uncivilized tyrants are a threat to "civilization," our society's salvation.  Here again is Hartley's definition, with key words highlighted.

Yasha and its derivatives are used 353 times. The root meaning . . . is “make wide” or make sufficient: this root is in contrast to sarar, “narrow,” which means “be restricted” or “cause distress.” To move from distress to safety requires deliverance. [T]he majority of references to salvation speak of Yahweh granting deliverance from real enemies and out of real catastrophes. That which is wide connotes freedom from distress and the ability to pursue one’s own objectives. Thus salvation is not merely a momentary victory on the battlefield; it is also the safety and security necessary to maintain life unafraid of numerous dangers.

• tyrants cause insufficiencies and shortages    • tyrants restrict our liberties    • tyrants are our enemies    • tyrants cause "catastrophic meltdowns"    • tyrants restrict freedom    • tyrants interfere with our pursuit of happiness    • tyrants leave us insecure    • tyrants are the object of our fears

"Civilization (and "Salvation" in the Bible) is therefore "freedom from tyrants." America's Declaration of Independence complained about an empire that "has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance." Around the world, most famine is caused by tyrants, not nature; uncivilized tyrants with power to blockade ports, confiscate family farms, and put farmers in concentration camps. Technologically advanced but morally uncivilized people who wield political power are the greatest threats and obstacles to civilization.

Tyrants depend on thousands or millions of uncivilized people to carry out the tyrant's de-civilizing orders. Tyrants depend on victims of educational malpractice, who don't know what "civilization" really is.

Who is more "civilized?" These guys:      ... or these guys:

I once read an intelligent person on Facebook (or do I contradict myself?) speak of an uncivilized person as "a pagan swine herder in some northern European forest or an illiterate peasant on the wild windy coast of Celtic Britain." I don't claim that pacifism can eliminate coastal winds (?), but if the opposite of a "swine herder" is Constantine, I would rather herd swine.

Does a truly civilized person leave his home and family to lead a military expedition to conquer foreign nations, using the cross or other Christian rhetoric to baptize the invading army, with the death and destruction it brings?

Who is more "civilized" -- the "illiterate peasant" who bears the fruit of the spirit and the character of Christ, or a conquering tyrant leading sociopathic armies and violently exacting tribute from "illiterate peasants?"

Take Jesus Seriously

Imagine that you had a button, the pushing of which would cause all professing Christians to take Jesus seriously.

If you take Jesus seriously, the unbelieving world (and most church-goers) will say you're "unrealistic," "impractical," and "utopian." They will call you a "pacifist" and an "anarchist." 

"Taking Jesus Seriously" means the following: 

1. Pacifism: Any objective observer of the teachings of Christ admits that Christ commanded His followers to be "pacifists." This proposition is proven here, here, and here.

   Objections to this claim are almost universally based on misapplications of Old Covenant "ceremonial law," or interpretations of a small number of New Testament verses, e.g., Luke 22:35-38 -- interpretations which John Calvin would have described as "truly shameful and stupid ignorance."

   The pacifist says "I will not intentionally kill another human being, even to defend my own life."

Christians who take Jesus seriously would believe that we are to

1. Love our enemies (Matthew 5:44) with an "agape" love that puts the redemption of the attacker ahead of one's own life.
2. Resist not evil (Matthew 5:39)
3. Pay your taxes; don't take up arms against the Red Coats (Matthew 22:21). [details]
4. Turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39)
5. Forgive those who seek to kill you (Luke 23:34; 1 Peter 2:21-24)
6. Go the second mile (Matthew 5:41). If you take this verse seriously, it means "national defense" is a sin.
7. Christians would believe that it is always sinful to kill a human being ("Thou shalt not kill." Mark 10:19, quoting Exodus 20:13). Better to be killed than to kill.
8. In short, even if we get called "pacifists," we will take Jesus seriously and follow Him. [details] 

The Westminster Larger Catechism (1647) gives detail on the meaning of the Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill." It is a pacifist manifesto.
It also explicates the implications of the Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Steal." It is an anarchist manifesto, since "the State" is based on theft ("taxation," "eminent domain," "asset forfeiture," currency debasement, etc.).
 

2. Anarchism: Christendom would believe that it is always sinful to impose your own will on others by initiating force or threatening violence. (We are to be servants, not "archists." Mark 10:42-45.) I know, that sounds "weird." "Anarchism?"  [explanation]
    
3. Home Education:
   "Let the children come to Me." (Mark 10:14)
    Christians would believe that the central core of "education" is not going to a government-run "school," and not getting a paper "degree," but simply teaching children these commandments of God throughout the day, as they participate in the daily business of the family (Deuteronomy 4:9f.; 6:7f., 20f.; 11:18-21). Teach them to bear the fruit of the spirit and the character of Christ, and you will have civilization.
   This kind of education is the equivalent of "pushing the button" for future generations.
    
4. Preterism:
   The word "Preterism" comes from the Latin word for "past."
   Preterists believe that Jesus began His Messianic reign in the past. Most church-goers believe Jesus will not reign as Messiah until after He comes again. But the Bible says nothing about Jesus coming in our future; it says Jesus came and began reigning in the past:

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom with power and glory and the holy angels." (Matthew 16:27-28; Mark 8:38-9:1; Luke 9:26-27)

"Pushing the button" would mean that Americans would not believe that Jesus is "coming soon" to destroy all the bad guys at "Armageddon" and deliver the Kingdom to Christians on a silver platter. I know: very controversial. Just read all the verses. [details]

• DominionPacifism.com
• TheonomicPacifism.com
• more links

Always evil to kill

This means the end of the American Revolution. Americans would not get out their muskets and kill the "Red Coats." Rather, they would do what Jesus and the Apostle Paul commanded: Pay your taxes. People today would accuse such Americans of being "pacifists."

• Would Jesus Celebrate Independence Day?
• Romans 13: The Prohibition of Armed Revolution
• "National Defense" is a sin.

Imposing your own will on others by force

In Mark 10, Jesus discovers the disciples arguing about who is going to wield the most power in the coming Kingdom. Jesus tells them that "the kings of the Gentiles" like to wield power, but Christians are not to be like them, but are to be servants instead. Jesus uses the Greek word from which we get the English word "anarchist." He says we are not to be "archists." What is an "archist?" What makes "the kings of the Gentiles" different from other Gentiles? Answer: kings claim the right to impose their own will on other by force: by prisons, by armies, by the sword. Christians are not to be "archists." People today would call consistent Christ-followers "anarchists."

• How To Become a Christian Non-Archist
• Order through Peace
• Anarcho-Theonomy.com
• Anarcho-Preterism.com
• I Am Not an Archist

How This Would Have Changed the World

Suppose that in 1761 (when John Adams said the American Revolution really began) that all of "Christendom" had repudiated archism and adopted pacifism. Notable nations with this Christian heritage include Britain, Germany, and Russia.

