What is Wrong With This Theology?

 

I found the above short clip in which Leighton Flowers attempts to answer a typical Calvinist question put to him as follows:

“Leighton, if we are condemned because of our sin, how is God unjust for choosing some and not others, if all have sinned?”

The question relates to the Calvinist doctrines of “Total Depravity” and “Unconditional Election”. The theology is centered on two propositions: (1) All mankind are sinners without exception, and deserve damnation and hell. (2) Therefore God is not “unjust” to arbitrarily decide to “save” some, and “pass over” others, and leave them in their state of damnation. The argument is that since they are all condemned anyway, and deserve damnation, it does not make God “unjust” to arbitrarily and unilaterally decide to save some, and not others—without regard to any potential merit or demerit on their part (which is the Calvinist theological position). The questioner is basically trying to justify Calvinism by asking that question, to which Leighton Flowers for the most part gives the wrong answer. The error in that theological statement is that it goes counter to the essential attribute in the character of God, that he is “no respecter of persons,” and that “in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34-35). See further Rom. 2:11; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; James 2:1, 9; 1 Peter 1:17.

“No respecter of persons” means that God does not discriminate, he does not have favorites. He treats everyone alike, and judges them on an equal basis. He applies the same standard of judgment to all. He condemns the wicked for their wickedness, and saves the righteous for their righteousness. Acts 10:34-35 contradicts both of those two tenets of Calvinism: “Total Depravity” and “Unconditional Election”. The story of Cornelius falsifies both tenets. Both are heretical, false, unbiblical, and incorrect. Leighton Flowers for the most part gives the wrong answer to that question. His answer begins as follows:

“Well, one, I would say, l am not sure that we are condemned ultimately for our sin. And l am not trying to say, we are not condemned for our sin. What l am saying is, ultimately John chapter 3 says, You stand condemned already, because you did not believe. You perished because you refuse to love the truth.”

That is incorrect. We are condemned for our sins. John chapter 3 is referenced out of context. In that chapter, Jesus was referring to people whose primary sin, or cause of condemnation, was unbelief in him. That is a common theme that runs throughout the Gospel of John. See John 5:37–40; 6:36–40, 44–45; 8:23–24; 10:24–29; 12:35–37, 42–43. It does not mean that unbelief is the only sin for which people are condemned, or held accountable; or that “faith,” or “belief” alone is sufficient to save anyone—apart from genuine repentance. None of that is suggested by John chapter 3. He has overlooked verse 21 for example, which makes it clear that everyone is not wicked, evil, and sinful, and prefers “darkness” rather than light. Some do, and some don’t. He continues:

“So there are sinners in heaven and hell, we all agree with that.”

Not true! There are no “sinners” in heaven. All that are in heaven have repented of their sins, which means that they are no longer “sinners”. True repentance cleanses one of sin, which means that the person is no longer a “sinner”. Sins genuinely repented of are forgiven and wiped clean, so that it is as though they were never committed. That is the biblical doctrine. In the abominable heresy of Calvinism, however, repentance doesn’t do anything. It doesn’t even exist. It is all “faith,” and nothing else! “Repentance” is something that just happens to you whether you like it or not just became you have “believed!” He continues:

“Matter of fact if you were comparing the morality, the numbers of sin of those in heaven and hell, you would find l am sure many people in heaven like David, who did so much worse sins on the scale of sinfulness—adultery, murder, these kinds of things, of people in heaven, compared to this you know sweet little old lady who never murdered anybody, or committed adultery with anybody. The only sins she ever committed were these little white you know lies, and these little bitty sins over here, compared to those really bad sins of David for example. And so if you are getting into a comparison game, ultimately you don’t go to hell because of sin, because there are people like I said in heaven and hell that have sins. Sin is not the common denominator, okay. I mean, sin is the common denominator of those in heaven and hell. So therefore it is not the ultimate reason one is condemned.”

