Search:

New World Order Blog
Jeremiah Project
Trashing America

second American Revolution theonomy federal reserve

Second American Revolution: Andrew Sandlin (4 of 4)

John Rushdoony Video Page
John Rushdoony Video Page John Rushdoony Video Page
John Rushdoony Video Page

Question: But wouldn't a Christian Republic run according to God's Law become oppressive to non-Christians?Andrew Sandlin: Theonomy will ensure the blessings of God according to the book of Deuteronomy. A people whose ethical foundations are the Law of God are promised the blessings of God. Even if we want to speak pragmatically, theonomy would drastically reduce the size of our federal government, state government and even municipal government. It would get the civil government out of our lives. It would destroy these messianic regulatory agencies. In a theonomic society, the vast majority of people would be very happy. The tax man wouldn't be seizing nearly as much money.If people actually knew what the law of God taught, most people would be in favor of that, because it would decentralize our civil government, it would punish those who need to be punished. The whole general situation of society would be much improved. Of course, that's not the idea that is set forth by many of our liberal opponents who think that we are out to seize political control to produce some radical social change. That's what they do. They seize political control for radical social change. We're not in favor of that. We believe that society is much greater than politics. Politics is only a small part of society. We believe that godly change comes through regeneration, godly families, godly churches, intermediate private institutions having nothing to do with the civil government, and volunteer work. So we're not looking for some Ayatollah Khomeini civil government. We are at the opposite end of the spectrum from that.The biblical principle of removing evil incrementally little by little is given by God to Joshua and Moses. It is necessary first for the church to educate the populace about the truth of the Word of God. The church is much more important than the state, although it has separate functions just as the family does. We don't believe that it will happen all in one day, one month, one year, ten years or perhaps even a century. We won't be able to enforce the law of God as we'd like to. We've been in an era of apostasy in this country for at least 150 years. We can't expect to turn things around over night.

Channel: People & Blogs
Uploaded: January 18, 2007 at 12:07 am
Author: jcr4runner

Length: 03:01
Rating: 4.11
Views: 893


Video Url:


Embed Code:

Video Comments

jcr4runner (February 12, 2008 at 11:00 pm)
I have done some reading on the Big Bang in A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking -- one of the people who popularized it.It's impossible according to physical models, but that is what the amount of dark matter left in the universe points to the Big Bang. It's an ex nihilo creation. That's what biblical inerrantists believe too -- the difference being that we see the necessity for a Creator who existed outside of time and space to be the first cause.
Jakemmx (February 12, 2008 at 1:55 am)
We don't really have a good mechanism at the moment (for the big bang at least, everything else is quite solid and is definitly not 'everything comming out of nothing') ... but it is very likely that it will end up being (essentially) an infinite loop or even just a small part of a bigger space. The only other explanation is even more impossible.
jcr4runner (February 11, 2008 at 10:51 pm)
Why is it not a physical impossibility for everything to come out of nothing?
Jakemmx (February 11, 2008 at 4:27 am)
"a physical impossibility"I would not go that far :)I do understand why people would think so though.
jcr4runner (February 11, 2008 at 4:23 am)
Yes, it's funny how spontaneous generation -- a physical impossibility -- is necessary in any naturalist biological model.At least at some point, life had to come into being out of non-life.
Jakemmx (February 11, 2008 at 2:58 am)
Old-Earth Creationists are at least not denying, and trying to disprove, a shockingly obvious FACT. I have no grudge against them, science does not have a terribly complete theory on abiogenisis at least.
jcr4runner (February 11, 2008 at 2:55 am)
How are your feelings on Old-Earth Creationists? Do you consider them to be fundamentalists too?Isn't it just your term of derision for evangelical Protestants in general?
Jakemmx (February 11, 2008 at 2:45 am)
I consider any young-earth Christians, among other things, to be fundamentalist. You're definition may be different, but you can't claim these people are not supported. Look at the polls.
jcr4runner (February 11, 2008 at 2:39 am)
The difference is that fundamentlists interpret the whole Bible and Christianity through the grid of those five truths. We all agree that these are true so we don't think it's "dangerous." But I'd argue that fundamentalists limit the Gospel because they don't see the whole picture. But as I said before, I've never met a Christian who called himself a fundamentalist, so I don't know why liberals go on perpetuating the myth.
Jakemmx (February 11, 2008 at 2:13 am)
The first one is that thebible is TOTALLY without error. (just that is dangerous enough...)The others are about jesus dying, intentionally, on the cross ... virgin birth (and that jesus is a diety) ... the ressurection ... and some other one (thought it had something to do with the miracles).Most christians do not call themselves 'fundamentalists', but many/most of them agree with or support the ideas that thos people push (even if they don't support the people themselves)

Rousas J. Rushdoony Video Page © 2007 All Rights Reserved.