Thursday, September 1, 2011

Should Christians vote for Ron Paul?

by Steve C. Halbrook

Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul is a popular candidate among many Christians, including some theonomists. But is he someone Christians should vote for? Here we provide some food for thought.

To begin, we'll analyze the following "Freedom Principles" on Ron Paul's website:
  • Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
  • Property should be owned by people, not government.
  • All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.
  • The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
  • Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
  • The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.[1]

As a theonomist we find some here to agree with. Much of this is a rightful rejection of the unbiblical notion  of socialism. But there are also serious defects that should trouble any Christian. Consider, for example, the following statements: 
“All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social," and "The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's."

While to a certain degree these statements are in accord with biblical law, they also have much out of accord with biblical law. Regarding the latter, these statements advocate the libertarian philosophy (Paul is a professing libertarian) that allows for sexual immorality and the open practice of non-Christian religions—both of which biblical civil law opposes (cf. Leviticus 20:13;  Exodus 22:20; Deuteronomy 13:1-15). According to the Bible, there are indeed "voluntary associations" and "actions" that are the state's responsibility. 

And in fact, regarding sexual immorality, Ron Paul is clearly compromised. Once in an interview with John Lofton he was asked whether he considers homosexuality a sin. Paul replied:
 “[I’m] not as judgmental about that probably because of my medical background. I don’t see it in [such] simplistic terms. I think it’s a complex issue to think it’s a sin or other problems with the way people are born. It’s too complex to give an answer as simple as that [that homosexuality is a sin.]”[2]  
Now, it is true that later in the interview Ron Paul seems to refer to homosexual acts as sins. Perhaps a way to reconcile these statements is to hold that Ron Paul believes homosexual “orientation” is not sinful, but that homosexual acts are sinful. This is of course partially incorrect; both sinful acts and sinful thoughts are wrong. While we are glad that Ron Paul seems to see the acts as wrong, his view of homosexual “orientation” is a distortion of the nature of sin, and displays a serious problem of discernment. [This paragraph is an update from the original article.]

And when it comes to the political sphere, Ron Paul’s compromise on sexual immorality is very disturbing. In an interview with John Stossel, Stossel asked Paul, "Should gays be allowed to marry?" Paul answered:  
Sure. They can do whatever they want, and they can call it whatever they want, just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can't make me, personally, accept what they do, but gay couples can do what they want.[3]
True to his libertarian philosophy, Paul also condones political polytheism (the open practice of non-Christian religions), as we see in his comments from last May's South Carolina Republican Debate. When asked why social conservatives in South Carolina should vote for him, Paul said, 
My defense of liberty is the defense of their right to practice their religion and say their prayers where they want and practice their life. But if, if you do not protect liberty across the board--it's a First Amendment-type issue. We don't have a First Amendment so that we can talk about the weather. We have the First Amendment so we can say very controversial things. So, for people to say that, "yes, we have our religious beliefs protected," but people who want to follow something else, or a controversial religion, "you can't do this." If you have the inconsistency, then you are really not defending liberty. ... You have a right to do things that are very controversial.[4]
Regarding political polytheism, we must note that the Bible does not praise civil rulers for allowing for this, but it does praise civil rulers for opposing it. Consider the godly kings of Judah, who staunchly opposed the libertarian polytheism of their day. To tolerate false gods is to advocate "deity egalitarianism" and thus to deny God's superiority to false gods--and with it deny God's justice in the civil realm.

Keeping this mind, note that one of Paul's freedom principles states: “Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.”

While there is truth in this, conspicuously absent from this statement is God. Contrary to libertarianism, and all other forms of humanism, civil government exists to answer to God—as an avenger of His wrath, to terrorize and kill evildoers (naturally, evildoers guilty of crimes against biblical civil law):
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13: 3, 4)
Civil platforms, then, should be theocentric (God-centered), not anthropomorphic (man centered), such as libertarianism, which is premised on man's autonomy. Truly qualified candidates acknowledge the fact that Christ is the highest political authority in the universe, and as such base their platform on His law.

They affirm that Christ is “the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Tim. 6:15b; cf. Eph. 1:20-22); that all authority (including civil) in heaven and on earth has been given to Him (Matt. 28:18).  Unlike Herod—whom God struck down for not giving Him the glory (Acts 12:21-23)—qualified candidates affirm with the psalmist:
Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.” (Psalm 2:10-12).