1. British Red Coats would have gone home, rather than impose a tax on tea.
2. Even if they didn't, Americans would have paid their taxes instead of getting their muskets out.
3. The Declaration of Independence would not have been signed.
4. George III would have abdicated, or if he didn't, he wouldn't have sufficient numbers of Red Coats to carry out his orders. So the "British Empire" would have ceased to exist.
5. The Constitution would not have been written.
6. The Bolshevik Revolution would not have taken place, for the same reasons the American Revolution would not have taken place.
7. Communism would not have taken root. Christians would not have carried out Stalin's orders.
8. The Soviet Union, Red China, and the Third Reich would not have come into existence, along with every other "government" on earth for the last 200 years.

This archist-free world of Christian pacifism would have resulted in the following, during the 20th century, according to Prof. R.J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii:

1. Hundreds of millions of human beings would not have been intentionally murdered by "governments."
2. Billions of human beings would not have been enslaved by communism, socialism, fascism, or Keynesian "governments."
3. Trillions of dollars worth of private property would not have been bombed, stolen, destroyed or "nationalized" by "archists."

Would You Push the Button?

Some people will become downright angry at this "easy-button" scenario. They would refuse to "push the button." They say that if sufficient numbers of people became "pacifists" and we abolished all governments and their armies and police -- especially "our" government -- then "evil would take over." This would mean the end of "civilization." It would mean a reign of "warlords."

I've heard that many times.

Let's think carefully about this. We're supposed to believe that

If "We the People" take Jesus seriously
and refuse to form "governments,"
then "EVIL" will "take over."

Really?

Please tell me what "evil" looks like if it is not:

1. Hundreds of millions of human beings intentionally murdered by "governments" through war and concentration camps (and 135,000 government-approved abortions each and every single day).
2. Billions of human beings losing their rights and liberties and being enslaved by communism, socialism, fascism, or Keynesianism.
3. Trillions of dollars worth of private property destroyed or confiscated by "archists."

How could the world have been more evil than it was under "governments" in the 20th century???

Seriously.

If "We the People" do not create the machinery of "government," what will evil "take over?" What institutions will evil men employ to do evil?

Adolph Hitler did not kill six million Jews.
Six million Germans killed six million Jews -- and many of them were church-going Lutherans. But they did not take Jesus seriously. They did not say "We must obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29). If Hitler were transported through time to a future day when everyone took Jesus seriously, Hitler could get no evil done, because nobody would take him seriously. Nobody would have said, "I was just following (Hitler's) orders." Because everyone would be saying "I am following Jesus' orders."

It is a myth that "evil" could "take over" a world where everyone takes Jesus seriously. If there were no "governments," there would be no laws requiring people to do evil. Nobody would run the trains that take the Jews to the death camps. Nobody would bomb other people "back to the stone age." People do these horrible things because they believe that "governments" have the right to be "archists" and use force and violence to impose their will on other people (people who are not "the government," or people of other "governments").

Too many church-goers say we can't take Jesus seriously because . . . Jesus is a loser.
That's really what they're saying.
Jesus' advice doesn't work.
  We have to be "prudent."
  We have to be "practical."
  We have to be "responsible"
and make sure that evil does not take advantage of the naïveté of Jesus and those who take Him seriously.

Because God is not Sovereign.
God is not in control.
We must act like God and take vengeance on our enemies.

"Civilization" is not the product of bureaucracies and armies.

"Civilization" is the result of regenerated hearts, the gift of God's grace.

"Civilization" is not the result of "prudent" archism, which is in fact the machinery of REVOLUTION, feeding fallen man's desire to be as god, creating social salvation autonomously rather than in dependence on Divine Providence.

Because we trust in "the State" instead of God's grace, we live in a "civilization" which is more like Nazi Germany than an Amish barn-raising. More like the Roman Empire under Constantine than Celtic farmers. And we as Americans are particularly blind to the brute force of statism which is behind "Western" civilization and all the creature-comforts we've grown to assume are normal.

You may have heard it said that the average human being uses less than 10% of the total brain power with which we have been endowed.

It is likely that the human race has only applied about 1% of the pacifist teachings of Christ.

But just this 1% is responsible for what we call "civilization."

The "uncivilized" person is not a pacifist. He is an "archist." He believes he has the right to extract what he wants from others through force or threats of violence. He believes in vengeance. Civilization -- peace and the prosperity that peaceful cooperation and trade brings -- is impossible on these terms, in the long-run.

Human beings before the Advent of Christ were not pacifists. Historians and anthropologists have speculated that anywhere from 30% to 60% of all human beings died violent deaths in the years "B.C." (Before Christ). Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, previously at MIT, wrote a controversial article entitled "Why is There Peace?" What was most controversial about this article was not his data on the violence of the human race before Christ, but his claim that there is, now, today,  peace. Most people have been brainwashed by the mainstream media to believe that our world is awash in war and violence. But compared to the ages before Christ, we now experience unimaginable "peace on earth." Pinker claims that the peace which human beings enjoy today is the result of the modern revival of statism that was born in Greco-Roman culture. This page argues that "civilization" was not the product of Rome and "classical" values, but is the result of the reign of Jesus the Christ as Messiah, in fulfillment of Biblical prophecies concerning global peace.

If you doubt that Christianity teaches pacifism, and that Christian pacifism is responsible for "civilization," you need to explore the six links above. More verses. If you believe that "classical" Greece and Rome are responsible for "civilization," you're on the right page.

The Christ is the Prince of Peace

Some people don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah predicted by the Old Testament prophets. Let's look at a Jewish website and an article called "Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus." It says,

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because . . . Jesus Did Not Fulfill the Messianic Prophecies.
What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? One of the central themes of biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. (Isaiah 2:1-4, 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)

I would like to suggest that Jesus is in fact fulfilling those Messianic Prophecies, and understanding why this is true can revolutionize your faith. (For a detailed response to that article from the Jewish website, click here.)

Most people who call themselves "Christians" today believe that Micah's prophecy (and the others cited) will not begin to see fulfillment until Jesus returns to earth a second time. The Jewish website understands this rationalization:

       Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.
       Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming. Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.

But the Bible teaches that Jesus was born during "the last days" of the Old Covenant, and He put into effect a New Covenant, and as a result of this New Covenant, billions of human beings have been streaming to "the mountain of the Lord" (Miach 4:2), and the world is more obedient to God's Commandments today than it was before Jesus was born. The world is more peaceful. The world is more civilized. The Pentagon, the Mainstream Media and secular academia do not want you to understand this.