Not correct, see above. People go to hell because of sin, and for no other reason. All that are in heaven have repented of their sins, which means that they are no longer classed as “sinners”. He continues:

“What is the ultimate reason? Unbelief. It is the unwillingness to believe and trust in God that will ultimately condemn you. And so that is the first point I would point out, is that your ultimate reason for you being condemned for your sin is because of unbelief, not because of the sins, or the number of sins, or Adam’s sin, or anything like that; so your condemnation is ultimately for unbelief.”

Altogether wrong! That is still Calvinism. “Faith alone” doesn’t save anyone, but genuine repentance does. You can’t defeat Calvinism with one foot stuck in it. He wants to be able to oppose and defeat Calvinism, while still having one foot stuck in it. That is impossible. It can’t be done that way. He continues:

“And then you could say, How is God unjust for choosing some and not others? Well one, the other thing I would say is that God does choose some and not others. Some people try to think that is uniquely Calvinistic. No, we believe God chooses some people and not others. Unless you are a universalist, you have to believe that God chooses to save some people and others. We just believe we know who he chooses and why, because the Bible tells us. He chooses those who humble themselves and trust in him. He chooses believers; and so he does choose some and not others; and so that would be the other part of that.”

He has got that partially right. It is true that God chooses some and rejects others, or saves some and condemns others. But he does so on the basis of the criteria expressed in Acts 10:34-35, not “faith alone”. That is still Calvinism. He still has one foot stuck in Calvinism. He continues:

“What I assume you mean is, How is God unjust for unilaterally or unconditionally picking to save some people and not others. I guess that is maybe what you mean. And I don’t know that that is necessarily unjust, as much as it is unbiblical, and unchrist-like.”

That is what he does mean, which is both “unjust” as well as “unbiblical”. It would make God a “respecter of persons,” which of course he is not—and which would indeed make God “unjust” if he was. He continues:

“Christ said to stop and help your enemies, not to pass by them on the other side of the road; and yet you have Calvinism ultimately passing by all the reprobates on the other side of the road, and not really loving them; and that is not a biblical concept. It is not a Christian concept. It is more unchristian, it is unchrist-like, more so than it is unfair or unjust.”

He has got that bit also partially right. God is not only merciful and kind, but also just. He judges people according to their works: “they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (John 5:29). He continues:

“But not only that, the reason that there is the call of injustice with regard to the arbitrariness of God on Calvinism, is because of the fact that the reason people sin, and the reason people reject the gospel on Calvinism, is because God decreed them to do so on Calvinism. And that is what is explicitly unjust in our estimation; not only unbiblical, but unjust as well. So it is not just this, his picking of people who are righteous or unrighteous, or his picking of people who are believers or unbelievers, or his picking of certain people for no apparent reason whatsoever. It is the fact that Calvinism maintains that God is ultimately the decreer of people’s rebellion and their unbelief; and yet also judging them for their rebellion and their unbelief; and that is intuitively unjust—not only intuitively unjust, I think there is biblical examples of how God would call that unjust for people to do such things; and therefore we would have to have a really good didactic text teaching us that God somehow supersedes the very laws and explanations of what he expects people to be and to do with regard to what is fair and just.”

He has got that bit of it right. That is the only bit that he has got right. But ultimately, his biggest theological error is that he completely overlooks repentance, which is a central tenet of the biblical doctrine on the subject. Salvation is not through “faith alone,” but genuine repentance. Calvinism is antithetical to repentance; and he can’t defeat Calvinism while having one foot stuck in it. He needs to come out of it completely to be able to defeat it thoroughly and comprehensively.

Calvinism = License to Commit Sin!

 

I found the above video by Derek Thomas in which he effectively argues against repentance (or just pays lip-service to it), demonstrating that Calvinism is practically a license to commit sin. It is a short video, so I can quote the entire transcript and discuss it in more detail. He begins as follows:

“How much sin do you need to forsake in order to come to Christ?”

The answer is, All of them! Name me one sin in the Bible that we are excused from, and are not required to repent of. I don’t know of any. He continues:

“How much remorse do you need to have? How much sense of guilt do you need to have before you can come to Christ?”