                  For us to take Ron Paul more seriously as a candidate, his platform
                        would have to be more biblical, and less libertarian; more like Moses,
                         and less like Mises. (Mises photo credit: Ludwig von Mises Institute/CC BY -SA 3.0)


The libertarian advocacy of political polytheism is hostile to Christ's political office. In allowing the open worship of false gods (which allows for anti-Christian allegiances), libertarianism  works to subvert the recognition of Christ's political authority and to elevate the authority of Christ's political rivals. 


Back to Ron Paul. While pro-life, Paul’s stance against abortion is somewhat weak. While in biblical law murder (such as abortion) is always a capital offense (Numbers 35:31), Paul said in his interview with John Lofton that he didn’t have the wisdom to discern how abortionists should be punished.[5] 


Ron Paul does rightfully say in the interview that “Defiance of God’s Law will eventually bring havoc to a society.”[6] But the question must be asked: is much of his own civil platform in defiance of God's law? If so,  then we would be wise to avoid voting for him, as his very platform could contribute to havoc being brought on our society. 

In fairness, Paul's statement of faith makes the following admirable statements:

We must pass on our heritage of liberty to the next generation – not tens of trillions of dollars in debt and liabilities.
We must stand for life – not allow millions of innocent children to continue to be slaughtered with the government’s approval.
We must follow the Biblical mandate of using honest weights and measures – not printing money out of thin air in almost complete secrecy and then handing it over to oppressive dictators.
... Once war is declared, it must be waged according to Just War principles.  We should only fight when it’s in our national security interest, and we should no longer do the corrupt United Nation’s bidding by policing the world.
Ron Paul unapologetically stands against the socialist state and the warfare state. Moreover, Paul unashamedly parts from atheist libertarians (and thereby risks alienating potential voters) by opposing abortion and basing the need for honest weights and measures on the Bible. But his overall libertarian philosophy works to undermine his biblical positions.

Personally, we like Ron Paul much better than the typical presidential candidate. And we do not question his Christianity. (Although his waffling on whether sodomy is a sin is very disturbing.) However, this is not just about likability and being a Christian (as important as these things are). This is about how much Paul's views align with biblical law. 


Again, let's be fair: some of his views are biblical, especially in economics, certain matters of small government, and, to a certain extent, abortion. But Paul's 
condoning of polytheism and sexual immorality, and softness on punishing abortionists, are not attributes of a competent civil ruler.

Now, if Paul begins emphasizing the Lordship of Christ and cleans up his platform to become more consistently biblical (although we don't expect perfection)--then we might start taking him more seriously as a candidate. (Although we would also like to know if he qualifies as a ruler in other areas, e.g., does he have an orthodox view of the Gospel?)

While he is pretty solid on small government and economics, these issues are not enough. Paul needs to look more like Moses, and less like Mises; more like Hezekiah, and less like Hayek. As we see from the godly kings of Judah, biblical reform begins not with individual rights, but God's rights. 

Libertarianism's man-centeredness, then, by the nature of the case, is hostile to a God-centered social order. 
This, by the way, speaks to the irony of Ron Paul supporters who claim to be theonomists: theonomists acknowledge that when it comes to law, it is either theonomy (God's law) or autonomy (man's law, or really, man's lawlesness). And yet, libertarianism is about as autonomous as it gets. 

If they justify supporting Paul on the basis that some of his platform is theonomic (e.g., his economics), then one can justify supporting just about any candidate with a partially theonomic platform. One could even justify supporting big-government neo-cons, who may be even stronger against sodomy and abortion than Paul is. 


Of course, what politicians don't conform some of their platform to theonomy? All non-Christian philosophies wind up borrowing from the Christian worldview to some extent or another. But that doesn't make their philosophy Christian.


(Granted, there are those who pragmatically advocate Paul on the basis that he is the best candidate, and he at least has a shot at winning. But as we have already noted elsewhere, political pragmatism doesn't work ...)


    
     [1] Who is Ron Paul? (Congressman Ron Paul). Retrieved April 25, 2011, from http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1009&Itemid=50
     [2] John Lofton, Excerpts From Our Exclusive Ron Paul Interview (The American View, 2003-2010). Retrieved April 25, 2011, from http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=916   
     [3] John Stossel, Live and Let Live, Says One Candidate (Townhall.com, January 9, 2008). Retrieved August 30, 2011, from http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2008/01/09/live_and_let_live,_says_one_candidate.
     [4] RonPaulSource, Ron Paul on legalizing drugs and gay marriage - SC Republican debate 5/5/2011 (YouTube, uploaded May 5, 2011). Retrieved August 30, 2011, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws7Zp41fByE.
     [5] Lofton, Excerpts From Our Exclusive Ron Paul Interview
     [6] Ibid.    

29 comments:

ChristsWorldOrder said...

Hi Steve, Good points (pro and con) regarding Ron Paul. I assume you will abstain from voting in the republican primary? If not, who are you promoting. I don't know of any fully theonomic candidates running, do you?

Sean Gerety said...

Hi Steve. I just hope in light of this no theonomist ever runs for public office. Actually, if they had any integrity they couldn't.

John Lofton, Recovering Republican said...

Here's my entire 2008 Ron Paul interview; comments welcome....

118: Exclusive Interview: Ron Paul On God/Government; Abortion; Homosexuality; And Much More

http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=898

John Lofton
Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com

Steve C. Halbrook said...

I would abstain from voting for any Republicans, so far ... I had seriously considered Roy Moore when he announced the possibility of running, although I haven't heard anything from him since, and I don't know enough about his positions yet. Perhaps there may turn out to be a worthwhile 3rd party candidate. If there doesn't turn out to be anyone worth voting for, I just wouldn't vote, anymore than I'd vote for one of several candidates unqualified to be church elders. This piece explains my position on political pragmatism
http://theonomyresources.blogspot.com/2011/06/christs-lordship-is-answer-not.html

Kevin D. Johnson said...

Steve,

Were you in Babylon during the exile, would you have worked for Nebuchadnezzar?

Steve C. Halbrook said...

Kevin,
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were enslaved against their will by a pagan ruler. I don't think they would have voted to keep him in office so they could continue in slavery, or so that the populace could be forced to worship idols (Daniel 3:10).

But interestingly enough, after Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego decided *not* to be pragmatic (in that they refused to bow down to idols), that God sovereignly caused
Nebuchadnezzar to enforce the first table of the law (Daniel 3:29). All this happened without anyone's "vote." God then blesses obedience, not pragmatism.

ChristsWorldOrder said...

Although Ron Paul is not a full on theonomist, he certainly is the closest candidate we've had to the theonomy standard in a very long time. If one looks at Dr. Paul as the best of all possible goods rather than the lesser of evils, it is quite advisable to get behind him. An absolute purism (though desirable) in politics is foolish at this time in my opinion while a eyes wide open support of the best man that is actually fully "in the game" is not only worthwhile, but a Christian responsibility in that Paul is a lawful, honest, constitutional libertarian (not a Kochian or licentious libertarian) and is pleasing to God's order in so many ways. He doesn NOT represent autonomous man (though perhaps some of his supporters do) but represents man under law (The Constitution, as imperfect as it may be, it's what we got as the law of the land)and stands strategically and effectively opposed to all matters of statism during this season of present and coming economic and warfare state collapse and accompanying police state. To refrain from supporting him in my opinion is abject theonomical ivory tower irresponsibility. One final thought for now: Paul's constitutional standard (perhaps deficient in the few regards you mention, Steve)can serve as an effective and protective bridge to a future theonomic and reconstructive state that we can continue to work towards.

Tony said...

Even if there is no candidate one sees as biblically qualified to vote for I always advise writing in a person. The reason is then the number of people voting is tallied. If all those that do not see a candidates worth voting for placed a write in vote I think the numbers would probably be significant so as to possibly show the suport for the winner is not as great as may be claimed.

Just a thought.

Anonymous said...

Though I agree with most of what Steve has written about Ron Paul, I feel it is just a tad off center in condemning Libertarism at its core. It is all about the Individual Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Granted, we Christians are faced with dilemmas ofetn when we face issue which are Pro Constitution but may fly in the face of our Christian mandates from Christ...in cases such as those, it is GOD over Country. I feel Paul does need to sure up some of his stances biblically and that is extremely important; however, he towers over the rest of the field. I believe he will help America start to get back where it once was. To not vote at all would be a travesty...no candidate is perfect, they are men and women, but we should strive to vote for a better person than what we have and Paul does have a consistent record over many years that lets us know what he is all about. Where he is weak, we must pray for him and challenge him.

Steve C. Halbrook said...

No candidate, of course, is perfect, but it is a straw man to level it against my position. I don't argue for perfection, but qualification. Josiah, Asa, and Hezekiah were not perfect, but qualified, godly rulers.

Steve C. Halbrook said...

Tony,
I think the write-in idea is excellent. With the internet, we Christians can coordinate writing certain candidates in in a very efficient manner. Of course, with the internet, we need to get organized, and start getting busy putting together a distinctly Christian theonomic political party.

Anonymous said...

Steve, I do agree with you; however, I feel that Ron Paul does qualify on many fronts, especially when one compares his ideals to those of the Christian Liberty Party. I do agree also that he is a 'straw man" when compared to your position, however, he is indeed closer than any other "electable" candidate out there. I have found other candidates that are much better in the areas of yours and my concern, yet, they want us to go to war with everyone...which is beyond my comprehension. Brother, I do agree with you 99.99%, but, when it comes to at least making progress in the right direction, it seems to this believer in Christ that Ron Paul is the best of the bunch. I believe that he would listen closely to the concerns that we would raise as well. BTW...outstanding article.

ChristsWorldOrder said...

There is not one person other than Roy Moore (perhaps) that is qualified to run for president, according to the theonomic standard. The result of living by this standard, with no one apparently qualified, is that Ron Paul will NOT have the support of any real theonomist. Everone in this discussion would say Ron Paul is the best of the candidates in the mix/arena and could do America some good, or more importantly prevent a lot of evil, especially economically. Am I wrong?

ChristsWorldOrder said...

The answer to your question, "Should Christians vote for Ron Paul?" The answer is Yes. Absolutely! Otherwise, you are living in a theonomic fairlyland where the proverb holds true: 'In the whole wide world, there are only two people that I really trust, you and me, and I'm not so sure about you'. Yes, theonomy is the ultimate standard. Yes, theonomy is not on 0.01% of people's minds. Yes. The Constitution is the present battleground in day to day life. Yes. Theonomy was NOT the standard at the time of the Constitution. Yes. We are not engaged in the day to day battle for the American Constitution (however sub-theonomic it is)when we are arm chair theonomical standard bearers. Gary North, a theonomist, head and shoulders above any of us in this discussion (Ron Paul's chief of staff in the past)will most certainly vote for Ron Paul. I will ask him since we communicate by email occasionally and confirm this and let you know for sure.

ChristsWorldOrder said...

Follow up to Gary North comment. Ditto regarding Joe Morecraft, another theonomic father. He is totally pro-Ron Paul and has helped him significantly in former campaigns. Yes, I know, none of these men are the Bible itself, so they are therefore suspect, right? Wrong!

John Lofton, Recovering Republican said...

I would think Christians would not want to vote for anyone who does not have a Christian/Biblical view of civil government, anyone who does not believe it is the job of the magistrate to administer God's Law. Ron Paul does not have such a view. Here's a link of some material I put together re: God's qualifications for those holding His civil government offices; this material not as organized as I would like it to be but well worth reading, I think. Comments welcome:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S_sDn3bmc_FwHPD_tdaBQABQedO8jOuBW0e2zNIcJvU/edit?hl=en_US&authkey=CMybsNIM


John Lofton, Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute On The Constitution
Recovering Republican
Blog: JohnLofton.com
JLof@aol.com

Steve C. Halbrook said...

Anonymous,
I understand your position; from my perspective, we would be making progress (in matters of voting) when we have a candidate who at least fits the basic biblical criterion. I don't think Paul does this, even if he is better than the other candidates. This piece that I wrote explains my position on not voting for any unqualified candidates
http://theonomyresources.blogspot.com/2011/06/christs-lordship-is-answer-not.html

Steve C. Halbrook said...

I'd be very surprised if Morecraft supported Ron Paul, although if he did, I would have to disagree with him. Actually, I cite Morecraft in my piece refuting political pragmatism, which I give a link to in my previous comment.

ChristsWorldOrder said...

I spoke with Joe Morecraft face to face as well as others in his congregation (some very active Ron Paul supporters) in Cummings, GA during the 2008 republican primaries. Pastor Joe spoke of times when he drove Dr. Paul hither and yon in his large car for various speaking engagements. I seem to remember he had a Ron Paul bumper sticker on his car as well. I think he may have been referring to his 1998 Libertarian bid for the Presidency but would need to communicate with him again regarding specifics.

ChristsWorldOrder said...

To John Lofton, Stephen, who I both respect and any others that the "qualified" theonomic shoe fits ... You and other pure theonomists have relegated yourself non-participatory in the 2012 election which will decide whether our country goes to a 100% welfare/warfare/police state OR is slowed or stopped in its tracks by a Ron Paul presidency and pro-American, pro-Constitutional platform. To be AWOL and puristic when so much is at stake is astonishing! It's as if a house is on fire and the hoses, though "unqualified", will certainly do the job and prevent the house from completely burning down and save lives... or at least delay the burning until the "qualified" hoses arrive (which may be a while). A number of us are To John Lofton, Stephen, who I both respect and any others that the "qualified" theonomic shoe fits ... You and other pure theonomists have relegated yourself non-participatory in the 2012 election which will decide whether our country goes to a 100% welfare/warfare/police state OR is slowed or stopped in its tracks by a Ron Paul presidency and pro-American, pro-Constitutional platform. To be AWOL and puristic when so much is at stake is astonishing! It's as if a house is on fire and the hoses, though "unqualified", will certainly do the job and prevent the house from completely burning down and save lives... or at least delay the burning until the "qualified" hoses arrive (which may be a while). A number of us are or have been involved with the IOTC and the CP (Institute on the Constitution and Constitution Party). Chuck Baldwin, 2008 CP nominee is a 110% supporter of Ron Paul. Not sure who Peroutka supports, hopefully Dr. Paul. Hopefully the CP is behind Dr. Paul as well in that Dr. Paul is truly the champion/defender of the Constitution, not Donald Rumsfeld as CPAC asserted with a straight face. Putting theonomy aside for just a moment, Ron Paul certainly is qualified to run for president from a Constitutional point of view. Paul has only received continual 100% on the strict Freedom/Constitutional Index published year after year with nobody coming close to Dr. Paul's constitutional voting record. Dr. "No" has been the sole constitutional vote versus 434 unconstitutional votes on scores if not 100s of occasions during his 12 congressional terms. Though I'm sure you have a rejoinder, frankly, John, I'm not sure how you can be consistent regarding your strict theonomical qualification standards for the civil magistrate (Dr. Paul doesn't qualify according to you and Stephen, rather according to the Biblical standard) yet you are a key player with IOTC, which doesn't push theonomic qualfication standards but constitutional qualification standards. Fair question: Does Mr. Peroutka qualify in terms of theonomic standards? Do you disagree with Chuck Baldwin promoting, supporting, and endorsing Dr. Paul and Dr. Paul endorsing Chuck Baldwin? In God's providence, we've never in modern been so close to actually electing someone as constitutional as Dr. Paul, someone who has the very real possibility of ending the federal reserve, the engine of the warfare/welfare state and many other evils that our founders warned against. To not support and promote him is to embrace tyranny which is knocking (actually kicking) at each of our doors.

Ricardo Davis said...

The focus of the comments on the selection of the President of the United States is indicative of how ungodly politics has affected the Christian's view of representative government. For decades the GOP has held the carrot of "change from the top-down" to the Christian Right and they still don't realize that they will never achieve what they want by that means.

I contend that a revival of righteousness starts from the bottom-up: beginning with self-government, then family government, church government, and community government. Most of the ills the Christian Right bemoans have a solution that is given in Scripture that requires the taking up of responsibility before God rather than assuming that we have to beg the unrighteous ruler/judge for our "rights". Want to deal with ungodly welfare? Then pray and get involved in serving the poor. Is your church congregation complaining about the problems of ungodly welfare or has it ordained deacons who are working to engage the congregation in the meeting of needs and restoring Gospel wholeness to broken souls? Concerned about the wickedness in Washington, DC? I can assure you that you have the same in some degree right in your own back yard and it goes on because most people know more about national politics than what's going on in their own city. So how are the elders of your congregation encouraging and teaching the people how to pray, serve, and stand for righteousness? Is the foundation being laid for God to raise up today's Josiahs? Is your congregation investing its time, talents, and treasure into good works that flow from and are tied to a comprehensive Gospel proclamation? Let us put some focus in these areas to prepare the way and raise up future Christ-centered leaders who are proven in service.

John Lofton, Recovering Republican said...

"ChristsWorldOrder" writes, in part:: "To John Lofton, Stephen, who I both respect and any others that the "qualified" theonomic shoe fits ... You and other pure theonomists have relegated yourself non-participatory in the 2012 election which will decide whether our country goes to a 100% welfare/warfare/police state OR is slowed or stopped in its tracks by a Ron Paul presidency and pro-American, pro-Constitutional platform. To be AWOL and puristic when so much is at stake is astonishing! "

REPLY: God's qualifications for those who are to hold His ordained civil government offices are what they are. They cannot be changed. There is, as yet, no one running for President who measures up to God's qualifications. Thus, no candidate (running so far) can be voted for. Period. End of discussion.

John Lofton, Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute On The Constitution
Recovering Republican
Blog: JohnLofton.com
JLof@aol.com

ChristsWorldOrder said...

John, I asked you several other questions and have several more here, if you don't mind.

Does Michael Peroutka qualify to run for the presidency?

Does Chuck Baldwin qualify?

Who does the CP endorse or lean in their endorsement?

Does the IOTC support or endorse theonomic candidates or merely constitutionally qualified candidates?

Where specifically does Ron Paul fail to meet God's qualification for the civil magistrate?

To Ricardo Davis: While I fully support and believe in the bottom up approach within the major spheres of sovereignty... family, church, self, voluntary associations, etc., and that this is God's long-term plan for generational victory, I don't think it is an either/or situation where we abstain or abdicate what goes on at the national level. While I agree that Christians often look to Washington rather than to Jesus and look to top down solutions rather than faithfulness from the bottom up, a Ron Paul Presidency does promote a bottom up solution and not a top down solution in that what he stands for is the elimination of most federal departments, the restraint of the executive office, the dismantling of the welfare/warfare state, the importance of the 10th amendment with power being returned to the states, to localities and to the people. Personally, Patrick Henry and the anti-federalists and I tend to very much agree with those who say the origin of our Constitution was questionable in its method, authority (from the colonial state legislatures), secret nature, etc. But I am not going to allow absolutistic doctrinal purity prevent me from fighting the devil where he is working in my day and in this election. So bottom line, I do not think it is an either/or situation but a both/and situation especially with Ron Paul (not any of the other republicans by a long shot)sure to follow through as much as he is able to reverse the trend to look to Washington and top down solutions. Ron Paul's political philosophy for 4 decades has been the opposite of top down. He stands for everything about getting the government out of the way of the states and the individual prospering economically and making their own decisions.

John Lofton, Recovering Republican said...

"ChristsWorldOrder” asks, presumably seriously: “Where specifically does Ron Paul fail to meet God's qualification for the civil magistrate?” I suggest two things, please: (1) Listen to my entire interview with Ron Paul in 2008.

http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=898

From this interview alone it is obvious that Paul --- though a Christian who would go straight to Heaven if he died tonight --- has no Christian/Biblical view of civil government; he does NOT believe it is the role of the magistrate at administer God’s Law. (2) Go to this link and review what God’s qualifications are for those who hold His civil government offices.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S_sDn3bmc_FwHPD_tdaBQABQedO8jOuBW0e2zNIcJvU/edit?hl=en_US&authkey=CMybsNIM

After you have done these two things I am sure that it will be apparent to you that Ron Paul does not meet God requirements to hold a civil government office.

John Lofton, Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute On The Constitution
Recovering Republican
Blog: JohnLofton.com
JLof@aol.com

ChristsWorldOrder said...

To Mr. Lofton, I will follow your suggestion and listen to and review the links. I actually did listen and read them years ago, but will do so again.

Would you do me a favor and respond to the other questions I asked you please?

Thanks, Jim

Anonymous said...

There is a critique of this write up at thereformedcitizen.blogspot.com

John Lofton, Recovering Republican said...

"Although Ron Paul is not a full on theonomist,...."

I know of NO EVIDENCE Ron Paul is any kind of "theonomist." If any one knows of such evidence, post it here, please.....


John Lofton, Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
JohnLofton.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com

Anonymous said...

http://americanvision.org/5615/libertarianism-a-presuppositional-approach/
posted by Pamela Davis

Steve C. Halbrook said...

Anonymous,
Does this article convince you that Christians should vote for Ron Paul? If so, why?