Nor do most clergymen. The more perceptive clergy will say that our belief that Micah's prophecy is already being fulfilled (along with all the other Messianic prophecies), and that we should continue beating swords into plowshares, is "dangerous." They will warn you that we are promoting the ancient heresy of "anarcho-preterism." They are correct (we are indeed promoting "anarcho-preterism") except for two things:

1. This position is not "heretical." It is the core of the evangelical message of the Bible. (The word "evangelical" comes from "evangel," which means "good news."). That's what this website is all about: Good News. Civilization is "good news." Tyranny is "bad news."
2. This position is not "ancient." I just made up the term "anarcho-preterism" last Thursday.

Yes, Jesus is described as a violent Archist Warrior as well as a Prince of Peace:

“I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean…On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written ‘King of Kings and Lord of Lords.'”
Revelation 19:11-14, 16

But I believe the book of Revelation describes a Day of Vengeance against . . . the "Institutional Church" of Jesus' day.

"Who warned you to flee from the wrath about to come?" (Matthew 3:7)
"The axe is already laid at the root of the trees." (Matthew 3:10)

"You shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes." (Matthew 10:23)

"The Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and will then recompense every man according to his deeds. There are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matthew 16:28; cf. Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27)

"'When the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?' '....He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers, who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons.' '....Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it.' ....When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them." (Matthew 21:40-41,43,45)

Matthew 22:7 But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

Matthew 23:31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. ³² Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. ³³ Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? ³⁴ Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, ³⁵ that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. ³⁶ Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Vengeance belongs to the Prince of Peace, not to the princes we might elect through "political activism."

At this point, I need to revise this page. The books below speak glowingly about "achievements" by Christians which may have been as de-civilizing as civilizing. It would be hasty to applaud an action simply because the actor was a professing Christian. There was a time in my life when I might have said that a Christian who did not vote Republican was a "pietist" (where "pietist" is very pejorative). There are contexts where "pietism" is more civilized than "political activism."

D. James Kennedy What If the Bible Had Never Been Written?	D. James Kennedy What if Jesus Had Never Been Born?	Alvin J. Schmidt How Christianity Changed the World	Thomas E. Woods How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization	Rodney Stark The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success
			How the Monks Saved Civilization Not just that "monks" preserved the remains of Greco-Roman culture after the fall of Rome. Christians created a new civilization in the ruins of an old, corrupt regime. Early kings like Æthelbert (c. 560 – 24 February 616 AD) and Alfred (849 – 26 October 899) based their legal systems on Biblical Law, and anchored the "common law" system in Europe on a Christian basis. Æthelberht later was canonised for his role in establishing Chalcedonian Christianity among the Anglo-Saxons, as were his wife and daughter. His feast day in the Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church was originally 24 February, but was changed to 25 February. Æthelberht of Kent - Wikipedia	In important ways, Justinian also Christianized the Eastern Roman Empire, and the "civil law" nations followed suit. Justinian the Great | Influence of Theodora
				Christian Faith in Progress Other religions believe that history and the entire created world is illusory, meaningless, or infinitely cyclical at best. In Christianity, History has a goal and a standard.
morality	morality	America's Founding Fathers frequently reminded the nation that it is not government or constitutions which keep people free. It is religion and morality. The Bible made America the most prosperous and admired nation in history. The Bible is the Word of the Messiah.	Western Morality
It is interesting that none of these books has a chapter on "peace." Blessed Are the Peacemakers The Sixth Commandment -- "Thou shalt not kill" - God's Law leads to peace. And yet, all of these chapters lead to peace. As even atheists like Pinker admit, the Christian era is vastly more peaceful than the pre-Christian era.		When every man is his own god, his neighbor is the devil. Violence and vengeance are rational in this worldview. Jesus is "the Lamb of God" that takes away the sins of the world. We no longer need to punish our neighbor to gain a sense of atonement. We no longer need to punish ourselves (or let others do so) to atone for our own sins.		Christian morality is pacifist morality, while non-Christian morality is warlike. Some will say that if we follow the pacifist teachings of Jesus, and beat "Swords Into Plowshares" (Micah 4), that "evil will take over." We must be more "practical" and "realistic" we are told. "Peace through strength" we are assured. But the political and military machinery we have created to be more "practical" and preserve our "security" has, in the last 100 years, resulted in the murder of hundreds of millions of innocent non-combatant civilians, the enslavement of billions under socialism and fascism, and the destruction or confiscation of trillions of dollars worth of private property. If the billions of people who find Jesus to be "impractical" were to take Jesus seriously, their taxes would be cut in half and their sons and daughters would not have died in vain. Trusting in "the State" rather than the Messiah is vain. "National Security" is anti-Christian.
Public schools were created in America to make sure that everyone in town could read the Bible.	education	Christianity's Impact on Education	Church and University	Universities were created by Christians, not atheists.
science	science	Science: Its Christian Connections	Science	Theology and Science
				Christianity produced science. Non-Christian religions gave us alchemy and astrology; pseudo-science, not science. Reason and Christianity
The Eighth Commandment - "Thou shalt not steal"	If you cannot trade it, you do not own it. If you do not own it, you cannot trade it for something you want more, up to a better position. Economic growth is therefore impossible without the recognition of private property. A Society of Mutual Benefactors	Socialism Is Evil	Christian Economics in One Lesson	Property Rights
law	government	Christianity puts limits on the State. Primitive religions worshiped the State and the King.	Western Law	Limiting States and Kings Command Economies
politics	freedom, civil liberties	Liberty and Justice for All		Rise of Individualism
		Slavery Abolished: A Christian Achievement		Abolition of Medieval Slavery
	art	Christianity's Stamp on Art and Architecture	Art, Architecture
literature		Hallmarks of Literature: Their Christian Imprint
	music	The Sound of Music: Its Christian Resonance
	free enterprise, economics work ethic, honesty, morality	Labor and Economic Freedom Dignified	Economics	[Stark's book is mostly about the rise of capitalism in Christian Europe]
	medicine, healing	Hospitals and Health Care: Their Christian Roots
	sex, family,	Christianity Elevates Sexual Morality
	women children	Women Receive Freedom and Dignity
In the first century, Christians looked after the orphans of their cities. It was an outgrowth of their understanding of the scriptures as well as following the example set by their Jewish predecessors. The custom of their faith was to take orphans and give them to childless couples. Children were also placed with widows for the mutual benefit of each looking after the other. R.J. Rushdoony wrote in his book “The Atheism of the Early Church”: …. when the unwanted babies were born, they were promptly taken and abandoned under the bridges of the river Tiber in Rome. In other cities there were places which were routinely used for abandoning babies. The Christians made it their habit immediately to go to the places where these babies were abandoned — to be devoured, as Tertullian said, by wild dogs — to collect these infants and parcel them out from family to family. This tells us something about the life of faith among these believers. How many members of congregations today would welcome an officer of the church coming by with an abandoned baby or two, and feel it was their duty to rear them in faith! Adoption Heart Ministries | Adoption Matters
Non-Christian religions are evolutionary. The "Struggle for Survival" and the "survival of the fittest" has always meant the poor have no hope. They ought to be discarded in favor of the "fittest." Evolution and Genocide	welfare, charity, compassion mercy	Charity and Compassion: Their Christian Connection
	Value of human life	The Sanctification of Human Life
missions exploration		Christopher Columbus was motivated by the prophecies of Isaiah. He was a Christian hero. Christians were the first to condemn slavery. Columbus repented of his sub-Christian behavior, which is more than can be said of Marxists. Voluntary colonialism is not all that bad, compared to idolatrous superstition and bitter poverty.	International Law
society founding of America everyday things	The State is not Society America was a Christian nation.	People Transformed by Jesus Christ		Globalization and Modernity
We have recently heard of another book to be added to this list, highly recommended: The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization, by Vishal Mangalwadi. Table of Contents: Forword by J. Stanley Mattson, Ph.D. Prologue: Why This Journey into the Soul of the Modern World? Part I: The Soul of Western Civilization 1. The West Without Its Soul: From Bach to Cobain Part II: A Personal Pilgrimage: 2. Service: Or a Ticket to Jail? 3. Quest: Can Blind Man Know the Elephant? 4. Self: Am I Like Dog or God? Part III: The Seeds of Western Civilization 5. Humanity: What is the West's Greatest Discovery? 6. Rationality: What Made the West a Thinking Civilization? 7. Technology: Why did the Monks Develop It? Part IV: The Millennium's Revolution 8. Heroism: How Did a Defeated Messiah Conquer Rome? 9. Revolution: What Made Translators World Changers? Part V: The Intellectual Revolution 10. Languages: How Was Intellectual Power Democratized? 11. Literature: Why Did Pilgrims Build Nations? 12. University: Why Educate Your Subjects? 13. Science: What Is Its Source? Part VI: What Made the West the Best? 14. Morality: Why Are Some Less Corrupt? 15. Family: Why Did America Surge Ahead of Europe? 16. Compassion: Why Did Caring Become Medical Commitment? 17. True Wealth: How Did Stewardship Become Spirituality? 18. Liberty: Why Did Fundamentalism Produce Freedom? Part VII: Globalizing Modernity 19. Mission: Can Stone Age Tribes Help Globalization? 20. The Future: Must The Sun Set on the West? Appendix: The Bible: Is It a Fax From Heaven? Notes With Gratitude About the Author Index

