Thinking Christian in the Humanistic Wilderness

October 4, 2009




“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which as once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).


With heroic, unbending determination, the epistle of Jude stands as a clarion witness to all generations of the Church, exhorting her to engage in the systematic argument and proclamation of the truth of Christianity as the supreme and absolute religion over all opposition.

This “contending” is not a polite debate society where all facts, opinions and positions from all religions or philosophies are deliberated on equal terms with Christianity. Christianity is not interested in an egalitarian “exchange of ideas” with corrupt alien worldviews. There is no moral equivalency between belief systems. The Christian position holds that all true knowledge has its genesis in the Scripture and that Scripture is the final authority on every subject of which it speaks. The truth of Christianity then, rests not upon external evidence nor upon how well reasoned it’s argument may be, but upon Scripture. Accordingly, as ensigns and enforcers of truth, the saints of God enter the arena of life to prove and work out the faith with a view of dominion through desperate conflict. This dominance is not confined to salvific individual reform but extends to every area of culture

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. II Corinthians 10:4,5.

In the main body of this article, I hope to portray the battlefield, both within the Church and society at large, so that we may boldly pursue the reestablishment of orthodox presuppositions as a basis for enforcing Christ’s Crown and Covenant in a comprehensive way. It is important to note that according to I Corinthians 11:19, truth and orthodoxy are always worked out against error and heresy. Thus, I will not flinch in expressing the clear superiority of the orthodox position verses our adversaries including those within the Church.

The Battle Within

Modern American ecclesiastical expressions both Catholic and Protestant has been in doctrinal decay for over 40 years. This degeneration has been well documented from many quarters in recent years. Regrettably, very few pastors and priests seem to be heeding the warning signs of the resultant social disaster such decay will inevitably produce. While space does not permit me to examine the historical record regarding this negative phenomena, I will seek to examine the horrific effect hyper-Arminianism, so-called “Free Will Theism,” neo-orthodoxy and corrupted church growth philosophies have had on foundational doctrinal and ethical issues within the world of the American Church.

My method for contrasting modern innovations verses the orthodox paradigm will entail a point-counterpoint format ranging over selected topics. Ergo, I hope to encourage a renewing of the mind so we may again think like Christians.

Orthodoxy and Doctrine

The Church has rapidly declined in its once rigorous emphasis on doctrine. Doctrine is increasingly perceived as man made. “No creed but Christ” and “Christ is a person not a doctrine” have become popular refrains. Yet, even these are creedal statements though ill defined. It seems the more vague the better in modern ranks resulting in maximum latitude for infidelity to orthodoxy. A prevailing thought that all conflict is the result of inflexible dogmas, has caused truth to be sacrificed on the altar of convenience. Peace, unity and reconciliation at all cost are present goals and orthodoxy stands in the way!

Yet the traditional, historic path of the Church sees orthodoxy and doctrine as paramount. Consequently, conflict with the moderns is unavoidable.


It is the plain duty of Christians to strive in the establishment of Christ’s dominion on earth. This is accomplished through the superiority and efficacy of orthodoxy. Jude:3-11; Titus 1:9,10; 2:1. Christian distinctives are applicable to the regenerate and the unregenerate alike. Ergo, the Church must refuse to amend or yield in its doctrinal absolutes and there should be no surprise when autonomous man, an ethical rebel, balks at these absolutes seeking solace in the fog of subjective mysticism.  Truth proclaimed, like the sun, disperses such haze.

The Nature of Man

Modern thought, giving ground to semi-Pelagian judgment under the guise of “Free Will Theism, perceives man as intrinsically good, born morally neutral or judicially innocent. Accordingly, give man enough evidence and he will believe. Man’s will is free and supreme able to frustrate God’s will. In the most extreme cases, universal salvation is implied and at times formally advanced.

Traditional – Augustinian thought sees man apart from God as totally depraved. Unregenerate man, an ethical rebel, acts only in his own best interest in opposition to the truth. Hence, man needs conviction of sin, not evidence. His will is a slave to sin nature under bondage to the devil. No human social evolution apart from God (or humanism) is possible. This lays out the path of conflict with the liberal “man as God” motif.

The Gospel

The church modernist generally holds that the Gospel must be disguised so as not to offend. Presentations must be “seeker sensitive” to avoid condemnation. Care is taken not to use the Bible as it has a negative cultural context. Issues of sin are not to be discussed as this has a tendency to make the hearer uncomfortable. Thus, man not God is the center of this kind of Gospel.