The answer is, Enough remorse, sense of guilt etc. to bring you down to repentance, or to cause you to forsake your sins. “Remorse” and “sense of guilt” alone are not what constitute repentance. To “repent” means to forsake sin. Endless “remorse” and “sense of guilt” is not what it means to repent. He continues:

“And all of a sudden, repentance—and repentance is a requirement, of course—but the quality of my repentance can become the standard, the marker of my justification. And all of a sudden, I am justified not by faith alone, but I am justified by the quality of my repentance.”

“Faith alone” is the heresy of Calvinism. It is not biblical. The biblical doctrine is faith coupled with repentance. And to “repent” means to stop sinning. It means to stop doing what you know to be wrong, and start doing what you know to be right. It means to stop breaking God’s commandments, and start keeping them. “Constant remorse” is not what constitutes repentance. He continues:

“And all of a sudden, it is a performance. It is our obedience. It is our works.”

Repenting of our sins, living a righteous life, and keeping the commandments of God are not the same as “works”. “Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness etc.” are not “works”. You are not doing any “work” by abstaining from those sins. You would be doing a lot more “work” by committing those sins than by abstaining from them. He continues:

“And you can dress that up in very fanciful, spiritual language that sounds very biblical. ‘Do you need to repent in order to be a Christian?’ Yes and no.”

Wrong! The biblical answer to that question is a definitive, unequivocal Yes! There are no “ifs” and “buts” about it. We need to repent of our sins in order to be saved, or to become a Christian. He continues:

“Yes, we need to repent, but it is not our repentance that justifies us.”

It is not our “faith” that justifies us either. It is God who justifies us when we fulfil his requirements, which are faith and repentance. Faith without repentance will not “justify” anyone; and to “repent” means to turn away from sin. It means to stop breaking the commandments of God, and start keeping them. He continues:

“It is not the quality of our repentance that justifies us. In the history of the church, this has sometimes been labeled “preparationism,” that you need to prepare yourself in order to come to Christ. You need to be in a certain frame of mind. You need to have gone through various stages in your recognition of your sinfulness before you can come to Christ.”

He is making repentance sound a lot harder and more complicated than it is. Ezekiel in the Old Testament explains it like this:

Ezekiel 33:

14 Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right;

15 If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die.

16 None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.

Nothing complicated about that. And in the New Testament John the Baptist explains it like this:

Luke 3:

7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

9 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

10 And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then [to repent]?

11 He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.

12 Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do [to repent]?

13 And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.

14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do [to repent]? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

And Jesus says:

Matthew 11:

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

There is nothing difficult or complicated about repentance. It means to forsake sin. It means to stop doing what one knows to be wrong, and start doing what one knows to be right. That was the main focus of Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament (Matt. 5:1–48; 6:1–4, 14–15, 19–21, 31–34; 7:1–5, 12–14, 21–29; 16:27; 19:16–21; 23:1–39; 25:1–46; Mark 3:1–5; Luke 6:6–10, 20–49; 8:15–21, 40–56; 12:31–48; 15:7; 16:19–31; John 5:28–29). He taught doing good, and abstaining from evil (Matt. 5:44; 25:23; Mark 3:4; Luke 6:9; 6:27; 6:33; 6:35; 5:29); and his disciples likewise did the same (Acts 10:38; Gal. 6:10; Heb. 13:16; James 4:17; 1 Peter 3:11; 3 John 1:11). Calvinist theology is inherently antithetical to repentance. It is a license to commit sin and get away with it. “Doing good” in Calvinism is a sin! That is “works,” and you are damned! So he tries to make repentance appear as something that is in reality impossible to achieve—and therefore not even worth trying. He pays lip-service to repentance, but in practise he denies it. He continues:

“And this affected certain aspects of Puritanism, particularly in New England in the late 1600s, early 1700s. And Thomas Boston was adamant that this was incorrect, that it violated, it undermined the doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone.”

I am not a defender of “Puritanism”. The Puritans were themselves an offshoot of the Protestant heresy, and were tainted with many of its doctrinal errors. I am a defender only of biblical Christianity, which is diametrically opposed to Calvinism. He continues:

“Paul hadn’t come to Galatia to offer ‘religion,’ a moral code of behavior that would produce a certain kind of citizenship in Europe.”

