Spiritual Communism, Obama, and the Future of America
There are many perplexing events taking place around us that really shouldn’t be that confusing at all: how in the world could Obama have won the election with this kind of economy (a first)? How could the Obama administration turn their backs on the Benghazi consulate and leave them for dead? Why would we not secure our border with Mexico immediately in the face of terrorist infiltration of our society on a large scale? How can the horrors of late term abortions be acceptable to any lawmaker? How can we take money from hard workers who are barely scrapping by and give it to those who won’t work?
“Because Obama is evil.” “Because Obama is a typical Democrat.” Because Obama isn’t a Christian.” “Obama is stupid.” Maybe, but even if those reasons are true; they are beside the main point. What Obama is standing for does not defy common sense at all if you understand his….philosophy.
Obama’s philosophy is one of two primary ancient philosophies that were among those living in the cradle of civilization. Those two primary philosophies are determined by how they answer one single question: who owns man? Now, if you hang around with my crowd, they are quick to respond by saying, “God owns man! Are you stupid?” Maybe, but this is also beside the main point.
The fact that God rightfully owns man is a given; how God has decided to execute His ownership is a much broader consideration. It begins with giving Him the glory that is due, which of course starts with the gospel. Once that is established, or nevertheless not established in the minds of many, is man created with a capability to be responsible for the sum and substance of his life before God? Stated another way: are men a herd of mindless animals created by God who need His specially anointed cowboys to manage the herd? Is mankind CAPABLE? This boils down to the philosophy of competence versus incompetence.
Sure, man depends on God for his needs—no doubt there, but past that, is there a capable colaboring involved that God expects on a Christian level, and on a non-Christian level as well? In other words, on the judgment day, will God only judge man for what he decided to do about His Son or will God judge man according to other things as well? The answer follows:
Matthew 12:36
I tell you, on the day of Judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,
Man is both capable, and responsible. He is competent. And many concur—Christian and non-Christian. Does capability equal free will to choose God? I won’t go there, but it is clear that man is capable for something, and that he is free—born free if you will. It is interesting to note that procreation was going to happen with Adam and Eve regardless of the fall (Genesis 1:28), but they were only mandated to rule over creation; and not each other. This idea doesn’t exclude roles or leadership in some sort of project, but it does exclude God-appointed masters who have a special pipeline to His higher knowledge; eg, a spiritual caste system.
The latter is the other side of the argument, and qualifies the prism that I will use to clarify the rest of my thesis in this essay. Church historian John Immel organizes it this way: who owns man? Does government own man? Or does man own man? This is how I am going to frame my contention as well, but with a little twist: who owns man? Does government own man at the behest of God as a higher life form, or as a personification of an impersonal cosmic power? Or does man own man as a competent individual who will answer to nobody but God for the sum and substance of his/her life?
This is the battle of the ages. All mortal blood spilled on the earth finds its ancestor in this fundamental question. Man functions by His philosophy. The competence versus incompetence is the metaphysical argued with epistemology, determining ethics, and resulting in politics. And God is above all of it with His own metaphysical declaration—the Bible. Yet, in case no one has noticed, God Himself does not rule directly on earth—not yet anyway. Therefore, man is free, but what will one day be responsible before God at the judgment. Throughout Scripture, Christ describes Himself as a master who has gone on a long journey and assigned His servants to certain responsibilities while He is gone. When He returns, there will be an accounting.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch we call earth, the battle continues. It is a war, and has always been a war between those who demand to rule the incompetent masses by proxy, and the free, capable, and responsible. Hence, as a footnote, the latter often objects to the former demanding obedience to that which violates their consciences—stated another way by the apostle Peter: “We should obey God and not man.” Likewise, the apostle Paul: “Follow me as I follow Christ.”
For the most part throughout human history the philosophy of incompetence has reigned, and always clothed with virtue. Being guided by the enlightened who have been selected by God or the evolutionary survival of the fittest, life is for the sole purpose of serving what’s best for the whole of society, or the group. Self-identity as one who is utterly worthless unless defined by contribution to the whole is the epitome of good. Individualism is evil, and detrimental to the whole. Contribution to the whole in obedience to the government defines purpose. Carrots dangling on strings and motivations vary from hundreds of virgins, food, shelter, and clothing, to merely avoiding the boiling pot and starving beasts.