Western Civilization is the product of Christianity, not the Greeks or the Romans

• Classical Education [pdf]
• Puritan Economic Experiments (Gary North)
  "I have done my best to present the Puritan economic world-and-life view in terms that can be readily grasped. I have also shown why their attempts to enforce this economic worldview by resorting to the sword of civil government was based, not on biblical revelation, but rather on a specific inherited intellectual tradition: early scholasticism. While it may seem strange that Protestants as radical as the New England Puritans were in fact followers of Thomas Aquinas in the field of economics, there were reasons for it. First, they were not familiar with the later scholastic tradition, which was much more free market oriented.¹ Second, the Puritans never fully broke with the theory of natural law, and it was the scholastics who had imported and baptized this humanist myth of ancient Greece and Rome. The Puritans did not attempt to rethink economics in terms of the Bible; instead, they simply imported medieval scholastic economic categories into their legislation regarding pricing."
  ¹ Murray N. Rothbard, "Late Medieval Origins of Free Market Economic Thought," Journal of Christian Reconstruction, II (Summer 1975), pp. 62-75.
• The Puritan Experiment with Price Controls
  ["The Medieval Tradition" is also called "The Scholastic Tradition." It was an attempted synthesis between Jerusalem and Athens; importing Aristotle into Christianity.]
• Classical Christian Education Is Like Marxist Christian Education, But a Lot More Subtle.
• Why Christian Liberal Arts Higher Education Is So Liberal
• Classical Christian Education: The Real Deal
• The Trivium: Pagan vs. Christian
• The Classical Christian Curriculum: Marriage to a Corpse
• Nine Corrupt Pillars of Classical Greece
• The best way to teach history and literature
• Learning Latin is an academic fraud
• Charles Cochrane’s Christianity and Classical Culture
• The Liturgy of Sports
• What Protestant Evangelical Home School Parents Want: A Roman Catholic/Greek Curriculum
• The Ignorance of Christian Parents Who Want an Air-Brushed Classical Education for Their Children
• Chapter10 from CROSSED FINGERS: HOW THE LIBERALS CAPTURED THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
  "It could be argued that it was a similar overestimation of the benefits of classical education which helped to undermine the Puritans in the seventeenth century."
• What a Seriously Christian Curriculum Should Be: Christian, not Humanist

I.C.E. Cover Letter - May, 1995

May, 1995

Dear ICE Subscriber:

Earlier this year, I received a letter from the headmaster of a Christian high school. The school, he said, is committed to providing a classical education. He asked me if ICE could supply materials that would improve his curriculum. I wrote back to him that the most important thing he could do for his students is to scrap his curriculum.

Peter wrote: "But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire" (II Peter 2:22). He was not writing about classical education, but he could have been.

Classical education undermines Christian orthodoxy. Christian orthodoxy has tried to make classical education Christian for over eighteen centuries, and it has always failed; the reverse always happens. Classical education is a Trojan horse: Greeks bearing gifts.

Classical education begins with a premise: the student must learn the classics. The classics are pagan: Greek and Roman literature and philosophy. They were based on the premise that man is the measure of all things, that man's reason is ultimate. The rational side of the Renaissance was based on the same premise. (Its irrational side was also a revival of Greek and Roman religion: occult, magical, and either chance-based or fatalistic.)

Medieval Scholasticism was as committed to the classics as the Renaissance was, though without classical occultism and pornography. The Scholastics were committed academically far more to Aristotle than to the Bible, especially in their political philosophy. They worshipped at Aristotle's shrine. Prior to the eleventh century, medieval theologians had worshipped at Plato's shrine: neoplatonic mysticism. The Scholastics substituted Aristotle for Plato. There was some gain — Aristotle at least was not a communist, as Plato was — but not in the realm of men's presuppositions. It was the equivalent of substituting Milton Friedman for Karl Marx: better economics, but the same old humanism. For humanism, man is the measure, and man's mind is the sole valid instrument of measurement. The Bible denies this view.