Paul certainly came to Galatia to preach a moral code of behavior that would produce citizenship in the Kingdom of God. This is what he taught to the Galatians:

Galatians 6:

7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

And he taught the same things to the Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 6:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

And likewise he taught the same to the Romans:

Romans 2:

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the [pagan] Gentile:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the [pagan] Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

And Peter sums it all up very nicely in these words:

Acts 10:

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation [including religion] he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

They didn’t teach Calvinism, for sure! According to these verses, repentance without faith saves people faster than faith without repentance. An unbelieving pagan who does what is good and right in his life out of a good conscience, will be saved; whereas a believing Christian who does evil (and does not repent), will receive a greater condemnation than an unbelieving pagan who commits the same sin (Luke 12:47–48).

According to the words of Jesus, judgment takes place on judgment day on the basis of people’s actions, not “faith” alone (Matt. 7:21–27; 16:27; 25:31–46; John 5:28–29; Rev. 20:12–13; 22:12); and believers who sin (and do not repent) will receive a greater punishment than unbelievers who commit the same sins (Luke 12:47–48).

And as far as “rewards” are concerned, Jesus talks about “rewards” all over the place in the New Testament. A quick search produced these results: Matt. 5:12, 46; 6:1–6, 16, 18; 10:41–42; 16:27; Mark 9:41; Luke 6:23, 35; 23:41. Then he finally concludes his remarks with the following words:

“He [Paul] had come to [Galatia] to offer a message of grace. He had come to offer freedom in Christ. He had come to emancipate those who by nature are slaves and in bondage and to set them free, to be what God intends them to be, to become children of God and heirs of God.”

Paul came to preach a message of repentance (Rom. 2:4; 2 Cor. 7:9-10); and Jesus did so even more (Matt. 4:17; 9:13; 11:21; 12:41; Mark 1:15; 2:17; 6:12; Luke 5:32; 11:32; Luke 13:3, 5; 15:7, 10; 24:47). He didn’t come to preach Calvinism, and neither did Jesus.

The doctrine of repentance does not sit well with Calvinism. Calvinism is a license to sin with impunity, and get away with it. Repenting of your sins in Calvinism is “works,” and you are damned! It is as unbiblical, heretical, and false as it can get. It is the doctrine of demons. It is the biggest perversion of the gospel in the history of Christianity. Avoid at all cost.

Molinism vs. Calvinism!

 

I came across the above interesting debate between William Lane Craig and James White, in which several issues relating to Calvinism are brought up and discussed, including the origin of evil and the freewill of man. It is a long video, and I don’t intend to give it a full commentary. I will only briefly mention some highlights. The mistake that William Lane Craig makes is that he tries to defeat Calvinism with Molinism. Calvinism can only be defeated with scripture. Molinism doesn’t have the real answer to it. The following are the main points brought up in the discussion, that need to be commented on:

1. “Middle Knowledge” and “counterfactuals of freedom” (concepts employed by Molinism to counter Calvinism) are not biblically sound doctrines. They are contradicted by the theology taught in Genesis chapter 20 for example. They therefore cannot be used effectively to counter Calvinism.

2. The question of the origin of moral evil is another principle that is highlighted in the debate and discussed. That is something that I have already brought up and discussed several times in my previous blog posts, therefore there is no need to discuss it again here.

3. The question of why God allows moral evil to exist in the world is another issue that is brought up and discussed, to which William Lane Craig basically gives an incorrect or inaccurate answer. The biblical answer to that question is that mankind must be free to make wrong choices as well as right ones, or to commit evil acts as well as righteous acts, so that they can be “judged according to their works,” and be rewarded or punished accordingly, as taught in the Bible: “… they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (John 5:29). How could they be “judged” according to their “works” (good or bad) on judgment day (and be rewarded or punished accordingly), if they lacked the freedom and ability to do either?