Cultural varieties are emperor worship, the government-approved god of your choice, and theocracies of all stripes. Historically, around the 6th century, its lame doctrine of mythology was replaced with the more sophisticated social engineering of Plato. Western culture is heavily vested in Platonic thought which presented the ideal society as ruled by philosopher kings. The second category of citizen was the soldiers who enforce the will of the philosopher kings. The third and lowest strata in the Platonic caste system were the producers. Again, the life purpose of the producer or common citizen was his/her ability to contribute to the group. The anti-virtue was individualism. Plato also believed that the soul mirrored the metaphysical society. One was born with a soul that matched the need of his/her environment; ie, society. This is evolutionary-like thought. One is born a philosopher king, a soldier, or a producer. Rather than man being created by God separately to rule over creation and subdue it, he is rather a product of it. Creation is the creator of man to meet its own needs as opposed to God creating man. Thus, creation is the god, not the personal saving God. Plato probably received these ideas from ancient forms of Hinduism while in exile after the execution of Socrates.
From there, this construct was adopted by the Doctor of Grace in the Catholic Church: St. Augustine. The Catholic Church throughout history has been the epitome of Plato’s Republic. Augustine’s understudies, Martin Luther and John Calvin, though the most notable figures of the Reformation—never fell far from the Catholic tree. They were merely more principled philosopher kings than the Catholic Popes. Though they railed against the Catholic Church’s supposed inferior soteriology, they retained the exact same Platonic caste system and remained endeared to Augustine. Calvin quoted Augustine on every 2.5 pages of the Calvin Institutes (or over 400 times).
The combination of these two caste systems, though estranged, wreaked bloody havoc on Europe for 300 years. The tyranny of the Catholic Church was also the tyranny of the Reformers: same philosophy, same results. From this turmoil and darkness, arose a pushback from the Enlightenment era. The founding fathers of America were a product of that movement. Our Constitution was specifically drawn to prevent the horrors of the European Dark Age. Paramount was the goal to keep philosophers of any sort from having the soldier to enforce their dogma. America is predicated on the separation of the soldier and the philosopher king. It was founded on rugged individualism and the assumed competence of man.
America was initially blighted by the Reformation caste system via the Puritans who held to Calvinism. The Bible they brought to America (The Geneva Bible) on the Mayflower was a Reformed commentary and the product of Calvin’s bloody theocracy in Geneva. Both movements failed. Tyranny eventually dies a social death.
This trifold caste system rejected by America found life as Communism in Europe after the American Revolution. Secular detractors of the philosophy who fled to the US; eg, Ayn Rand, understandably saw selfism as the contra philosophy. Of course, the wise Christian seeks a balance between “think[ing] higher of ourselves than we ought” as opposed to selfishness as a cure for the eradication of necessary self-confidence and truthful assessment of the individual. However, it is interesting that many contemporary proponents of Reformed theology in this country still rail on Rand, and make her one of the primary foes of Calvinism. So, to be against Calvinism is akin to being a follower of Ayn Rand. This, of course, is ridiculous. But don’t miss the main point: Why do Calvinists see a non-religious individual like Rand as a threat? Because they know it really isn’t about theology—it’s about the fundamental philosophical presupposition about man, and they know her understanding of such is a threat to the real heart of their theology.
This philosophical war will rage in this country till the return of Christ. It interprets most of what is before us in the news on a daily basis. We are presently in a transition. The welfare state is not the communist state. The welfare state is the transition period that communists use to convert a society into Plato’s utopia. Right now, the welfare state in America is about 47%. But there are no welfare recipients in a Communist state, only kings, soldiers, and PRODUCERS. Hence, the welfare recipients are eventually informed that they are the producers—if they want to eat.
This thesis answers many perplexities in our day. The shared belief that mankind is incompetent makes for strange bedfellows and alliances. Open borders feed the temporary welfare state that leads to Plato’s Republic. The day when the welfare recipients are informed that they are the producers. If not deceived, they could have been free producers rather than slaves of the government. Benghazi and abortions are sacrifices for the betterment of the group, as are many other considerations.
Obama was elected by the temporary welfare state which is right now at 47%. The other 53% must hold their ground and educate the public. The welfare state must be educated in regard to the fact that they are being used and headed for slavery. And if not them—at least their children. The real debate must be continually put forth:
Who owns man?
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Apart from Ayn Rand’s atheism, I don’t know why any Calvinist would have a problem with her. I think you need to understand that the only Calvinist who are consistent with Calvin’s political views are Theonomists. Though I have deep disagreements with their insistence that we should be brought under the Mosaic Law, I at least admire their consistency. I think the reality is that most Calvinists would not take the view you ascribe to them at all.