From the beginning, the medieval university was committed to classical education, and from the beginning, rationalism and irrationalism (mysticism) undermined the Christian roots of education. By the time of Cromwell and the Puritan Revolution of 1642-59, the Puritans suspected that the curriculum of Oxford and Cambridge was against them, yet they did not seek to change it. They hoped that inward salvation would somehow make Renaissance rationalism Christian. Cromwell changed nothing at Oxford, even though as Lord Protector, he was chancellor of Oxford. John Morgan writes in his survey of Puritan education, Godly Learning: Puritan Attitudes towards Reason, Learning and Education, 1560–1640 (Cambridge University Press, 1986):

Puritans did not venture far from the traditional academic routine. The structures of educational institutions, and the content as affected by Renaissance urgings, seemed to satisfy their need for an academic base. There can certainly be no doubt of the very limited effects of puritans to the legacy of the Renaissance, or in developing the human intellect in the Baconian sense of the `advancement of learning.' . . . A novel theory of learning or education lay outside the necessities of a puritan blueprint for the future (pp. 305–6).

To indulge in classical education is to indulge in Renaissance education. To force a child to learn Latin is to encourage him to accept the premises either of medieval Catholicism or the Renaissance. Yet today's would-be Puritans have accepted the error of those Puritans who built Harvard. Harvard went Unitarian in 1804. Christians know something is wrong with rationalism, yet they seem incapable of breaking with the past.

Van Til's apologetics should warn us: the history of Christian philosophy has been one long compromise with the philosophy of autonomous man. From Plato to Newton, from Newton to Kant, from Kant to some cast-off liberal fad, Christian philosophers have sought to baptize humanism. They hope to appropriate for Christ the anti-Christian philosophies of their day or an earlier day. They trust the natural mind of the natural man, refusing to acknowledge the enormous danger involved: the importation of alien philosophical categories into the Church. And so, without exception, Christians for over 1800 years have surrendered education, and therefore the future (inheritance), to the humanists.

What is the obvious sign of this surrender today? The futile attempt to revive Latin. Why force a child to master Latin rather than New Testament Greek? Greek will enable him to read the New Testament in the original — an obvious benefit. But what is the benefit of Latin? Except for the historian of the ancient or medieval eras — for whom there will be no paying employment — Latin is peripheral. Yet it is seen as the mark of true learning. Latin was the universal language of the Western Church, i.e., Roman Catholicism and early Protestantism. But that learning was deeply compromised with Renaissance humanism. At best, Latin will enable a tiny handful of highly skilled, highly motivated, and poorly paid Christian scholars to read fragments of the Latin Church fathers. Meanwhile, we live in an era in which the vast majority of Christians know nothing of Calvin, where Calvinist pastors have yet to read all of The Institutes of the Christian Religion, let alone Calvin's commentaries. Forget about Latin; teach the Institutes. Abandon the futile boast: "My child is receiving a classical education, just like the good old days." The good old days produced the bad new days, step by step. The assumption of intellectual neutrality is the Church's great enemy. Latin education was the primary agency used to spread this lie.

I see home school mothers who cannot read Latin, who have no intention of reading Latin, who are utterly uninterested in anything written only in Latin, buying Latin grammars to inflict on their hapless children. Why? Because somebody they trusted told them that "Latin is basic to a well-rounded education." To which I reply: "Latin was basic to the initiation process of pagan and/or deeply compromised academics to gain control over the training of each generation of Christian leaders in England and America." Latin was a wedge used to separate Christian children from their parents. In the same way that the sex education fanatics today devise ways to keep parents from finding out what teachers are really teaching the children, so was Latin for six or seven centuries. To open the doors of ecclesiastical office and government patronage to your child, Christian parents had to surrender him to the Latin-based curriculum, a curriculum that rested squarely on the autonomy of man. The child was initiated into classical humanism by way of Latin.

What is nothing short of astounding is that there are dedicated Christians today who insist on doing this to their children. They insist on reviving the tool of their ancient enemies in the name of traditional education. But traditional education was Satan's own tool for capturing the souls of Christians as well as their inheritance. Satan's agents abandoned that tool only late in the nineteenth century, when it became clear that mass education was going to make the traditional Latin school obsolete as an initiation process for the elite. At that point, the humanists substituted the modern curriculum, in which Latin plays no role. Latin has become a lost tool of learning. Let's keep it that way!

Is there a role for Latin? Only historical. If there were a self-conscious effort on the part of dozens of Christian schools to create a cooperative program for translating the 220 volumes of J. P. Migne's Latin Church Fathers, I would approve. But the cost — $65,000 for four CD-ROM disks, shared by four schools — is prohibitive. Christian schools do not have the funds or the vision to begin a project like this. Until they do, it is foolish to indulge in the waste of time that a Latin curriculum involves. The vast majority of children so initiated will learn only the equivalent of pigeon Latin. If a child cannot sight read a foreign language without a dictionary by age 14, then whatever benefits he has received from the exercise of learning that language are indirect, e.g., learning the rules of grammar. If someone is going to be forced to do this, then he should learn a language useful to Christians: Greek, first; Hebrew, second, and Latin only a distant third. But what do we see? Mostly Latin, with no Greek and no Hebrew. This is Renaissance pride in action.

What does your child really need? First, he must learn how to read early, so he will enjoy reading throughout his life. He must learn to read critically. This means he must also learn to write, for in writing, the student learns how others have communicated with him through the printed page. Reading and writing are complementary skills.

Second, he should gain a knowledge of the Bible. I prefer the King James Version, for these reasons: (1) the language is magnificent; (2) its unique phrases stick in the mind, making Bible study easier; (3) the Strong's numbers are tied to the King James, making serious Bible study easier, especially with a modern computerized Bible search program.

Third, he must master mathematics. Until there is a self-consciously Christian version of Saxon's math program available, we should go with Saxon, which emphasizes review and mastery. Fourth, anything else that interests him. Let him master a subject for the joy and experience of mastering it.

Christian education should be highly focused on a handful of topics: reading-writing, Bible, and mathematics. To force a child to take six courses per semester is both traditional and foolish if the child has not first mastered reading, writing, arithmetic, and the Bible. If he has mastered these, he can pick up the other courses in short order, such as by preparing through Advanced Placement exam cram courses.

Students can sometimes gain admission to a local junior college and take courses that count for both high school and college. My son did this: he started college part-time at age 14. He graduated from high school at 15. He will be a junior in college the month he turns 18. Even if a child does not graduate, he or she can attend a junior college at age 18, when, by law, the JC must accept the child on a provisional basis, even without a diploma.

A child who has gone through the King James Bible twice and Saxon's calculus once will get 1,000+ on the SAT, and will gain provisional acceptance in most colleges without a high school diploma. I have my 15-year-old daughter taking Saxon math (algebra II) and Shakespeare. Every week she writes a paper on one of the plays. She is getting a feel for the most magnificent English ever written. Then I have her use a computerized typing course (Typing Tutor), so that she can type her weekly paper. Her grammar is generally correct; she can communicate on paper. She is learning how to think.