In contrast, orthodox distinctives demand the proclamation of truth not the selling of it! The Gospel is a covenantal lawsuit which judicially condemns man as dead in trespass and sin, yet for the elect is life and redemption. The Gospel divides the sheep from the goats. It will not be accepted by all men and will never be palatable to those not called.


The modernist has put such a huge premium on.harmonious personal relationships that doctrine and practice have become subservient. Unity is based on how well one “relates” to others. The view is one of greater enlightenment, making so-called name calling such as heretic, apostate, heterodox, liberal etc. obsolescent in favor of “healing therapeutic language” which promotes peaceful coexistence and unity at all costs.

Orthodox thought holds that any relationship not defined by doctrine is idolatry. Unity based on confessional orthodoxy breeds sound relationships. Unity based on relationships is fraudulent. In the political context such thinking as profound effects on Constitutional adherence and fidelity.

Renewal and Reformation

Moderns tend to view “renewal” as man centered. Sentimentality and hyper-emotionalism stirred by impassioned guilt manipulation leads to pacifistic, pietistic introspection. This view tends to dualism and a compartmentalizing of life, which glorifies the spirit world and denies the material. This limits the rule of God to the unseen. Societal reformation is spoken of yet due to antinomianism (rejection of God’s Law), any “reforming” is turned inward, resulting in legalism and will worship.

Traditional distinctives depict revival and reformation as the consistent and persistent application of God’s Law Word to all spheres of life. Biblical revival leads first to a return of doctrinal orthodoxy and fidelity to the Law of God. As a result of this “reviving,” conviction of sin and the public destruction of idolatry coextensive throughout society is evidenced. Finally, a reconstruction of culture or Christian civilization is erected leading to national blessing, peace and prosperity.

Undoubtedly, I could sustain this comparison indefinitely ranging over a myriad of subjects. However, the point should be well taken that orthodox thinking, is quite different from modern man-centered subjectivism which is unwittingly allied with humanism. The main shows that neutrality is nonexistent and that the immutable truths of Scripture are in a state of war with all competing visions of reality.

“No neutrality” is an essential understanding if the Church is to challenge the corrupt antichristian worldviews which rule throughout our society. You can’t beat humanism with vague emotional fuzzies. Only a fully articulated Christian hope can engage and defeat the “bad guys” who hold competing visions of social order.

The Culture War

As previously stated, the scriptural pattern for the working out of our faith is always in juxtaposition to error and heresy. This pattern of dynamic tension is true when dealing with doctrinal issues within the Church and is applicable when combating alien philosophies outside of the Church.

The Church’s present fight is against the kingdom of humanism. As stated in our previous missives, Humanism is a religion which seeks to deify man through statist, pagan and occultic influences. Humanism, replete with its own manifesto, is a fully articulated antichristian worldview. The kingdom of humanism has touched every social institution in our nation including the Church. Thus, it is imperialistic. The myth of humanism is that a scientific elite has through time, reinvented God and ethics in man’s image (the antithesis of the Biblical record) and has engineered a superior secular culture, ever evolving into a cooperative society resulting in a utopian ideal and ultimately immortality apart from the God of the Bible. Human progress is akin to divinity itself and therefore any religion (especially orthodox Christianity) which would impede such progress is seen as retrograde, fit for eradication. Humanism then, tolerates no other gods before it. Obama follows this line with unerring accuracy.

Four men, though dead rule today through their humanistic notions.

Georg Hegel, the early 19th century German philosopher, believed that the spirit of man’s corporate mind could be best harnessed and solidified in the institution of the state. Such a state would be akin to God on earth.

Charles Darwin famous (or infamous) British scientist whose theories of evolution undermined the transcendent nature of God by repudiating creation and consigning man to the status of a higher functioning animal.

Friedreich Nietzsche late 19th century German theologian known for his blasphemous epitaph “God is dead, thanks be to God.” Meaning that the orthodox depiction of God is obsolete and thus the notion of God must be rebuilt through a societal elite or “supermen.”

Hegelian thought, Darwinism and Nietzsche’s infidelity led to the 20th centuries two most virulent forms of humanism in the mode of Fascism and Communism. This is the heart of Obamanation.