4. The most important question that is brought up, however, which is the real question that James White is asking is, What is the source and origin of human “freewill”—if he has one? That is the real question that James White is asking—although he is not articulating it very well. His point is a valid one. His point is that if God made man out of nothing, then whatever “freewill” he has (if any) must have been manufactured, and therefore predetermined by its creator; therefore it cannot be totally “independent,” and therefore “free”. If God indeed made man out of nothing, then whatever “freedom” or “freewill” man may possess, cannot be totally independent from its creator—and therefore cannot be truly “free”. That is the point that James White is making—although he is not articulating it very well. That is a valid argument.

The Bible unfortunately does not give the answer to that question. The Bible indeed affirms the absolute moral agency and freewill of man, no doubts about it. But it doesn’t explain or address the philosophical question of where that moral agency and freewill originates from. Hence James White chooses to question its existence, following his Calvinistic model of thinking, rather than merely taking at face-value the biblical affirmation of its existence. But his questioning of it is based on a purely philosophical consideration, rather than a biblical one. If you start with the assumption that God made man out of nothing, then that dilemma becomes real and inevitable—notwithstanding the biblical affirmations of man’s moral agency and freewill. The solution to it unfortunately is not given in the Bible. The Bible does not give the answer to that question. The Bible affirms the absolute freewill and moral agency of man; but it does not explain where it originates from. The answer to that question is to be found only in the modern scriptures of the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Here is a quote:

Doctrine and Covenants 93:

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

The correct answer to that dilemma is that God did not make man out of “nothing”. The “intelligent” part of man (whatever that is) was not created by God, it has always existed. The precise nature of this “intelligence,” or “light of truth” that was “not created or made, neither indeed can be” has not been revealed, and a lot of incorrect speculation has been made about it among Latter-day Saints in the past. But it does resolve the dilemma of the true origin and source of man’s freedom, or “freewill”. God didn’t make man out of nothing—contrary to the presuppositions of Calvinists and Molinists alike. That is the correct and ultimate answer to James Whites’ question. That video by the way has also been further discussed here, which is interesting to watch. 

No Democracy in the Bible!

 

I found the above video in which John MacArthur argues that there is no “democracy” in the Bible! Here is a quote:

“And we have never had a king in America. We in fact pride ourselves on the American revolution, in which we threw off the rule of a king, a British king by the name of George the Third. We celebrate the fact that we have freed ourselves from kings. That has become much the way of the world. There are few monarchies who have actual kings. There are some symbolic kings, powerless symbolic kings and queens. There are some autocratic military monarchical dictators, where one man rules with power, even over life and death. But an absolute monarchy is very rare; there are only a few. We celebrate the end of monarchies, the end of dictatorships, the end of kings. We hail democracy in our country. We have spent countless dollars, countless lives, countless years trying to turn other countries into democracies like us.

Now I may shock you, the Bible doesn’t advocate democracy; the Bible doesn’t mention democracy; the Bible doesn’t comment on democracy; the Bible doesn’t define democracy. There is no place in all of the Bible where you even find democracy. There is no country revealed in scripture where it existed. It is never affirmed by God. Was Israel a democracy? Never! What was it? It was a theocratic monarchy, and God was king. Yahweh was their king. The covenant God was their king. The Lord Yahweh was Israel’s king forever. There is only one God in the universe, and he in his mercy and grace gave himself to a people, the Jews, to be their king. What an astonishing privilege, right?”

He is wrong about a lot of that, like he is about many other aspects of his Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. There is indeed democracy in the Bible, and it defines exactly what it is. The Bible identifies a long period of “Judges” in the history of ancient Israel during which there was “no king” in the land, and freedom and democracy prevailed:

Judges 17:

6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Judges 18:

1 In those days there was no king in Israel: …

Judges 19:

1 And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel …

Judges 21:

25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Notice, firstly, that four times, in four different chapters, it asserts that there was no king in Israel in those days. Saying it once or twice wasn’t enough, it has to repeat it four times! It doesn’t say, “But wait a minute, they had a king, and his name was God!” “No king” means what it says, “no king,” and that is the definition of democracy. That is what “democracy” is. Secondly, notice that on two of those four occasions, it is qualified further by adding that “every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” In other words, there was no ruler, no despot over them telling them what to do, or how to live their lives. They were free to do as they pleased, or to live their lives as they wanted. They did not have a dictator ruling over them, telling them what to do or how to live. That is the definition of “democracy.” Democracy doesn’t mean that you have to have a “presidential election” every five years. It means that there is “no king,” no dictator, no tyrant telling you what to do, or how to live your life. You are free to “do that which is right in your own eyes”. That is the definition of democracy.