The lust for academic certification is what has placed the Christians under the domination of the humanists for nine centuries. How will we break the cycle? Christians make their children take high school biology. Why? So they can cut up frogs and learn Darwinism? They make them take high school chemistry. Why? So they can find out that hydrogen sulfide smells rotten? They make them take high school history. Why? So they can get the Enlightenment view of American history, which is what most of the high school textbooks teach?

All of this can be picked up in college by anyone who has mastered the King James Bible and calculus. It does no good to force a child to speak pigeon history, pigeon chemistry, and pigeon anything else at the expense of fluency in reading, writing, Bible, and mathematics. Yet Christian day schools and most home schools are tied to the state-approved curriculum. The "innovative" ones then add classical education. We compel our children to read the lies of Greece and Rome that led to the persecution of the early Church. Like kidnap victims, the early Church's apologists proclaimed the wisdom of their own kidnappers — what two decades ago was called Patty Hearst syndrome. That famous poster of Patty Hearst holding a machine gun during a bank robbery should be placed above the door of every Christian school headmaster whose school teaches classical education.

Sincerely,

U.S. Presidents on Christian Civilization

The Government of the Samoan Islands has sent an envoy, in the person of its secretary of state, to invite the Government of the United States to recognize and protect their independence, to establish commercial relations with their people, and to assist them in their steps toward regulated and responsible government. The inhabitants of these islands, having made considerable progress in Christian civilization and the development of trade, are doubtful of their ability to maintain peace and independence without the aid of some stronger power. The subject is deemed worthy of respectful attention, and the claims upon our assistance by this distant community will be carefully considered.
Rutherford B. Hayes: First Annual Message, December 3, 1877

The recommendations of this international conference of enlightened statesmen will doubtless have the considerate attention of Congress and its cooperation in the removal of unnecessary barriers to beneficial intercourse between the nations of America. But while the commercial results which it is hoped will follow this conference are worthy of pursuit and of the great interests they have excited, it is believed that the crowning benefit will be found in the better securities which may be devised for the maintenance of peace among all American nations and the settlement of all contentions by methods that a Christian civilization can approve.
Benjamin Harrison: First Annual Message, December 3, 1889

I have appealed against race discriminations as to civil rights and immunities, and have asked that law-abiding men of all creeds arid all colors should unite to discourage and to suppress lawlessness. Lynchings are a reproach to any community; they impeach the adequacy of our institutions for the punishment of crime; they brutalize the participants and shame our Christian civilization.
Benjamin Harrison: Letter to the Virginia State Baptist Convention on Lawlessness in the Southern States, May 21, 1892

The proposition of the Democratic platform is to turn over the islands as soon as a stable government is established. This has been established. The proposal then is in effect to turn them over at once. Such action will lead to ultimate chaos in the islands and the progress among the ignorant masses in education and better living will stop. We are engaged in the Philippines in a great missionary work that does our nation honor, and is certain to promote in a most effective way the influence of Christian civilization. It is cowardly to lay down the burden until our purpose is achieved.
William Howard Taft: Address Accepting the Republican Presidential Nomination, July 28, 1908

The four hundredth anniversary of the printing of the first English Bible is an event of great significance. It challenges the reverent attention of English-speaking peoples the world over. To that day, October 4, 1535, when Myles Coverdale, an Augustinian Friar, later the Bishop of Exeter, produced this Book in the common vernacular, we trace not only a measurable increase in the cultural value and influence of this greatest of books, but a quickening in the widespread dissemination of those moral and spiritual precepts that have so greatly affected the progress of Christian civilization. The part that William Tyndale played in this English translation is generally acknowledged by the historian. It is also evident that there were others who made valuable contributions to the monumental undertaking. Independent of and apart from the devotion of these zealous translators, the work they did marks the beginning of one of the great epochs in the history of English-speaking peoples.

It would be difficult to appraise the far-reaching influence of this work and subsequent translations upon the speech, literature, moral and religious character of our people and their institutions. It has done much to refine and enrich our language. To it may be traced the richest and best we have in our literature. Poetry, prose, painting, music and oratory have had in it their guide and inspiration. In it Lincoln found the rounded euphonious phrases for his Gettysburg address. Speaking of its place in his life, he says: "In regard to the great Book, I have only to say, it is the best gift which God has ever given to man."

One cannot study the story of the rise and development of the men and women who have been and continue to be the pathfinders and benefactors of our people and not recognize the outstanding place the Bible has occupied as the guide and inspiration of their thought and practice. Apart from their professed allegiance to any particular form of Christian doctrine or creedal expression of faith, they have found in it that which has shaped their course and determined their action. Look where we will, even in periods that have been marked by apostasy and doubt, still men have found here in these sacred pages that which has refreshed and encouraged them as they prosecuted their pilgrimage and sought for higher levels of thinking and living.

In the formative days of the Republic the directing influence the Bible exercised upon the fathers of the Nation is conspicuously evident. To Washington it contained the sure and certain moral precepts that constituted the basis of his action. That which proceeded from it transcended all other books, however elevating their thought. To his astute mind moral and religious principles were the "indispensable supports" of political prosperity, the "essential pillars of civil society." Learned as Jefferson was in the best of the ancient philosophers, he turned to the Bible as the source of his higher thinking and reasoning. Speaking of the lofty teachings of the Master, he said: "He pushed His scrutinies into the heart of man; erected His tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head." Beyond this he held that the Bible contained the noblest ethical system the world has known. His own compilation of the selected portions of this Book, in what is known as "Jefferson's Bible," bears evidence of the profound reverence in which he held it.

Entirely apart from these citations of the place the Bible has occupied in the thought and philosophy of the good and the great, it is the veneration in which it has been and is held by vast numbers of our people that gives it its supreme place in our literature. No matter what the accidents and chances of life may bring in their train, no matter what the changing habits and fashions of the world may effect, this Book continues to hold its unchallenged place as the most loved, the most quoted and the most universally read and pondered of all the volumes which our libraries contain. It has withstood assaults, it has resisted and survived the most searching microscopic examination, it has stood every test that could be applied to it and yet it continues to' hold its supreme place as the Book of books. There have been periods when it has suffered stern and searching criticism, but the hottest flame has not destroyed its prevailing and persistent power. We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a Nation, without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic. Its teaching, as has been wisely suggested, is ploughed into the very heart of the race. Where we have been truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity; where it has been to us as the words of a book that is sealed, we have faltered in our way, lost our range finders and found our progress checked. It is well that we observe this anniversary of the first publishing of our English Bible. The time is propitious to place a fresh emphasis upon its place and worth in the economy of our life as a people. As literature, as a book that contains a system of ethics, of moral and religious principles, it stands unique and alone. I commend its thoughtful and reverent reading to all our people. Its refining and elevating influence is indispensable to our most cherished hopes and ideals.
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Statement on the Four Hundredth Anniversary of the Printing of the English Bible, October 6, 1935

At the Pan American Conference at Buenos Aires, and again at Lima, we discussed a dim and unpleasant possibility. We feared that other Continents might become so involved in wars brought on by the school of destruction that the Americans might have to become the guardian of Western culture, the protector of Christian civilization.