Karl Barth alarmed at Nietzsche like liberalism with its resultant tyranny, felt compelled along with other 20th century theologians to reinvent orthodoxy (deemed neo-orthodoxy or new orthodoxy). Unfortunately, Barth and his colleagues borrowed heavily on the heretical presuppositions of their more militant liberal brothers, in that they rejected confessional creedal orthodoxy (like Nietzsche convinced such notions were outmoded). Additionally, the neo-orthodox roundly reject the inspiration, infallibility and immutable authority of the Scriptures, derogatorily calling it “the paper pope.” Thus, while holding selected moral lessons of traditional Christianity, the neo-orthodox are essentially Unitarian-universalists. Notwithstanding, because they have remolded God into man’s image, they remain blaspheming heretics perhaps more dangerous than their frothing liberal counterparts in that neo-orthodox tyranny is kinder and gentler replete with a beguiling smile.

The neo-orthodox has had a profound and deleterious effect on Church vitality, effectively eroding both the ability and the will to resist humanistic thought. When you combine the effects of Hegelian statism, Nietzsche like elitism, Darwinian dehumanization and Barth’s anesthetizing universalism, you have a full orbed comprehensive world-life-view which like the builders of the tower of Babel are seeking to dethrone God and establish man as sovereign.


It should also be plain and painfully clear that many within the Church are not only unable to cope with this challenge, but for all intents and purposes has already been neutralized by adopting some if not all of humanism’s presuppositions.

The Nature of the Kingdom

The nature of the Kingdom of God holds that neutrality does not exist in any area of life. The primary notion being that all knowledge has its genesis and application in Scripture alone and that any other man centered idea, philosophy, political social theory, economics, educational theories, indeed man’s civilization itself is at war with God. The Kingdom of God agrees with the Biblical ideal or the sum of God’s will which requires the absolute destruction of sin and evil in the individual and society. Scripture clearly depicts the Kingdom of God as God’s authorized and judicially required civilization which subjugates all competing kingdoms. See Psalm 2:1-12; 103:19; 110:1-3; Matthew 24:14; 28:18-20; Ephesians 1:17-23; I John 3:8. Thus, the Kingdom of God is not static nor passively ethereal, but, is actively conquering all before it.

Hence The Kingdom of God, Christ’s Crown and Covenant, is always disinheriting all interests of unregenerate man and his kingdoms. Thus, humanism and the Kingdom of God are locked in mortal combat but the righteous are divinely guaranteed absolute and comprehensive victory!

Action Stations!

Americans, what will you do about the murderous agenda of humanism? How will you respond? Do you have the ability to respond? If not, why not? Do see the legions of apostates, neo and anti orthodox liberals, antinomians and flat out traitors within the Church ranks and lose hope? Is the humanistic juggernaut with its brigades of skeptics, modernists, hedonists, atheists, statists, feminists and other assorted miscreants assured of victory? Are you serious about fighting? Then allow me to lay out a practical plan to prepare you for combat.

First and foremost STUDY! Away with your popular sugar coated devotionals and fanciful “Christian novels” which know nothing of real battle, majoring instead on introspective navel gazing and vain imaginings. Be determined to read and study real theology in order to build your faith and steel you mind to go on the attack! You cannot have a small, introspective view of the work of Sanctification! NO! Sanctification is comprehensive and depicts a larger social order!

Secondly, ACT! Join with those organizations which have the theological muscle to defeat the “bad guys.” The whole point is that “you can’t beat something with nothing.” Twelve step programs, sentimental-male bonding crying seminars and seeker sensitive churches will be crushed by the humanists. Wake up saints! The humanistic Goliath is on the field and you can’t find your sling shot!

Embracing the Orthodox and comprehensive view of societal reform, means that a fundamental shift in the way you view the world must take place. You must forswear the compromise of humanism, the apathy of pietism and the apostasy of liberalism. It is time to think like, act like and fight like Christians. If you want to bring honor to your King, nothing else will do.


A final note: It is the folly of many strains of conservatives, constitutionalists, and patriots to presume that renovation can be effective without religious thought. Yet, all of life is religious! Even the Atheist has to define his existence in juxtaposition to the god-concept. Humanism and its roots all stem from religious thought. Without response from the core of Christianity, half- hearted intents will only slow humanisms grip. Think well on this lesson!