LikeLike
And we have the freedom to think of it either way, unlike Geneva. “By their fruits you will know them.”
LikeLike
Actually, even in Geneva there was room for differences of opinion. In matters of heresy, and M. Servetus was truly a heretic, capital punishment was executed in accordance with Old Covenant Law. I don´t agree with it, but I must acknowledge they were being consistent with their beliefs. I thank God for the inconsistencies of modern day Reformed thinkers in this regard. Apart from that, I would be in a watery grave if they had the authority to execute such a sentence.
LikeLike
Randy,
At that time in Geneva, heresy was not a capital offence. Calvin had him executed regardless. He is given credit by morons like John Piper for seeking a more humane execution, but the fact of the matter is that he shouldn’t have been executed to begin with. John Calvin was a murdering mystic despot by any standard.
LikeLike
The problem is that history is on Piper’s side. My view is that Calvin should have protested more stridently, but the view of the city council was that heresy, in accordance with the OT Scriptures was a capital offense. Whether it was written in the documents of Geneva or not, it was obviously considered a capital offense.
As you do, I believe they were dead wrong, but I believe they were acting according to a badly informed conscience, not out of malice.
LikeLike
Leonard Verduin gives evidence that Calvin ordered “green wood” so Servetus would burn slowly.See, Calvin had it in for Servetus for a long time. The whole thing was premeditated as we know Calvin wrote to a friend that if Servetus ever showed his face in Geneva he would not leave alive. Servetus was about as arrogant as Calvin but hunted by both sides. He was brilliant and one of the firstto recognize a pulmonary system. He also had the nerve to make corrections to some of Calvins writings in the margins and sent them to him. Why would Servetus go hear him preach if he thought Calvin would have him arrested on the spot?
There is just too much evidence in Calvins letters not to ascertain he had it in for him. Then there was the whole thing with civil vs religous crime. Calvin wanted a beheading not because it was more humane but because he wanted the civil part of the law to punish him because many were not very happy with the arrest and subsequent imprisonment. ,In fact, after the burning Calvin wrote a ltter to a friend lamenting the people he claimed were blaming him.
The Calvinists have been covering and making excuses for their guru Calvin for centuries. The man was a despot. Differences of opinion were allowed for a top level few. So that declaration is a bit silly considering the actual way folks had to live under his rule. Genevans meal courses were regulated. I mean they were micromanaged.
LikeLike
Lydia,
It is my understanding that MS was passing through Geneva and got stuck there on a Sunday because of a traveling glitch. Since it was the law that you had to attend church on Sundays, MS attended in a disguise but was recognized.
LikeLike
¨Genevan´s meal courses were regulated.¨ So were the Israelite´s. That is just my point. I am not defending anyone. I believe they were wrong. I just believe they were wrong because they didn´t understand the Old Covenant has been fulfilled and replaced by the New Covenant. If Calvin was the greatest scoundral who ever lived, that does not mean the truth he did teach is to be ignored. Truth is truth even on the lips of a fraud.
LikeLike
“I just believe they were wrong because they didn´t understand the Old Covenant has been fulfilled and replaced by the New Covenant. If Calvin was the greatest scoundral who ever lived, that does not mean the truth he did teach is to be ignored. Truth is truth even on the lips of a fraud.”
This is total cognative dissonance. How can Calvin be the brilliant theologian he is touted to be, whose doctrine carries his name to this day, and be so wrong about something so very fundamental to the New Covenant doctrines? It should make us look closer to see what else he got so very wrong. By your standard of reasoning, Jim Jones got some truths right and that means those truths should not be ignored FROM Jim Jones or any other charlatan despot. But then, we would ignore Jim Jones because HE was a fraud. As was Calvin. Calvin benefited from what he taught ‘wrongly”. It gave him power.
And this reminds me of how phoney some Reformed pastors are today. they will teach tithing while declaring the Old Covenant obsolete. Both sides teach a tithe to get money flowing but it is really phoney when Reformed teach it while declaring the OC obsolete. Hmmmm.
I suppose the role of Reformed pastors today is to tell us which parts of Calvin are truth. :o)
LikeLike
Lydia,
Here is my opportunity to earn what “cognative dissonance” is. Please explain.
LikeLike
Lydia,
To begin, I don’t believe in tithing. I believe you are exactly right about that, except that Reformed writers don’t believe the OC is obsolete. They are consistent with their position in teaching tithing. If I taught it, I would be inconsistent.