The great achievements of science and even of art can be used in one way or another to destroy as well as to create; they are only instruments by which men try to do the things they most want to do. If death is desired, science can do that. If a full, rich, and useful life is sought, science can do that also. Happily for us that question has been solved—for in the New World we live for each other and in the service of a Christian faith.

I am a pacifist. You, my fellow citizens of twenty-one American Republics, are pacifists too.

But I believe that by overwhelming majorities in all the Americas you and I, in the long run if it be necessary, will act together to protect and defend by every means at our command our science, our culture, our American freedom and our civilization.
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Radio Address Before the Eighth Pan American Scientific Congress. Washington, D.C., May 10, 1940

We have come to realize the greatest attack that has ever been launched against freedom of the individual is nearer the Americas than ever before. To meet that attack we must prepare beforehand—for the simple reason that preparing later may and probably would be too late.

We must prepare in a thousand ways. Men are not enough. They must have arms. They must learn how to use those arms. They must have skilled leaders—who, in turn, must be trained. New bases must be established and I think will be established to enable our fleet to defend our shores. Men and women must be taught to create the supplies that we need. And we must counter the agents of the dictators within our Nation.

There is, moreover, another enemy at home. That enemy is the mean and petty spirit that mocks at ideals, sneers at sacrifice and pretends that the American people can live by bread alone. If the spirit of God is not in us, and if we will not prepare to give all that we have and all that we are to preserve Christian civilization in our land, we shall go to destruction.
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Address at Dedication of Great Smoky Mountains National Park,  September 2, 1940

On this day—this American holiday- we are celebrating the rights of free laboring men and women.

The preservation of these rights is vitally important now, not only to us who enjoy them—but to the whole future of Christian civilization.

American labor now bears a tremendous responsibility in the winning of this most brutal, most terrible of all wars.

In our factories and shops and arsenals we are building weapons on a scale great in its magnitude. To all the battle fronts of this world these weapons are being dispatched, by day and by night, over the seas and through the air. And this Nation is now devising and developing new weapons of unprecedented power toward the maintenance of democracy.
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Labor Day Radio Address, September 1, 1941

I HAVE ASKED Mr. Myron C. Taylor to return to Italy as my personal representative to His Holiness the Pope, with the rank of Ambassador.

After the cessation of hostilities Mr. Taylor came home for consultation and report. I have studied his report of his several audiences with the Pope with interest and with profit. I feel that he can continue to render helpful service to the cause of Christian civilization if, at my instance from time to time, he resumes his duties in Italy. As on his previous trips Mr. Taylor will confer not only with the Pope but with other leaders in the spiritual world and in the world of politics and secular affairs as he travels through Europe in the fulfillment of his mission.

The cessation of active fighting has left the world in a state of unrest. In many quarters we witness lamentable conflicts of principle and policy. Out of all of this unrest and conflict, however, one conviction emerges as dear as the noonday. It is that we shall establish an enduring peace only if we build it upon Christian principles.
Harry S. Truman: Statement by the President Upon Reappointing Myron Taylor as His Personal Representative at the Vatican, May 3, 1946

I don't think that we should get too excited about these surpluses, until we approach that place of unusability, deterioration, and spoilage. Then it gets serious, because I believe now that we have a moral value involved. I just don't think it is right for the sweat and toil and resources of the United States to be thrown out in the middle of the ocean when someone else is starving.

Now, you say "all right, if it is not socialistic, it is based on a purely humanitarian thing"--and I believe George Kennan argues that humanitarian and moralistic values have no place in foreign relations. But after all, we do believe that we are a product and a representative of the Judaic-Christian civilization, and it does teach some concern for your brother. And I believe in that.
Dwight D. Eisenhower: The President's News Conference, June 17, 1953

My friends:

We have come together in memory of an inspiring moment in history-that moment, 300 years ago, when a small band of Jewish people arrived on the ship "Saint Charles" in what was then the Dutch colony or state of New Amsterdam. It was an event meaningful not only to the Jews of America, but to all Americans--of all faiths, of all national origins....

In this respect--as in so many others--they were no different from scores of other groups that landed on our shores. Only 34 years earlier, another party had landed at Plymouth Rock. That group, too, came here in the hope of escaping persecution, of gaining religious freedom, of settling quietly in the wilderness to build their homes and rear their families.

And there was another noble concept of our common Judeo-Christian civilization shared by these two groups: the ideal of peace.

I recall that wonderful prophecy of Isaiah: "And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness and assurance forever."

The pursuit of peace is at once our religious obligation and our national policy. Peace in freedom, where all men dwell in security, is the ideal toward which our foreign policy is directed.
Dwight D. Eisenhower: Address at the American Jewish Tercentenary Dinner, New York City, October 20, 1954

This is our power, and this our freedom. This is our future. And through this power—not drugs, not materialism nor any other "ism"—can we find brotherhood. And you can create the new Europe—a Europe democratic, a Europe united east and west, a Europe at long last completely free.

Now, we hear it said by some that Europe may be glum about her future, that Europe dares no more. Well, forgive me, but I think this kind of talk is nonsense. And I hope you think it's nonsense, too. It is you, Germany, and you, Europe, that gave the values and vitality of Judeo-Christian civilization to America and to the world. It is Europe that has known more tragedy and triumph than any place in history. Each time you suffered, you sprang back like giants—the giants, Adenauer and Schuman, Churchill and Monnet.
Ronald Reagan: Remarks to Citizens in Hambach, Federal Republic of Germany, May 6, 1985

Prime Minister Berlusconi. As President Bush has just mentioned, in Brussels, during the NATO meeting, I spoke, and then I spoke at Göteborg during the dinner that we shared. And I said that I was in agreement with what President Bush had said very clearly. The world scene has changed. There is no antagonism between Europe and the United States, on the one hand, and the Soviet Union on the other hand. The Soviet Union is something different.

And we're very interested as Europeans with the support of the United States; we look to a progressive journey of the Russian Federation. Maybe tomorrow, the day after, the Russian Federation might even become part of the European federation, where we have countries that share a common Christian civilization. And I believe that in the future we will also be able to speak of a Russian Federation that becomes part of the Atlantic Alliance.
George W. Bush: The President's News Conference With Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy in Rome, Italy, July 23, 2001

Why the Bible is Central to Our Curriculum

And why the Bible is so offensive to the modern university

Our starting point is the existence of God. Not a silent god, but the God of the Bible, who communicates to man.