October 4, 2009

-1By Whitney Ann Dotson

The Roe vs. Wade case posed perhaps the most controversial handling of Constitutional material in history. The argument defended—the national legalization of abortion—stirred claim to liberties stated within the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified over a century earlier. The premise for this preference of action was established upon the Article’s general references to “equal protection” and individual recognition regardless of race or cultural distinctions. Those representing defense for the recent lawsuit contended the right to private expression of choice; those countering the 1973 historical landmark, however, refuted their opponents’ rationalization. In convictions involving morality and governmental capacity, many questioned whether or not such a case faithfully typified the intentions of the article’s original authors. Although the Supreme Court, in the end, consented to all in behalf of Jane Roe’s cause, a nagging speculation continued to haunt the minds of the American people following: was the Roe event sufficiently and rightly justified? A brief overview of the significance asserted by the Fourteenth Amendment and the historical understanding of liberty and government supports the fact that in light of such knowledge, the Roe. vs. Wade case would have earned the forefathers’ disapproval.

Shortly following the War Between the States, the nation was still in shambles; unity was little more than a hope as each side begrudged the other for their inflictions—the South, for its facing an unbeknownst future of nationalism and without slave labor, and the North, as it proposed to uproot Southern political representation. It was, in short, a time identified by refutable prejudices and misconceptions. As former Confederates blamed the North for their poverty, some Northern politicians made it their aim to alter, within their judgment, the Constitution itself. The eyes of Radical Republicans, a party new to Congress, desired to see those formerly holding prominent Confederate positions excluded from all civil and political rights. Despite the less-threatening plans of reuniting the country proposed by both Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, Radicals sought to deny Southern Democratic senators and representatives civil voice; in short, they worked to chastise the South particularly for its mistreatment of slaves and divisive succession. In addition, they chose to turn their attention upon those whom they perceived suffered the most governmental neglect—the black community. Such was the fertile ground upon which Article Fourteen was conceived.

Wedged between Amendment Thirteen and Amendment Fifteen, Article Fourteen was birthed one of three laws proposed to proclaim civil rights. Each of these articles reflected the rampant desire to confirm equal citizenship and citizenship benefits among both slave and master. Under Amendment Thirteen, the institution of human slavery was permanently dissolved except as a method of lawful punishment. Article Fifteen addressed the matter of voting, in which any male—regardless of race or color—could represent themselves politically. Article Fourteen recognized all born within the United States as rightful inhabitants of equal freedoms within civil discernment—no state imposition could thereafter “…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.” Such a vision signified an attempt to atone for the prejudices and national immorality permeating the aftermath of slavery. Little could the authors of such inscription foresee that their own words would be channeled to defend a vastly dissimilar case.

Under the surname of “Jane Roe,” Norma McCorvey reflected the case of scores of women across the nation. Expectant with her third child and unwed, she sought to have her pregnancy terminated; such a procedure, however, was prohibited by Texan law. Falsely claiming her condition the result of gang rape, her circumstance drew the attention of attorney Sarah Weddington. Before long, Jane Roe became an object of sympathy, rousing a cause for defense amongst feminist and equal rights communities. Though abortion had been previously left a matter of state judgment, Jane Roe’s struggle increasingly met the consideration of federal politicians. Appealing to the equal rights clause of Amendment Fourteen, the case ended in the success of Roe, and women considered themselves liberated from circumstances threatening their right to “happiness.” Though Miss McCorvey remained personally disappointed—she had delivered her third child towards the end of the lengthy hearing—her unclaimed victory certainly affected the nation.

Since abortion became accessible to every state in the nation, an estimated 40,000,000 fetuses were destroyed to the present period, and the Constitution underwent an alteration from which it will never recover. A clause was conjoined to Article Fourteen to further modify and confirm the opinion reached; this appendage affirmed the fact that government acknowledged the individualistic freedom of sexual expression upon which no law could curtail. The case also opened the door to the efforts and eventual achievement in confirming the legality of partial-birth abortion. This particular procedure surpassed the standards formerly met in the Roe resolution–that is, through breeching births, the fetus could legally be aborted up to nine months following conception.