I do not now nor have I ever beleived all that Calvin taught. In reality, being a Calvinist in the soteriological sense has little to do with Calvin or with his writings. It could even be argued that he would have disagreed with some of what the Canons of Dort stated. I am not going to reject something because he believed it any more than I am going to believe something because he believed it. Unless I believe it is taught in Scripture, I refuse to believe it simply to comform to a theological position.
In answer to the question, “Are you a Calvinist?” my typical reply is “What do you mean by that?” I do not believe what most people think Calvinists believe. I certainly do not embrace all Calvin taught. If a person has a clear understanding of what Calvinists believe, I will use the term when talking to them as a sort of theological shorthand, but apart from that, I usually reject the term.
In reality yes, if Jim Jones taught the truth of God, I would have no problem acknowledging the truth of his statement. Calvin was not the first to teach what he taught. The truth was truth before he was born. Please don’t take this as an attempt to label you, but if you believe what you appear to believe, you are a semi-pelagian or an Arminian. Whether you accept those labels or not, they would likely accurately describe your position. That would not indicate that you have embraced everything Pelagius or Arminius believed and taught.
LikeLike
Would help if I spelled it right! Cognitive Dissonance:
holding contradictory beliefs such as
Calvin was a great theologian. Calvin got it wrong about_______ (fill in the doctrinal blanks)
LikeLike
Even a great theologian can arrive at wrong conclusions if he begins with faulty presuppositions.
LikeLike
I go back to the problem that some think they need so called “Great men of God” with titles to tell us which parts of Calvin are correct or not and even they don’t agree on it. So why has the name of Calvin lasted so long and reinvents itself and has so many lockstep followers in Calvinist factions over the latest reegnineered SP? I believe it is because Satan is delighted Calvin’s name is uttered more than Jesus Christ when it comes to doctrinal positions. And many young minds full of mush (and middle aged ones) have not figured that out yet because Calvinism gives them a platform to lord it over people with membership covenants, church discipline and other methods..Calvinism makes them feel “intellectual”
My prayer is one day they will kneel in shame and repentance for promoting this tyrant in any way shape or form.
LikeLike
Well Lydia, you must have been exposed to a brand of Calvinists I know nothing about. Most care nothing for the name of Calvin or for promoting the man. You must have been involved with some strange and damaging folks, but don’t judge all Calvinists by your experience. As stated above, I don’t care whether I am called a Calvinst or not, but if you understand theological terminlolgy and understand what I believe soteriologically, you could call me a Calvinist, but hey, “a rose by any other name. . . .”
LikeLike
Well Lydia, you must have been exposed to a brand of Calvinists I know nothing about. Most care nothing for the name of Calvin or for promoting the man. You must have been involved with some strange and damaging folks, but don’t judge all Calvinists by your experience. As stated above, I don’t care whether I am called a Calvinst or not, but if you understand theological terminlolgy and understand what I believe soteriologically, you could call me a Calvinist, but hey, “a rose by any other name. . . .””
Come on, Randy, that tactic is old and worn out. It is used by many in the patriarchal movement, too. That defense should only be used by hack lawyers representing rapists.
Even the most uninitated pew sitter is catching on that terms like New Cov Theology, Sovereign Grace, Doctrines of Grace, etc, etc are code for a variation of Calvins ST. And you forget I have been reading your comments here for a long time. You are part of the “brand”. YOu might be a benign Calvinist like quite a few I know who need to stop reading Piper and others…. but the roots of Calvinism are dark. A determinist god…a short walk to Allah.
On the bright side, I am meeting more and more folks who are coming out of it and taking responsibility for their behavior and beliefs and not following some guru. They are discovering the indwelling Holy Spirit.
. I suspect what we are seeing now become so popular is just another wave of it. We see throughout history brands of reengineered Calvinism (determinist god beliefs) rear it’s head and eithers dies out, gets very small or goes liberal. (Puritans, OPC, Presbyterian USA, etc). It will leave many wounded in it’s wake once again. The irony is that some who leave are becoming athiests…a natural assumption after believing in the determinist god who controls everything. Those are the folks I worry about and ironically you don’t have to worry about them because you can just say they were never really elect.
And yes, I have come across quite a few former rabid “Reformers” on blogs who are now athiests. It breaks my heart. And I always tell them: Jesus Christ was not a Calvinist. Read the Gospels for 3 years and KNOW Jesus Christ and you will detect a fraud right away. See, Jesus did not attract the intellectuals or the religous leaders right off the bat in droves. Christianity is very simple. Even an illiterate peasant can get it and share with others.
LikeLike