The “Judges” were not despots, they were not tyrants, they were not autocratic rulers. And the succession was not “hereditary,” as in a monarchy. They ruled by the “consent of the governed”. They relied on the willing cooperation of the people to get what they wanted. If the people didn’t want to follow, obey, or cooperate with them, they couldn’t do it. If they needed to fight a war for example, they relied on the willing cooperation of the people to raise an army to go and fight. They had no forced military conscription to raise an army to fight. They ruled by the genuine consent of the people. If the people didn’t want to follow or obey them, they had no power to force them to. That is the meaning of democracy. When they asked Samuel to appoint a “king” over them for example, he had no choice but to give them what they wanted—even though he didn’t think that it was a good idea, and told them so.

These are all characteristics of a genuine democracy, or a free democratic society. It was a democracy in the full sense of the term. The fact that the people themselves chose to throw it away afterwards, and were able to do so, is itself evidence of that. You can’t throw off dictatorship except through violence, insurrection, and revolution. But democracy, once gained, can easily be lost, or thrown away at will, by making the wrong choices and decisions. The Americans had to fight a war in order to gain their democracy and freedom. It is called the War of Independence. But they don’t need to fight any wars in order to lose it. All they need to do is to follow the advice of people like John MacArthur, and it is done.

It is a long sermon, and the rest of it contains many more theological, exegetical, and hermeneutical errors which would be too tedious to attempt to unravel and unpack. I will just briefly quote a few additional scriptures that clarify the theology on the subject. The first is a quote from Deuteronomy (written by Moses from God, before the period of the “Judges” began), indicating that God is not altogether against their having a “king,” provided that he is a righteous king who obeys God, and rules over the people in righteousness:

Deuteronomy 17:

14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;

15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:

20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

So God was not opposed to their having a king, provided that he was chosen by God, and he was a righteous king, and kept the Commandments of God. The next set of scriptures indicate that God is indeed the “king” of the whole earth, not just of Israel. He is the king and ruler of all nations of the world, whether they realize it or not, or know about it or not. The only difference was that the Israelites had good reasons to know about it, whereas other nations didn’t:

Ezra 1:

2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

Psalm 47:

7 For God is the King of all the earth: sing ye praises with understanding.

Isaiah 37:

16 O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.

Jeremiah 10:

10 But the Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.

So the Israelites were not an “exception” in having God as their king. All nations have God as their king. What set the Israelites apart was that they were exceptionally aware of this phenomenon, or had good reasons to be, whereas other nations weren’t.

One last point remains to be mentioned in relation to his sermon. At the very beginning, in the initial trailer to his sermon, he has some mean and nasty things to say about Muslims and Islam:

“Don’t tell me you want to invite more Muslims in, who represent a religion from hell, and then put your hand on the throne of God.”

LOL! After getting his Bible upside-down, and his theology all twisted and wrong way round, getting his Islam and Muslims all twisted and wrong was not unexpected. Any religion that promotes the worship of the one true God, and adherence to the biblical standards of morality, goodness, virtue, and righteous living; justice, judgment, and truth etc. as Islam does, is going to be a force for good in the world, as Islam has been. This video gives a tiny glimpse of that:

I found that video by just Googling for “achievements of Islam”. There are lots more such information to be found. A religion that feels the need to constantly berate, disparage, and denigrate other faith traditions in order to promote itself, or ensure its own survival, has lost credibility, and is not worth wasting time with. I am glad I am in a Church that doesn’t feel the need to constantly berate, disparage, and denigrate other faith traditions, including Islam. See here and here for more info.