Creationism and Calvinism

God is our Creator. The creature owes deference and obedience to the Creator. This is "Theonomy," and it is offensive to Autonomous Man and the University of Autonomy.

Before the Creator created all that is, the Creator knew the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 21:6, 13). God knows the future because God created it. The future has already been created. This is called "predestination," meaning the the destination of the creation was designed and set in motion before ("pre") it was even created. The path of every molecule and sub-atomic particle in the universe was set in motion, and is carefully and lovingly conducted by God through history to its predestined end. The thoughts I think and the feelings I feel are wave-particles of energy and chemicals that travel across the synapses of my brain and through my heart and "reins." All predestined by God. Some say my belief makes man a "robot." But God did not create man as a robot. You and I both know that we are not "robots." God created man in His Image. That means when I think and plan, when I paint a picture or compose a symphony, when I build a log cabin or a skyscraper that can house 25,000 people, I am engaged in the wonder-filled task of exercising dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26-28), something animals do not do.

No matter how glorious I think man is (by virtue of his being created in the Image of God), there are those who feel that my conception of God "violates" human "free will."

If you believe in "free will," you do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

If you believe in "free will," or that God cannot "violate" man's "free will," then you cannot logically believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

The words in the Bible were written by the hands of human beings, but I believe the Bible is the Word of God. God speaks through those human words. This says something about the words, something about the human authors of the Bible, as well as something about the God.

God wrote the Bible using "human pens." God made their hands move the way He wanted them to move. In the Bible, the will of God is sovereign over the will of man. 1 Peter 1:21 says

For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Of course, it was the "will" of Moses and Isaiah and Paul and other authors to write down words. Moses wrote what God told him to write, but perhaps Moses would say he wrote those words "of my own free will." Nobody pointed a gun at Moses' head and forced him to write. But what Peter says is controversial. Even though Moses and other Biblical authors freely wrote the words they intended to write, God was doing something through them, and the words they wrote were the words God wanted to be written. They did not write those words solely by their own "free will." Their hands moved the way God willed them to move. Their voices spoke the words God wanted spoken.

It's true, we can tell the differences between the words Moses wrote, the words Luke wrote, the words John wrote, and the words Paul wrote. They all had their own individual personalities and writing styles. But the men who wrote the words of Scripture had their lives — their parents, training, and life experiences — all orchestrated by God so that — guided by the Holy Spirit — they would write the exact words that God wanted to be written so that God could communicate exactly what He wanted to communicate to the human race. Their words are God's words. God's will trumps their will. Paul told Timothy that God "breathed out" His words through these human authors (2 Timothy 3:16, [theópneustos (Strong's #2315, from 2316 /theós, "God" and 4154 /pnéō, "breathe out"]).

To say that the Bible is the Word of God is to say that God's will is sovereign over the will of man. Some people find this deeply offensive.  God made the mouths of Moses, David, and Isaiah speak the words God wanted spoken. God made the hands of Matthew, Paul, and John write the words God wanted written. If God did not overrule the "free" and fallible will of man, how did their will to speak and write beget the infallible Word of God?

Some will say that since God predestines even sin, and then punishes sinners for the sin God predestined them to commit, it would be better if sinners had never been born. They had no "free will." They had no choice. "That's not fair." And if it's not "fair," it can't be true. But Mark 14:21 says exactly what Autonomous Man does not want to hear: God predestined Jesus to be put to death by sinners, who were held accountable for the sins they were predestined to commit.

"The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had never been born.”

That's pretty scary. Judas had no choice in whether he would be born. God created Judas without asking Judas for permission, and predestined Judas to commit a terrible sin (John 19:11).

But Judas was created in the Image of God. All sinners are created in the Image of God. And in the end, every knee will bow and every sinner will admit that God's Judgment is fair (Isaiah 45:23; Romans 14:11; Philippians 2:10-11). All sinners will say "I admit. I sinned." All sinners will admit that God is just. Even though He predestined them to sin (Romans 9; Isaiah 10).

Acts 2:23
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Acts 4:27-28
“For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.

Christians who oppose the Sovereignty of God and uphold the "free will" of man claim that predestination "makes man a puppet." But as I said, man is clearly not a puppet; we both know that; man is created in the Image of God. But the Bible agrees that God's sovereignty makes man a "puppet" of God's decree. The Bible describes man not as a "puppet," however, but as a bucket of water.

Well, not a bucket, but a river of water.

Proverbs 21:1
The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, 
Like the rivers of water;
He turns it wherever He wishes.

How is this not like being "a puppet?"
Is a meandering river created in the Image of God?
How is the opponent of God's Sovereignty not making an accusation against God?

I said I believe the Bible is the Word of God. That means I worship the Bible. That alarms nearly every church I know.

The Bible claims to be the Word of God. It claims that God speaks to human beings. It claims that God used human beings the way I am using a keyboard as I write this.

Let's consider first the claim that God speaks, and the Bible is God speaking to us.

• If this claim is false, and the universe is just a meaningless, accidental result of molecules bumping into each other for endless eons, then there is no difference between a nurse and a serial rapist. Both are doing what they like, and both enjoy whatever their DNA makes them enjoy.
• If this claim is true -- if the Bible is God Himself speaking to us -- it doesn't seem like very many church-goers are listening very seriously.

Imagine that a UFO lands on the White House lawn, and an extraterrestrial being hands the President a Peace Treaty. The ET says, "Read this Treaty. It tells you how to cure cancer, end war, obtain free energy, eliminate the threat of global warming, and extend life-spans by hundreds of years. If you agree to abide by its terms, our race will help your race. If you do not agree, we will destroy you. We will wait right here for your answer."

Network television will have their cameras at the White House 24/7. Commentators will be speculating endlessly about what the extraterrestrial Treaty says, and whether or not the President will accept their terms. People will cancel vacations and having children, breathlessly waiting for the decision, knowing their entire future hangs in the balance.

If there are any ET's in the universe, they were created by the God of the Bible. His Word is more important than the word of any ET.  But we spend more time watching CNN or FoxNews than we spend listening to the Bible, even though the news channels aren't covering anything as interesting as a UFO on the White House lawn. For some, "news" doesn't get our attention as much as sports, soaps, or celebrities.

All the while, we have a book from the Creator of the universe sitting un-read on a shelf next to the Flat Screen TV.

What the heck is wrong with us?

The Bible is a Peace Treaty that God is willing to enter into with those who have been in rebellion against Him. The Treaty calls for unconditional surrender on our part.

Autonomous Man hates the very existence of the Bible.