To the surprise of many, abortion was a rising practice into the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and was recognized by law. As city prostitution increased and factories drove unmarried women from the protection of their homes and families, abortion stood as the only certain form of birth control (WORLD magazine). In fact, from the mid-1880s and well into the twentieth century, abortions and all involved were severely penalized in nearly every state. With Massachusetts providing the first to take the initiative, the concept of abortion was banned, and nearly every state following prohibited abortions with the exceptions of the cases of incest or rape. As many medical advisors turned deaf ears to desperate mothers, only two main options remained: illegal and often unsanitary abortion clinics, or self-induced procedures—with the latter often ending in death for both parties. State laws, however, and legitimate medical institutions limited the procedure relevant to the woman’s stage of pregnancy. James Wilson, a respected and prolific speaker and participant in the signing of the Constitution, echoed the prevalent medical opinion circulating at the time—that is, that life began when the soul entered the material body of the fetus. This was accounted at around fifteen weeks into gestation, and was popularly termed the “quickening,” or movement, of the womb’s dweller. Though abortion was clearly not the widespread issue that it is today, it is apparent that it nonetheless existed. It was severely limited by law, however, and was strictly forbidden after a certain point following conception.

The American government as envisioned by the minds of those who aspired to establish it was one of great balance designated not for the service of government itself, but for the people. This republic boasted maximum freedom benefits in its construction of state and federal services. Generally, though the federal government was allotted the most authority, state laws were reserved the issues of domestic affairs; this was understood the most potent option in preventing the federal government from overriding state laws and representation. The founders of the American country understood too well the dangers of sovereign government, and proceeded to encourage individual statehoods to deal with topics vaguely or indirectly represented in the Constitution. Following this line of thought as asserted in Amendment Ten of 1791, the Bill of Rights protected the people from oppressive and unlimited federalism. This is largely why slavery—and, later, abortion—were outlawed by certain states, and less restricted by others. A more sovereign federal power as known today was incomprehensible to the founding fathers as the federal government received the majority of its power from consent of the states.

The companions of Roe vs. Wade corrupted governmental format, and transgressed civil and moral altitudes entrusted them by the Constitution and its amendments. With the understanding that state laws were to maintain the voice of domestic subjects, the intrusion of the Supreme Court was said to have “nullified state laws.” This understanding seems painfully true in light of the fact that the federal action insisted acted even for states which highly opposed the case. Clearly, this was false and unfair representation which undermined the founders’ aspirations for a confederated union.

The reference to a “right to life” was also represented unfairly within the case. In the understanding set forth by the forefathers, the right to life ceased to be a right when it obstructed another’s right to life (John Adams). Life was then understood a topic of Natural Law. It could not be loaned nor given to any man, and was therefore regarded as existing apart and outside of any earthly judiciary. Natural law consisted of freedoms already provided men—freedoms such as parenthood, marriage, and the family unit within a biblical worldview. In this understanding, government was regarded not the creator of freedoms, but a declarer of freedoms imparted by man’s Creator. Civil authorities were rightly understood only a factor mediating within a relationship concerning two parties—man and God. Though our forefathers fervently believed and fought for the cause of freedom, they understood that it also involved certain restrictions. Morality was understood an imperative influence under-girding any good legislative decisions.

When writing the Constitution and its amendments, the majority of its authors upheld morality as the cornerstone of liberty (John Adams). Moral law—including the sanctity of life—reminded lawmakers of their accountability to God. The Constitution itself was established within a biblical worldview. Because of this respect to persons as image-bearers of God, families were allotted cultural dominance through private property, individuals were recognized freedom of worship, and black men were justly allowed full access to common liberties!

Contrary to its terminology, the modern liberalism utilized to persuade such as those involved in the Roe case does not, in fact, promote true liberty. Forerunners of this philosophy have in the present age popularized liberty as an ideology existing for the very purpose of self-gratification, and relate heavily moral relativity to federal standards. Government has unfortunately evolved to symbolize a fountain of inexhaustible indulgences—an excuse to obtain pleasure apart from moral accountability. As biblical insight into the purposes of government and liberty have dwindled with the age of humanism and ignorance, men have forgotten that the blessings enjoyed exist only because sages of the past insisted that government was possible only with a “religious,” Christian people (John Adams). It was not the structure nor the men of government which prospered American freedom in her youth; rather, it was the convictions of an obedient people under God who recognized that Slavery and Death fettered every being who did not acknowledge His sovereignty and inheritance of liberty (Isaiah 61:1).

Though the Constitution admittedly makes no direct reference to the topic of abortion, it can be well-assumed that in consideration of the audience aimed within Article Fourteen, and the civil and moral matters confronting the forefathers even in their own time, dispute the fact that the decisions reached in abortion today would have earned their consent. Indeed, with such knowledge, it is difficult to conclude anything but the fact that the Roe vs. Wade case presented the greatest abuse of historical intention in history.


%d bloggers like this: